ba in communication studies self-study€¦ · opportunities. prior to the first ferp enrollment in...

California State University, Chico

BA in Communication Studies Self-study

2011-2012

Contact Person:

Steven R. Brydon Professor Emeritus, Communication Arts & Sciences Dept.

California State University, Chico Chico, California 95929-0502

Phone: 530-898-6052 Fax: 530-898-4096

[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Certification.................................................................................................................... iii

Quick Program Facts. .................................................................................................... iv

Executive Summary ....................................................................................................... v

List of Exhibits................................................................................................................ vi

Articulating a Collective Vision

I. Mission and Program Goals .................................................................................. 1-1

1.1 Mission Statement ........................................................................................ 1-1 1.2 Appropriateness of Mission Statement.......................................................... 1-2 1.3 Program Goals ............................................................................................. 1-3 1.4 Performance Indicators and Evidence .......................................................... 1-4

Articulating a Collective Vision Summary .............................................................. 1-7

Organizing for Learning

II. Curriculum............................................................................................................. 2-1

2.1 Program Student Learning Outcomes........................................................... 2-1 2.2 Program Curriculum...................................................................................... 2-2 2.3 Program Extra-Curricular Activities ............................................................... 2-4 2.4 Student Engagement in Program.................................................................. 2-6 2.5 Assessment of Program Effectiveness ......................................................... 2-7

III. Faculty Resources................................................................................................. 3-1

3.1 Sufficiency of Faculty Resources .................................................................. 3-1 3.2 Deployment of Faculty Resources ................................................................ 3-3 3.3 Faculty Development Activities .................................................................... 3-5 3.4 Faculty Scholarship and Creative Activity Profile ......................................... 3-7 3.5 Faculty Planning Process ............................................................................. 3-8

IV. Students as Partners in Learning ......................................................................... 4-1

4.1 Student Characteristics................................................................................. 4-1 4.2 Student Understanding of Requirements ...................................................... 4-3 4.3 Student Retention......................................................................................... 4-4 4.4 Student Engagement in Scholarship – Creative Activity................................ 4-6

Five-Year Program Self-Study Report for Communication Studies i

V. Other Learning-Enabling Resources ..................................................................... 5-1

5.1 Fiscal Resources Sufficiency and Alignment................................................. 5-1 5.2 Staff Personnel Sufficiency and Professional Qualifications.......................... 5-3 5.3 Sufficiency of Student Support Resources .................................................... 5-4 5.4 Sufficiency of Information Resources............................................................ 5-5 5.5 Sufficiency of Academic Technology Resources........................................... 5-7 5.6 Sufficiency of Physical Resources ................................................................ 5-9

Organizing for Learning Summary. ........................................................................ 5-11

Becoming a Learning Organization

VI. Commitment to Learning and Strategic Improvement............................................ 6-1

6.1 Mission Statement Review Process ............................................................. 6-1 6.2 Program Effectiveness Monitoring and Improvement Processes .................. 6-3 6.3 Stakeholders Involvement in Program Processes......................................... 6-5 6.4 Alignment of Processes with Mission, Goals and Priorities ........................... 6-7 6.5 Leadership Commitment to Improvement ..................................................... 6-9

Becoming a Learning Organization Summary. ...................................................... 6-10

VII. Appendices ...........................................................................................................

1.0 Program Review Data Profiles 2.0 Program Brochure 3.0 COMM Newsletter Spring 2012

Five-Year Program Self-Study Report for Communication Studies ii

_____________________________________________

_____________________________________________

CERTIFICATION

We, the chair and Communication Studies faculty representative respectively of the Department of Communication Arts & Sciences, do certify that the information contained in this Five-Year Self Study Report presents a fair and accurate description of the BA in Communication Studies at the California State University, Chico.

FOR THE DEPARTMENT:

Dr. Suzanne B. Miller, Chair

Date: ___________________________

FOR THE DEPARTMENT FACULTY:

Dr. Steven R. Brydon, CMST Professor Emeritus

Date: ___________________________

Five-Year Program Self-Study Report for Communication Studies iii

Quick Program Facts History

The Communication Studies BA program has a long history at California State University Chico. It emerged from the Speech-Drama Department in 1984 and joined the then newly formed College of Communication. During the ’90s, when the College of Communication was merged with the College of Education, the program in Speech Pathology and Audiology (now known as Communication Sciences and Disorders) was added to the Communication Studies program to create the existing Communication Arts and Sciences Department.

