Speech Self Study
Part 1: Preamble
Description
The Speech department provides instruction in the theory and practice of human communication in numerous contexts, including public speaking, interpersonal small groups, intercultural, leadership, and argumentation and debate.
Role and Function
Speech curriculum offers students the opportunity to become competent communicators in a variety of contexts and communicative situations. The curriculum is taught with such consistency that the core theory, principles, practices are delivered to all learners. The curriculum is taught with sufficient diversity that multiple methods are implemented toward the end of achieving learner recall, understanding, application, analysis, synthesis and evaluation, capturing every level of cognitive learning (C.f., Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: Cognitive Domain).
A member of the Humanities division at MPC, the Speech department offers curriculum that meets many of the MPC goals, including the exploration of values of socio-cultural & philosophical diversity, connection with and service to the community, preparation for future personal success and improvement, and preparation for future academic success. Nearly every course is transferable to university-level programs; some possess direct matriculation to CSU and/or UC.
Outstanding Features and Characteristics
Understanding speech communication theory and possessing effective communication skills are excellent preparation for living, vocational and professional pursuits.
Part II: Analysis
1. Describe in a concise manner the most significant ways in which your program implements the philosophy and objectives of the college.
a. Liberal arts foundation: (1) Exploring what it means to be human: as one of the original liberal arts, speech/rhetoric maintains a strong role in forming the minds and skills of learners in higher education, and exploring the meaning of what it means to be an expressive, communicative human in society is central to the educational role of speech communication; (2) Exposure to multiple perspectives: the experience of both listening to and arguing for & against various viewpoints allows learners to be exposed to multiple perspectives, values, and beliefs. Additionally, having an instructor from ESL teaching Public Speaking is a significant addition, as many students come to Public Speaking with high apprehension already, and this instructor’s contact with ESL students allows for a unique language-learning sensitivity and perspective; (3) Combining the rigor of scientific, systematic approaches with a respect for the dynamics and aesthetics of art: the definition of “educated†is increasingly viewed in more holistic terms, such as the ability to use multiple research methods to study a given problem. Speech communication teaches both the social scientific approach and the humanistic approach to discovering human interaction; this offers learners a balanced approach to knowledge discovery, as well as a solid preparation of further scholarship at the university level.
b. Academic preparation for transfer to university: (1) Academic rigor: as described above, speech communication is taught with the rigor necessary for future scholarship in the university; (2) Transferability: Six of the eight courses are transferable and directly related to university General Education curriculum; the remaining two (SPCH 50 and 61) are transferable to CSU.
c. Specific MPC Annual Objectives: Goal 4 states, “Move to make all classrooms and curriculum development resources multimedia capable.†The speech department encourages the use of various media when presenting student speeches and presentations. Speech instructors offer training in the use of media technology, such as overhead projectors, microphones, Power Point slides, and computer visuals. Learners are encouraged to utilize multimedia, and classrooms are being outfitted with technology (toward the goal of transforming them into “smart classroomsâ€Â) as soon as budgets allow. Goal 5 states, “Foster a climate that encourages an appreciation of diversity among faculty, staff and students.†As stated above in #1, speech communication entails exposure to diverse ideas, values, and perspectives in its curriculum. Additionally, instructional strategies encourage learners to explore a wide range of issues, beliefs, and philosophies in society.
2. Review the currency of the documents pertinent to your program.
All course outlines have been reviewed and updated (as of Fall 2003). (see attached)
3. Describe the scheduling of your courses or delivery of services in ways that are pertinent to your program. Explain the appropriateness of your scheduling pattern.
The speech department seeks to offer courses in a variety of time slots and days in order to maximize the coursework availability for learners. We have morning and afternoon time slots Monday through Friday, in both MWF, MW, and TTh patterns. We also offer coursework three evenings during the week; each of those courses are part of the basic curriculum (Spch 1, 2, 3, 4). These pattern offerings are consistent in both semesters of the academic year. We also offer summer coursework (primarily Spch 1 and 2).
4. Discuss the indicators of student satisfaction pertinent to your program.
a. How do you measure student satisfaction?