Curriculum

Beginning with the 2007-09 catalog year, our curriculum was significantly changed to replace the old Human Communication option with a new option in Communication and Public Affairs. In addition, the existing Organizational Communication option was modified so that it shared more courses in common with the other option. As a result, students now take a common core of 10 courses (30 units) before branching off into their options. The full curriculum is detailed in the university catalog at http://catalog.csuchico.edu/viewer/12/COMM/CMSTNONEUN.html. The current review document covers the five years since these major curricular changes were made.

Faculty

This review covers a five-year period that is best characterized as one of significant change. A near complete turnover of program faculty, coupled with the budget crisis, has posed challenges as well as opportunities. Prior to the first FERP enrollment in 2002 there were nine full-time tenured or tenure-track faculty members teaching in the CMST program. At the end of 2012 there are six full-time tenured/tenure-track faculty and two FERPs, for an equivalent of seven full-time positions. Four of the six full-time faculty are untenured Assistant Professors and the other two are Associate Professors. Although turnover has been great, we have been fortunate to hire four highly qualified and dynamic new faculty members. Our greatest concern is that they receive the necessary support to mentor them through the tenure and promotion process, which is difficult when there are so few senior faculty members remaining.

Students

The program serves close to 350 majors with around 60 percent enrolled in the Communication and Public Affairs option and the remainder in Organizational Communication. As a program, we generate an average of about 440 FTES each semester (with the fall typically being our highest enrollment) and graduate close to 100 students per year. Our majors go on to a wide variety of careers and some pursue advanced degrees in communication and other fields, such as law. All students complete a mandatory internship and this has been useful in helping them make the transition from college to the workforce.

Service to the University

Our program provides service to the wider student population, staffing all sections of the required General Education courses in oral communication (CMST 131 and CMST 132), as well as sections in Critical Thinking (CMST 255) and additional GE courses. Students in these courses are heavily involved in the Great Debate, a community-campus program that each semester takes on an issue of public significance, culminating in a series of public presentations at City Hall that reaches close to a thousand people in community and university. We are also sponsors of an award-winning speech and debate program that includes students from numerous majors beyond our own.

Five-Year Program Self-Study Report for Communication Studies iv

http://catalog.csuchico.edu/viewer/12/COMM/CMSTNONEUN.html

Executive Summary

A clear mission statement, goals, student learning outcomes, and assessment plan guide the Communication Studies (CMST) program. These serve as the foundation for decision making associated with the program. CMST faculty, graduates from the program, as well as university and community professionals associated with the program, serve on the program’s advisory board and faculty members maintain contact with graduates of the program.

The program annually assesses student learning and the faculty has engaged in significant discussion regarding curricular and procedural changes to improve the program. Since 2006-7, all but one student SLO has been assessed and some have been assessed twice. Assessment results indicate the program is effectively meeting student learning outcomes. Beginning in 2011-12, we are participating in a new assessment program, IMPACCT, which assesses 40 communication constructs. This will take our assessment to a new level and help us understand how we measure up with other programs in the discipline.

The CMST faculty has acted to ensure that faculty enrollment in the FERP program and retirements did not decimate the number of program faculty. New tenure-track faculty members hired in the past five years represent the vibrant and progressive research interests in our discipline and innovative teaching strategies that serve our students well. Our biggest challenges with regard to faculty resources lies in finding effective ways to help new faculty succeed in their professional growth and achievement while also meeting the instructional and service needs of the program. CMST faculty members have been active in making scholarly contributions to the discipline.

We continue to have a healthy major of around 340 students, many of whom come to our program from other majors or as undeclared students. We graduate close to 100 students per year, and the average time to degree for those enrolling as freshmen has improved over the past three years and was just slightly over four years in 2010-11. We acknowledge the need to strive for greater diversity in our student population and are taking steps to accomplish this goal. Opportunities for service learning are numerous. Participation in scholarly research is available to selected students.

Fiscal resources have been strained in recent years, with the 2011-12 budget for faculty salaries representing about a 13 percent decline from 2008-9. This has resulted in the loss of the equivalent of two-and-a-half faculty positions (including part-time faculty and TAs). This has led to larger class sizes and fewer sections. However, we have been able to maintain all course offerings necessary to assure our degree majors can complete their degrees in a timely fashion. Levels of staff support have remained constant during this time period.

Other resources, such as library holdings and classroom facilities are adequate for program needs, although the lack of a dedicated computer lab has forced us to make adaptations to ensure that students have the necessary technology for their learning experience. Faculty offices are sufficient and computers are upgraded on a three-year cycle.

All program faculty are involved in the leadership of the program and decisions are made by consensus. Because the department chair is from the other program in the department, members of the program faculty have a large degree of responsibility and authority for the curriculum. Program faculty members make all hiring decisions collectively. The program is regularly assessed and stakeholders, such as the members of our advisory board, provide input that guides us in our continuing efforts to improve the quality of our program.

Five-Year Program Self-Study Report for Communication Studies v

List of Exhibits 1.1.1 CMST Program Mission Statement 1.2.1 Relationship of CMST Program Mission to College and University Mission 1.3.1 CMST Undergraduate Program Goals 1.4.1 Employers Reported to Career Center Fall 2007- Spring 2011 1.4.2 Results of Supervisors’ Ratings of Students’ Performance Spring 2010 2.1.1 CMST Program Goals & Student Learning Outcomes 2.2.1 Course Alignment Matrix 2.3.1 Rookie Tournament Participation 2007-12 2.3.2 Internships 2007-12 2.3.3 Examples of Internships 2.3.4 Highlights of the 2011-2012 Forensics Season 2.4.1 Faculty workload survey responses 2.5.1 History of CMST Assessments 3.1.1 Summary of Changes in CMST Faculty 2002-2012 3.1.2 Enrollment compared with number of full-time tenured/tenure-track faculty 3.2.1 Tenured/Tenure-track Faculty 3.2.2 CMST Program FTES by Faculty Status 2007-8 through 2011-12 3.2.3 Percentage of core major taught by tenured or tenure-track faculty 2007-12 3.3.1 AWTU By Category Fall 2007-Spring 2012 3.3.2 Faculty Development Expenditures 3.4.1 Scholarly Contributions 3.5.1 Hiring Plan for CMST Faculty 2005-2012 3.5.2 RTP Process 4.1.1 Applicants, Admissions, and Enrollments 2007-12 4.1.2 CMST Graduates Per Academic Year 4.1.3 CMST Major Count by Ethnicity 4.2.1 CMST Department Website for Advising 4.3.1 First Time Freshmen Graduation Rates 4.3.2 Average Years to Degree for CMST Majors 4.4.1 Scholarly Research Opportunities for Students. 4.4.2 Service Requirement for Forensics Students. 5.1.1 Budget Figures All CMST Program Expenditures 5.1.2 Budget Figures for CMST Faculty Positions 5.2.1 Communication Arts & Sciences Department Staff 5.3.1 Scholarships available in the CMST Program 5.4.1 Library Data Bases Most Often Used by Communication Studies 5.4.2 Communication Studies Research Guide 5.5.1 Smart Classrooms Assigned to Communication Arts & Sciences Dept. 5.5.2 Communication Studies Website 5.6.1 CMAS Department, CMST Faculty Offices, & Classroom Locations 6.1.1 Mission Statement Review and Revision Process 6.1.2 Examples of Curricular Changes Based on Results of Assessment 6.2.1 Core Communication Competencies Assessed Through IMPACCT 6.3.1 CMST Advisory Board Members 6.4.1 Internship Supervisor Ratings of the Importance of Skills (SLOs) 6.5.1 CMST Program Leadership

Five-Year Program Self-Study Report for Communication Studies vi

Articulating a Collective Vision: Mission and Program Goals

Criteria for Review

1.1. The program has a clear and published mission statement.

Program Performance

The program faculty developed a mission statement for the Communication Studies (CMST) program in 2005. As foundation for doing so we reviewed mission statements for all CMST programs in the CSU system as well as a mission statement that had been developed for the program some 12-15 years earlier. The current mission statement appears on the CMST program website located at http://www.csuchico.edu/cmst/mission-statement.shtml and in the evidentiary exhibit below. It is posted in the CMAS department office, and on the bulletin board outside the department office. The CMST program mission is consistent with the California State University, Chico, mission statement, which addresses preparation of students “to assume responsibility in a democratic community and to be useful members of a global society.”

Evidentiary Exhibit 1.1.1

CMST Program Mission Statement

The Communication Studies program is committed to fostering an understanding and examination of the crucial role of communication to human relationships, organizations, cultures, society, and civic affairs, and to developing students’ personal and professional communication skills.

We are committed to promoting ethical, responsible, and effective communication and to preparing students for their roles as citizens in a democratic society and as citizens of the world. Undergraduate students gain a comprehensive historical and theoretical knowledge of communication and a wide range of communication skills that are useful in their personal lives, community involvement, future careers, and as preparation for advanced study.