While we have assessed student satisfaction informally in the past, we have plans to do so more formally in the future. In the past we have utilized such informal avenues as word-of-mouth feedback through MPC counseling, student written and oral responses to courses, and to some degree, the inferences made by scores on the ICE (instructor-course evaluations, a 17-question survey submitted to students of non-tenured faculty). In the future we plan on utilizing (1) a general survey submitted to learners in nearly every section, asking the question, “Everything considered, how satisfying has this course been for you?†A five-point Likert scale is used for learner responses, including “Very Satisfying,†“Satisfying,†“Somewhat Satisfying,†“Somewhat Dissatisfying,†“Dissatisfying,†“Very Dissatisfying.†This survey question was adapted from the Teacher Satisfaction Scale (developed by Plax, T. G., Kearney, P., and Downs, T. M., 1986, “Communicating control in the classroom and satisfaction with teaching and students,†in Communication Education, 35, 379-388). Reliability and Validity for the original instrument are reported in Communication Research Measures (Rubin, R., Palmgreen, P., and Sypher, H. E, Eds., 1994, New York: Guilford Press, pp. 356-357). Alpha reliability for the original 6-question instrument were reported by two separate studies at .85, and .86. We also plan on using some open-ended survey questions that will allow learners to respond with some detail about their experience in the courses. Such questions will be similar to these: “If there are strengths to this course, how would you describe them?†and “If there are areas for improvement of this course, how would you describe them?â€Â
As part of our Self Study, student responses to Spch 2 and Spch 3 were acquired in an open-ended questionnaire (in courses from Fall 2002, Spring 2003, Fall 2003). Samples of these responses are included below:
Group Communication (Spch 2):
"I totally enjoyed your Speech 2 class last Fall. At first I was tentative to even take your class because I hate public speaking but after your class I am a bit more confident standing up in front of people. You did a great job and it shows especially after you pulled ***** out of her shell in that class. Thanks again and I hope everything is great!"
-- Student, Group Comm., Fall 2002
"I like our class set up; especially to a family-man and college returnee like me. It’s an opportunity that should not be missed. Thank you and more power to you." – Student, Group Comm., Spring 2003
“I really liked the whole point that it was ‘performance oriented,’ because that forced me to step up to a more responsible and mature level of interaction with my group members. I never second-guessed missing a meeting, or brushing off a class because I knew the only person not benefiting from it would be me. It also helped me realize that I could be a vital part of the successful group." Student, Group Comm., Fall 2003
“The strongest component of the course for me was learning and applying the skills and theories of leadership. ‘Real-life’ group situations were also valuable lessons. It is difficult to work in groups, yet oh so necessary for success out there in the real world.†Student, Group Comm., Fall 2003
“The group helped me a lot. It made it easier for me to relax, because I was not the only one up in the front presenting. The New Product project I liked a lot because we go to use our imagination.†Student, Group Comm., Fall 2003
Interpersonal Communication (Spch 3):
"A great class and a great teacher. I would strongly advise this class for anyone who might be interested in the field of management or has an interest in the way people interact with one another. We covered all kinds of material, including listening and communicating effectively. The class forces you to look at your own unconscious interaction techniques and challenges you to apply more effective ways of communicating. (The instructor) takes a very hands-on approach to learning and makes every class interesting." – Student, Interpersonal Comm., Spring 2003
“I would strongly advise this class for anyone who might be interested in the field of management or has an interest in the way people interact with one another. We covered all kinds of material, including listening and communicating effectively. The class forces you to look at your own unconscious interaction techniques and challenges you to apply more effective ways of communicating. (The instructor) takes a very hands-on approach to learning and makes every class interesting." – Student, Interpersonal Comm., Spring 2003
“This speech class has a 'Communication Problem Analysis' assignment where we analyze a communication problem we currently have and discuss the origins and possible solutions to this problem. For me, after analyzing my problem carefully, I was able to overcome it, much of which I give thanks to the class and (the instructor). It was a fun semester and I strongly recommend it to those interested." – Student, Interpersonal Comm., Spring 2003
"This class opened my eyes to the fact that there's so much more to communicating than merely talking. The text and class discussions help me fully understand and make sense of this process. This is one of those classes that will always be relevant. It's something you can use everyday! Thanks for making the class so enjoyable.†Student, Interpersonal Comm., Spring 2003
“The Self CPA was my favorite assignment because it allowed me to really focus on a very important person in my life, who was feeling that I had no time for him… getting lost in the shuffle, so to speak.†Student, Interpersonal Comm., Fall 2003
“The strongest component of the course was the amount of group work we had. I thought that it really reinforced student’s relationships with each other, as well as really taught us how to work together and solve problems.†Student, Interpersonal Comm., Fall 2003
“(Doing the presentations) really helped me to structure any type of oral presentation that I would do in the future. How to talk loudly, where you should stand, and how to use Power Point effectively, so that my audience is reached.†Student, Interpersonal Comm., Fall 2003
b. How does your program deal with complaints?