Master’s degree students develop a deeper understanding of the discipline as preparation for involvement in a variety of professions (including those in the public sector, private enterprise, or higher education) or further graduate study in PhD programs.

Communication Studies faculty seek to continually enhance the undergraduate and graduate programs through careful examination of student learning, curricular development, integration of technology, faculty research and development, and service to the community.

Reflective Comments

The mission statement has been very useful in fine-tuning the focus of the program, a focus that contributed to qualifications we sought in four new tenure-track faculty hires in the past five years. It also guided recent revisions in the undergraduate program curriculum. Based on the external review of our Master’s program last year, we will revise our mission statement to separate the Master’s and Bachelor’s degree program mission statements into two distinct documents during the coming year. We will also explore additional ways of publicizing our mission statement to students, such as inclusion in appropriate classes that are taken by all majors, particularly in the early part of their student careers.

Five-Year Program Self-Study Report for Communication Studies 1-1

http://www.csuchico.edu/cmst/mission-statement.shtml


Criteria for Review

1.2. The program mission is appropriate for higher education and consonant with the mission and strategic priorities of the department, college and university.

Program Performance

The Communication Studies program mission is appropriate for higher education in that it seeks to not only foster an understanding of the discipline of communication in all its contexts—from human relations to society and culture—but also provides students with personal and professional communication skills that empower them in their lives and careers after graduation.

The mission statement is consistent with CME College and University missions and strategic priorities as is evidenced in Exhibit 1.2.1 below.


Relationship of CMST Program Mission to College and University Mission

College Mission: “The College of Communication and Education is a student-centered learning community focused on the development of human potential through disciplinary knowledge and professional practice that meet the needs of diverse clients. We invest in our collective future through leadership in effective communication, collaborative field experiences, reflective professional practice, and the scholarship of teaching and learning.”

University Mission excerpt: “The University is committed to assist students in their search for knowledge and

understanding and to prepare them with the attitudes, skills, and habits of lifelong learning in order to assume responsibility in a democratic community and to be useful members of a global society.”

University Strategic Priority #1 “Believing in the primacy of learning, we will continue to develop high-quality

learning environments both inside and outside the classroom.”

University Strategic Priority #3 “Believing in the wise use of new technologies in learning and teaching, we will continue to provide the technology, the related training, and the support needed to create high quality learning environments both inside and outside of the classroom.”

University Strategic Priority #4: “Believing in the value of service to others, we will continue to serve the educational, cultural, and economic needs of Northern California.”

Reflective Comments

CMST Program reflects College Mission: The program is student-centered and emphasizes disciplinary knowledge as it relates to communication in all contexts. We stress the need for leadership through effective communication skills, rooted in an understanding of the social scientific and humanistic theories and principles underlying our discipline. Field experiences are required through mandatory internships, as well as optional extracurricular programs such as the speech and debate team.

CMST Program reflects University Mission and Strategic Priorities: The program’s mission statement emphasizes our purpose to prepare students for their role as responsible citizens in a democratic society and global community. Strategic priority #1 is reflected in the emphasis of both in-class and outside of class learning environments, including internships and extra-curricular activities. Strategic priority #3 is fulfilled by not only using technology in our instruction, but also instructing students in how to maximize their communication effectiveness through the best uses of technologies in their presentations and other work. Finally, strategic priority #4 is reflected in the service our program provides to others in the community and throughout northern California, for example in programs such as the Great Debate.


audiences in multiple contexts.


Criteria for Review

1.3 The program has developed and widely disseminated its program goals.

Program Performance

Our program goals were developed by the faculty in fall of 2005 and grew from an understanding of our mission statement developed the spring of 2005 as well as an examination of the key components of the curriculum in our two major programs. They are disseminated via our department Web site: http://www.csuchico.edu/cmst/goals-slos.shtml. These goals are reviewed on a staggered basis as part of our ongoing assessment program discussed in section 2.5.


CMST Undergraduate Program Goals

CMST Program Goals

1. Students will communicate ethically, responsibly, and effectively as local, national, international, and global citizens and leaders.

2. Students will communicate competently in groups and organizations.

3. Students will monitor and model interpersonal communication competence.

4. Students will possess skills to effectively deliver formal and informal oral presentations to a variety of

5. Students will construct effective written messages in various formats and styles, to a variety of audiences.

Reflective Comments

Faculty members regularly review and assess program goals and the associated student learning objectives. These goals and associated SLOs are reflected in our curriculum, and each is introduced, practiced, and mastered in various courses throughout the curriculum (see Exhibit 2.2.1). Beginning in 2005-2006 the program has systematically assessed student learning outcomes related to one or more of the major program goals. In the 2011-12 academic year, we will be joining a new multi-campus program, Interactive Media Package for the Assessment of Communication & Critical Thinking (IMPACCT), This is an online communication assessment survey. It assesses 40 communication constructs, which are subsequently distilled into primary competency domains: interaction skills, interpersonal competence, group and leadership competence, computer-mediated communication competence, public speaking competence, and overall ability to make good impressions through communication. This new assessment tool will provide a more comprehensive way of evaluating multiple program goals in one year, thus broadening our ability to determine the effectiveness of the Communication Studies program in meeting its goals. Further details on assessment are provided in section 2.5 of this report.


http://www.csuchico.edu/cmst/goals-slos.shtml


Criteria for Review

1.4. The program has developed and begun to use key indicators and sources of evidence to ascertain the level of achievement of its mission and goals.

Program Performance

The career center reports a wide variety of career paths taken by our recent graduates (See Evidentiary Exhibit 1.4.1). Unfortunately the Institutional Research Annual Survey of Graduates key findings were not useable because they included responses from only 53 of 454 graduates over a five-year period. Another valuable source of data on program performance comes from our ongoing assessment. In Spring 2010, interns and their supervisors filled out extensive questionnaires evaluating their skills on all but two of the SLOs (1.1 and 5.2) These results are presented in Evidentiary Exhibit 1.4.2. Finally, a number of our graduates go on to pursue advanced degrees. We typically have anywhere from five to ten graduates in a given year that pursue the Master’s degree, including a high percentage that do so at Chico State. In fact, our part-time pool is largely comprised of graduates of our Master’s program and two of our tenured/tenure-track faculty members obtained degrees from our program and then pursued their doctorates at major research institutions.

Evidentiary Exhibit 1.4.1 Employers Reported to Career Center Fall 2007- Spring 2011 (Numbers in parentheses indicate multiple hires from same employer)

ABC 10 News Kohl's Corporation

Accenture Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District

ADP Maxim Healthcare

Aerotek, Inc. (Allegis Group) (4) NetApp AFLAC NorCal Preps.com

AmeriCorps (Career Employment) Northwestern Mutual Financial Network (3)

Cbeyond Pebble Beach Company Chevron Info Technology Center (2) Prudential Overall Supply

Cintas Reaction Search International

Courtesy Motors Remedy Interactive

Deer Creek Broadcasting Safeway, Inc.

Engelbrecht Advertising Shasta County Child Abuse Prevention Council

Enloe Medical Center Shaw Industries

Enterprise Rent-A-Car (3) Singtao Radio

Federated Insurance Southern Wine & Spirits

Ferguson, a Wolseley Company (3) Staples

Fort Dearborn Co Taleo Corporation, Inc.

Freelance Graphic Designer Target Corporation

Gap, Inc. Total Education Solutions

Geocon Consultants Inc. Turlock Journal

Harrah's Rincon Casino Twist Magazine

Hewlett-Packard (3) Valley Yellow Pages Improvement Direct Inc. Vision Prompt Incorporated Insight Global, Inc (4) Walt & Company

J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc WJA Synthesis Kendall-Jackson Wine Estates YWCA


Evidentiary Exhibit 1.4.2 Results of Supervisors’ Ratings of Students’ Performance Spring 2010

Item SLO# Unacceptable

(1-2)

Acceptable

(3-4)

Superior (5) Mean

1. Effective communication within the organization by

setting goals and achieving them.

2.1 3 13 48 4.61

2. Appropriate communication by upholding norms and

expectations within the organization.

2.1 1 16 48 4.66

3. The ability to communicate effectively in small

groups/teams by setting group goals and achieving them.

2.2 2 10 49 4.67

4. The ability to communicate appropriately in small

groups by upholding group norms and expectations.

2.2 1 15 47 4.68

5. The ability to analyze a problem and formulate a

solution while working independently.

Not an

SLO

4 23 37 4.34

6. The ability to analyze a problem and formulate a

solution while working in a group.

2.3 2 15 42 4.59

7. The ability to monitor my own communication

behavior.

3.1 2 17 45 4.59

8. The ability to analyze my own communication

behavior.

3.1 3 22 38 4.44

9. The ability to adjust my communication behavior based

on the situation.