Formal grievance procedures are established by the college. These move from the department chair, to division chair, to the dean or VP of student affairs, to a college-level grievance council.
5. Describe your program's involvement with the community at large through activities involving recruitment, articulation and partnership with educational institutions, facilitation of advisory committee meetings, collaboration with business and/or other activities.
The Speech program is involved with the community on a number of levels.
(1) SPCH 2 uses Service-Learning as a methodology; (2) SPCH 6 is offered at Seaside High School to allow motivated high school students to learn argumentation as they participate in mock trial; (3) SPCH 61 provides students the opportunity to hone public speaking skills while sharing information with community groups. Last year, for example, students spoke at area elementary and high schools; (4) The Speech department chair is the Executive Director for the California Speech Communication Association; (5) A Speech instructor serves on the MPC Learning Outcomes Committee; (6) One instructor has met with leaders of Leadership Monterey Peninsula as a means of discussing possible collaboration.
6. Discuss what your program is doing to promote student access, success, and equity.
a. Promoting Student Access: (1) scheduling of classes to meet the needs of as many students as possible; (2) maintaining instructor office hours at scheduled times, and at times when students are likely to be on campus; and (3) offering office hours outside of regularly schedule hours.
b. Promoting Student Success: Rewards and praises offered by instructors to students who perform well in individual courses (i.e., “Yes†buttons in Public Speaking, and “Egg Launch Awards†in Group Communication).
c. Promoting Student Equity: We maintain grading standards, course access criteria and standards, and student advising standards. Each of these areas impact student equity, by (1) enabling learners to proceed with coursework successfully, (2) guarding the quality of the education they receive, (3) encouraging learners in their educational pursuits, and (4) informing learners about options and choices available to them.
7. Describe your faculty and staff in terms of their past and recent education/training, workload, and diversity.
Full-time faculty:
- Diane Boynton: Instructor for all Speech courses; currently serving as Humanities Division Chair; past Speech Department chair; M.A. in Speech Communication; currently teaching one section of Public Speaking.
- Dan Fox: Instructor for all Speech courses; currently serving as the Speech department chair; teaches five sections, including 3 to 4 different courses; M.S. and Ph.D. in Speech Communication.
Part-time faculty:
- Molly May: Instructor for Public Speaking; currently teaching one section of Public Speaking; full-time ESL instructor at MPC; M.A. in Teaching English as Second or Other Language; widely traveled; currently teaching one section of Public Speaking.
- Allston James: Instructor for Mass Media Communication; full-time English Instructor at MPC; MA in Communications; his writing has appeared in numerous national and regional publications; currently teaching one section of Media Mass Communication.
- Pat Roberts: Instructor for Public Speaking and Argumentation; Speech teacher and Forensics coach at Seaside High School; BA in Social Science and California Secondary Teaching Credential; currently teaching one section of Public Speaking and one section of Argumentation.
- Karen Schmidt: Instructor for all Speech courses; Ph.D. and MA in Communication; currently teaching two sections of Small Group communication and one section of public speaking.
- Ron Triplett: Instructor for Interpersonal Communication; MA Clinical Psychology, Licensed Marriage and Family Therapist; currently teaching one section of Interpersonal Communication.
8. Describe your faculty and staff’s satisfaction with the program including its ability to meet students’ needs.
Feedback was garnered from both part-time and full-time faculty regarding this area, and comments focused on three major themes: curriculum, facilities, and staffing.