3.1 2 18 42 4.58

10. Effective conflict management strategies by setting

goals and achieving them during a conflict situation.

3.2 2 19 26 4.38

11. Appropriate conflict management strategies by

upholding norms and expectations during a conflict

situation.

3.2 2 15 30 4.49

12. The ability to engage in perspective taking (i.e., see a

situation as the other person might see it) for the purpose

of understanding another person’s point of view.

3.3 0 24 37 4.56

13. Intercultural sensitivity by working effectively with people from different cultural/ethnic backgrounds.

1.3 0 9 49 4.83

14. The ability to consume communication critically (i.e.,

offer a judgment of the validity and/or quality of a message).

1.2 0 19 40 4.61

15. The ability to conduct research to reach an effective

conclusion or outcome.

4.1 2 17 44 4.56

16. The ability to analyze evidence to reach an effective conclusion or outcome.

4.1 1 27 33 4.41

17. The ability to reason from evidence to reach an

effective conclusion or outcome.

4.2 0 25 35 4.52

18. The ability to effectively deliver formal presentations before a variety of audiences.

4.2 0 24 30 4.5

19. Proficiency in the use of written English (i.e., proper

spelling, grammar, and punctuation).

5.1 0 20 43 4.62

20. The ability to construct written messages for a variety of situations (i.e., memos, press-releases, reports, etc.).

5.3 0 16 43 4.61

Reflective Comments The results of supervisor evaluations of interns suggest that the CMST program is doing well in meeting its stated goals and SLOs. Specifically:

When asked to identify the SLOs they would rate as most important to their organization, the three skills/abilities that received the highest ratings were in order of frequency: (1) the ability to analyze a problem and formulate a solution while working independently, (2) intercultural sensitivity and (3) the ability to construct written message for a variety of situation. Supervisors’ mean ratings of students’ performance for these three items were 4.34, 4.61 and 4.83 respectively, suggesting that students are demonstrating these skills and abilities at an acceptable to superior degree.

The one area where students seemed to rate themselves consistently lower than did their supervisors was on SLO 4.1 (item 16). Student mean ratings were 4.19 compared with supervisors mean ratings of 4.41. Overall, however, there was a striking similarity in the SLO ratings of interns and their supervisors, and according to both assessments, students are performing well.


Supervisors’ evaluation of students’ performance in terms of writing, planning/organizing, following directions, meeting goals, and communicating with others, overwhelmingly suggested that students are meeting and exceeding expectations. Across performance areas, between 34 and 40 students were rated as having demonstrated at least an acceptable performance, as compared with 1 to 4 having demonstrated an unacceptable performance. On the whole, when supervisors were asked to identify overall strengths and weaknesses of student interns, they identified significantly more strengths than weaknesses.

Student employment opportunities are widely distributed, as indicated from the self-reported employment obtained by our students from 2007-11 as shown in Exhibit 1.4.1. Mean reported compensation was $39,673 (39 respondents). Some also reported they earned commissions.


Articulating a Collective Vision (Summary)

Content Area 1: Articulating a Collective Vision

This content area centers on the degree to which the program sets goals and obtains results in student learning at both the program and course levels that are: a) clearly stated and widely understood by students, faculty, and other stakeholders; b) appropriate for the type and level of program offered; c) adequately assessed; and, d) continuously improved based on assessment results.

Overall Program Performance

The program mission statement and goals are clear and are posted in the department office, on the bulletin board outside the department office, and on the department website. They serve as the foundation for decision making associated with the program.

The program has established student learning outcomes (SLOs) and an assessment plan that provide mechanisms for continuously evaluating the program’s effectiveness. Graduates from the program serve on the program’s advisory board and faculty maintain contact with graduates of the program.

Reflective Thoughts on Overall Program Performance in Content Area 1

The program annually assesses student learning and the faculty has engaged in significant discussion regarding curricular and procedural changes to improve the program. We keep in touch with our graduates and have an alumni database of about 1,700 BA and MA graduates in addition to the one provided by institutional research. For many years, we produced a newsletter, but that fell victim to the decreased budgets of the past few years, coupled with the increased workload on staff. We have a Facebook page, but it needs to be rebuilt as people dropped off when it was migrated to the new group settings. We have just set up a LinkedIn group for Communication Studies. Graduates are invited to an alumni event every two years The alums on our advisory board provide an invaluable resource as we continue to revise the program to better meet the needs of students and the communities where they will be employed.