a. Curriculum: Faculty express satisfaction about the curriculum as it exists. The area of improvement suggested is to develop curriculum that will meet the needs of the relevant MPC community, such as Leadership Communication for the business community and Classroom Communication for the educational community. While we currently have a course on leadership communication, it has not been offered consistently. That lack of consistency is partially a function of the current budget constraints. No course has been developed for the area of classroom communication. However, our newest full-time faculty member brings with him the expertise for this course, having taught “Communication in the Classroom†for the California State University while concurrently supervising teacher candidates at local high schools. The debate club, part of the discipline’s Phi Rho Pi honor society, has also been put on hold for the meanwhile as a result of the state budget challenges. One faculty member described these budget-oriented constraints on the speech curriculum as “depriving students of meeting speech needs and public speaking skills – especially practical application of them outside of the classroom.â€Â
b. Facilities: A consistent comment among speech faculty was the need for enhanced media equipment, supplemental videos, and control over the instructional space. (1) Media equipment needs to be updated and adapted to the learning environment where speech instruction will take place (i.e., a committed digital projector and computer, internet connection, and VHS/DVD committed to the instructional space). (2) Supplemental videos were identified as another need, especially where learners need to witness actual speech-giving by contemporary individuals, and where students need to practice their own analytic and evaluation skills on samples of human interaction. Finally, (3) all speech instructors interviewed identified the need for an instructional space that is under the administrative control of the speech department. The prior space, BH 108, was given to another department in the Humanities Division, and the current room (BH 106) is poorly supplied with equipment, furniture, and instructional media. While we have adapted to the situation by utilizing the Library Karas room (Lib 233), that space is under the administration of a non-academic office at MPC, and is used by numerous other constituents across MPC. In addition, there has been a significant amount of confusion regarding who is in charge of Lib.233, to the degree that speech faculty have been instructed on how to use the space, whether to use the space, and what is off-limits to students by a half-dozen librarians, and the secretary of an administrative. Even with clear lines of authority in place, Speech instructors are uncomfortable using a classroom where there are territorial issues.
c. Staffing: With the anticipated increases in the MPC student population, especially as speech curriculum is developed for a greater learner constituency, and as speech curriculum is offered in the Fort Ord expansion, an additional full-time faculty position was also identified and recommended.
9. Explain how external factors (e.g., state economy, local economy, local job market, changes in technology) are influencing your program or have affected your program in the past and describe any measures that have been taken in response to these factors.
California’s budget issues create constraints in functioning and progress in the areas of (a) equipment acquisition and upgrade, (b) instructional resource acquisition, and (c) facilities upkeep and upgrade.
10. Identify any recent or historical areas of concern with the program.
The loss of an adequate instructional room that is under our administrative control. The current rooms (BH 106 and Lib 233) are inadequate for reasons of instructional equipment (desks and media equipment in BH 106) and administrative control (Lib 233). (See items # 8 & 16 for further detail about adequacy of staffing, supplies, equipment, and facilities.)
11. Identify any program or service that is similar to yours within the college and/or in neighboring institutions or agencies and describe the differences.
a. There is no similar program within this college.
b. Both neighboring community colleges (Hartnell CC in Salinas, and Cabrillo CC in Aptos) offer Speech Communication curriculum. Cabrillo offers a similar program in an area called Communication Studies. Hartnell offers an A.A. in Speech, and includes five other courses which we do not offer (Advanced Public Speaking, Art of Interpretive Speech, Introduction to Organizational Communication, Voice and Diction, and Introduction to Communication).
c. California State University, Monterey Bay offers Speech Communication curriculum within a bachelor of arts Human Communication program. They offer two degree concentrations with curriculum related to offerings at MPC: Communication and Media Studies.
12. Describe the effort that your program makes to coordinate with other programs on campus and how successful you are in these efforts.
Coordination of Speech and other programs include (a) utilization of two full-time MPC instructors, one from ESL and the other from English, to enhance our offerings, and (b) coordination with a full-time Political Science instructor for coaching the Phi Rho Pi intercollegiate forensics team. These enhancements have been very successful, adding value to the speech communication curriculum, and enriching the instructional environment by the experience which these instructors bring to learning events. ESL, English and Political Science all offer additional lenses through which to examine human communication and apply communication principles.
13. Characterize the support that your program receives from other college programs or service areas.
a. Audio-Visual technology supports the department: While service in this area has been sufficient, it has not been stellar, at times falling short of our expectations. Promised material was not produced, or equipment was lost or misplaced.
b. Bruce Wilder’s computer technology support: Mr. Wilder’s support in the area of computer expertise and instruction has been consistent, competent, and helpful. He has responded to needs, sometimes by coming right over into a classroom, at other times, with a timely phone call.
c. Rich Montori’s scheduling of Lib 233: Contact with Mr. Montori’s office is always facilitated through his administrative assistant, and the department’s contact with her has not been particularly amiable. At the beginning of the Fall semester, for example, she responded with irritation to one of the instructors, making it difficult for him to accomplish instructional goals. Later in the semester, she threatened certain control of the classroom due to alleged reports about student abuse of the space, without any first-hand consultation with the professionals using the space.
d. Facilities: While most requests have been handled promptly, there have been occasions when requests were made (that a bulletin board be hung, for example) and only after a second request and three weeks time was the need fulfilled. Such delays can create serious barriers to the deliver of instruction, decreasing instructional effectiveness and student satisfaction.
14. Discuss the accountability factors pertinent to your program.
a. Issue: closing sections without a 15-person minimum enrollment before a designated date when trends indicate that enrollment during the first couple weeks of the semester is highly transitional and fluid. The principle behind this policy, while probably governed by pragmatic fiscal concerns, also happens to defy the logic of community college enrollment trends. Many students enroll in courses late (for reasons such as financial aid approval), and the practical outworking of 15-person minimums may create more trouble that it is worth for the short-run fiscal gain. Students are not able to access classes as planned, or hoped for, and it creates an exclusive climate among students who may see themselves left out by an institution that espouses inclusive service to the community.
b. Trends in FTES:
Observation 1: Fall-to-Spring increases 1999-2003: 9, 2, 1, -2; Implication: there is a trend toward increases in FTES in the Spring semesters, which could reflect implications in MPC recruiting, to application processes, to student orientation to campus curriculum (i.e., students find out more about the positive nature of the speech program during their Fall semester, thus enrolling in a Spring course). More data would be necessary for further discussion. Another possibility has to do with student fears and their progress in their academic goals. Many students fear public speaking and any course associated with public speaking, and thus postpone enrolling in a Speech course until the end of their academic program at MPC.
Observation 2: Average semester FTE (based on 4-yrs.) = 31.52 (252.12/8 semesters); Implication: 31 is a strong trend, especially for such a small department (with only two FT faculty, one of whom just arrived Fall of 2002).
c. Trends in completion rates and retention rates:
Observation 1: The average number of sections completed each semester was 13.75; Implication: unknown. Since section closure counts are not available, a completion ratio cannot be calculated.
Observation 2: Average retention rates for each course (during Fall 1999 to Spring 2003) are as follows:
Spch 1: 86.4 % (based on 89.9, 83.6, 92.5, 86.3, 75.9, 90.1, 86.8, 86.3)
Spch 2: 80.0 % (based on 85.9, 88.5, 81.0, 80.5, 78.6, 70.6, 89.0, 84.3)
Spch 3: 86.8 % (based on 94.7, 73.1, 92.0, 91.9, 83.9, 85.4, 94.6, 79.1)
Spch 4: 79.9 % (based on 76.2, 71.4, 93.3, 78.6, four sections not taught)
(Note: retention rates are not available for Positive Attendance and Independent Study courses.)
(Note: semester figures were rounded up to one tenth of a percent.)
Implication: The overall retention rate for the four most frequently offered courses in speech communication is 83.3 %, an indicator of strength for academic and pre-professional curriculum.
15. Discuss the cost effectiveness of your program and describe any efforts made to increase efficiency.
As mentioned earlier, the Speech program has recently hired a new full-time Speech instructor to support students’ academic goals and growing interest in Speech courses. This change brought an initial increase in costs from previous years, but recently costs dipped, as one of the Speech instructors stepped into the role of division chair. We anticipate that the Speech program will continue to draw students, especially as these students recognize what the Speech program offers beyond meeting general education requirements.
One of the fiscal challenges of the Speech Department relates to class size. In order for students to become proficient in oral communication, they must have class time to develop that proficiency. In other words, the discipline dictates appropriate class size. At this time, all Speech courses share a maximum class size of 28, a large number for a course that involves oral communication. Because we believe increasing class size would be detrimental to our program, and because most of our classes have very healthy enrollments, we believe that the Speech program is cost effective.
Below is a 2002-2003 Cost Benefit Analysis for the Speech Program. Unfortunately, inadequate recordkeeping precludes us from showing fiscal trends associated with this department.
|
|
FTES |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Average Allocation Income |
74.27 |
,425.88 |
,440.11 |
|
|
|
|
Instructional Income |
74.27 |
$1,834.49 |
,247.57 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fall 02 |
Spring 03 |
|
|
|
|
|
Speech/Communications FTES |
38.10 |
36.17 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FT Faculty & Supplies |
Health & Welfare |
FT Benefits |
PT Faculty |
PT Benefits |
Total Expenses |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Expenses |
,684.00 |
,205.85 |
,588.96 |
,300.00 |
$1,453.50 |
,232.31 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income |
Expense |
Cost Benefit |
|
|
|
|
Total Allocation Cost Benefit |
,440.11 |
$ (229,232.31) |
,207.80 |
|
|
|
|
Instructional Cost Benefit |
,247.57 |
$ (229,232.31) |
$(92,984.74) |
|
|
|