Organizing for Learning: Curriculum

Criteria for Review

2.1. The program has specified its expected learning outcomes and they have been widely shared among its members, including faculty, students, staff, and – where appropriate – external stakeholders.

Program Performance The CMST program faculty developed student learning outcomes (SLOs) in 2005-6, refining them down to a manageable number grouped under 5 program goals (compared to the original 10) in the fall of 2006. These are listed at http://www.csuchico.edu/cmst/goals-slos.shtml. CMST faculty members review, discuss and revise the goals as needed on a yearly basis when assessment activities are planned, implemented and reported upon in regularly scheduled faculty meetings.

Evidentiary Exhibit 2.1.1 CMST Program Goals & Student Learning Outcomes

At the completion of the CMST undergraduate program students will be able to: PROGRAM GOALS STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOMES

1. Communicate ethically, responsibly, and effectively as local, national, international, and global citizens and leaders.

SLO 1.1: Recognize their ethical responsibility to their

community, society, discipline, and profession based on various perspectives and associated standards of ethical communication. SLO 1.2:Demonstrate ability to consume communication

critically. SLO 1.3:Demonstrate intercultural sensitivity.

2. Communicate competently in groups and organizations.

SLO 2.1: Communicate appropriately and effectively within

various organizational contexts. SLO 2.2: Communicate appropriately and effectively within

groups SLO 2.3: Demonstrate the ability to analyze a problem and

devise a solution in a group.

3. Monitor and model interpersonal SLO 3.1:Capable of effectively monitoring, analyzing, and

communication competence. adjusting their own communication behavior. SLO 3.2:Demonstrate appropriate and effective conflict

management strategies. SLO 3.3:Capable of addressing perceptual differences in

relational communication for effective outcomes.

4. Possess skills to effectively deliver formal and SLO 4.1: Demonstrate the ability to research, analyze, and

informal oral presentations to a variety of reason from evidence to reach an effective conclusion or audiences in multiple contexts. outcome.

SLO 4.2: Demonstrate the ability to effectively deliver formal

presentations before a variety of live audiences

5. Construct effective written messages in various SLO 5.1: Demonstrate proficiency in the use of written English,

formats and styles, to a variety of audiences including proper spelling, grammar, and punctuation. SLO 5.2: Demonstrate proficiency in formal writing, including

correct use of a designated style of source citation, such as APA. SLO 5.3:Construct appropriate messages for a variety of

contexts/situations.

Reflective Comments

Faculty and students have benefited greatly from the development of our SLOs. The SLOs have coordinated faculty efforts to ensure that students have identifiable knowledge, skills, and attitudes when they graduate from the BA program. They provide students with specific outcomes they can expect from the program. Faculty plan to regularly review the SLOs for goodness of fit, seek feedback from students, alumni and the advisory board as appropriate, and make any necessary revisions.


http://www.csuchico.edu/cmst/goals-slos.shtml


Criteria for Review

2.2. The program’s curriculum content and standards address program goals and learning outcomes.

Program Performance The program has developed a course alignment matrix that ensures that all student learning objectives will be introduced (I), practiced (P), and mastered (M) during the course of a student’s undergraduate education. We then assess various student learning objectives over time to determine how successfully students are mastering the skills and knowledge we deem essential to the degree program. Exhibit 2.2.1 displays the current version of the course alignment matrix, which we continue to review as we accumulate evidence regarding the student achievement of these goals.


Course Alignment Matrix

CMST Program

Goals/SLOs

Revised 12/07

Introductory Core Courses Content Core Courses Required Option Courses

131 330 331 332 132 233 335 350 370 489 255 354 452 472 470 484

1. Communicate

ethically,

responsibly, &

effectively as

local, national,

international, &

global citizens

and leaders

I I P I P P P P P M M

1.1 Students will recognize their ethical responsibility to their community, society, discipline, & profession based on various

perspectives and associated standards of ethical communication.

1.2 Students will demonstrate ability to consume communication critically.

1.3 Students will demonstrate intercultural sensitivity.

2. Communicate

competently in

groups &

organizations

P I I M P M

2.1 Students will communicate appropriately & effectively within various organizational contexts.

2.2 Students will communicate appropriately & effectively within groups.

2.3 Demonstrate the ability to analyze a problem & devise a solution in a group.

3. Monitor &

model

interpersonal

communication

competence

I P P M

3.1 Students will be capable of effectively monitoring, analyzing, & adjusting their own communication behavior.

3.2 Students can demonstrate appropriate & effective conflict management strategies.

3.3 Students will be capable of addressing perceptual differences in relational communication for effective outcomes.


CMST Program

Goals/SLOs

Revised 12/06

Introductory Core Courses Content Core Courses Required Option Courses

131 330 331 332 132 233 335 350 370 489 255 354 452 472 470 484

4. Possess skills

to effectively

deliver formal &

informal oral

presentations to

a variety of

audiences in

multiple contexts

I I P P M M P

4.1 Demonstrate the ability to research, analyze, & reason from evidence to reach an effective conclusion or outcome.

4.2 Demonstrate the ability to effectively deliver formal presentations before a variety of live audiences.

5. Construct

effective written

messages in

various formats

& styles, to a

variety of

audiences

I P I P P M M P

5.1 Demonstrate proficiency in the use of written English, including proper spelling, grammar, & punctuation.

5.2 Demonstrate proficiency in formal writing, including correct use of a designated style of source citations, such as APA.

5.3 Students can construct appropriate messages for a variety of contexts/situations.

Reflective Comments

Effective with the 2007-9 catalog, the Communication Studies program significantly revised its undergraduate curriculum. Determining that the two options, Organizational Communication and Human Communication lacked sufficient commonality, we reorganized the program to require a core of 10 courses of all students. In addition, we added a minor and internship requirement for all majors (which had previously only been required of Organizational Communication majors). The Human Communication option was replaced with a new option in Communication and Public Affairs. Previously, the bulk of our students followed the Organizational Communication option. The changes in the degree and the advent of the new option have led to a much better balance of majors, with Public Affairs majors now the largest option.

As part of this revision, we established the above matrix, which has guided our program assessment and discussions about curriculum and faculty hiring. More recently, for the 2012-13 year, we have moved two courses (CMST 334, Gender and Communication and CMST 335 Intercultural Communication) to lower division (CMST 224 and 235) to better align our program with the new general education pathways and to promote easier articulation with community colleges. The revision of these two courses also facilitated CMST’s participation in the Transfer Curriculum Model program that has been implemented in response to the California Senate Bill AB 1440.



Criteria for Review

2.3. The program’s extra-curricular activities are appropriate in content and standards to the mission/goals of the program.

Program Performance

The Department supports a wide variety of extra-curricular activities. We support a speech and debate team (forensics), which is funded by the IRA fee (See http://www.csuchico.edu/forensics/). The team has won numerous regional and national awards over its long history dating back over a half century. (For recent examples, see Evidentiary Exhibit 2.3.4). We provide a half-time faculty position plus between two and four Teaching Associates for the program.

In conjunction with the forensics team, we conduct a “Rookie Tournament” each semester, providing an on-campus competitive speech or debate activity for between 200 and 300 students enrolled in general education classes (See http://chico4n6.pbworks.com/w/page/15735302/Rookie Tournament Information). See Exhibit 2.3.1.

We have been instrumental in establishing the Great Debate program as part of the First Year Experience, involving both the campus and the larger community. (For details see http://www.csuchico.edu/fye/Public_Sphere_Work/greatdebate/index.shtml). Over the past two and a half years the Great Debate has grown to include nearly 1,000 student and community participants and observers. The brochure for the Great Debate can be found at http://www.csuchico.edu/fye/documents/great_debate_brochuresp12.pdf.

Beginning in 2007-8, we have required an internship of all students majoring in Communication Studies (See http://www.csuchico.edu/cmst/internship.shtml). Including summer internships, over 100 students each year are placed in internships. See Evidentiary Exhibit 2.3.2 for details

Finally, a student organization Students of Communication Studies (SOCS) is active and involves scores of students each semester.


Rookie Tournament Participation 2007-12

Fall 2007

Spring 2008

Fall 2008

Spring 2009

Fall 2009

Spring 2010

Fall 2010

Spring 2011

Fall 2011

Spring 2012

311 279 278 296 426 216 249 243 354 293


Internships 2007-12

Fall 2007

Spring 2008

Sum 2008

Fall 2008

Spring 2009

Sum 2009

Fall 2009

Spring 2010

Sum 2010

Fall 2010

Spring 2011

Sum 2011

Fall 2011

Spring 2012

Sum 2012

39 46 21 29 29 17 22 44 25 24 38 28 38 50 35


http://www.csuchico.edu/forensics/

http://chico4n6.pbworks.com/w/page/15735302/Rookie%20Tournament%20Information

http://www.csuchico.edu/fye/Public_Sphere_Work/greatdebate/index.shtml

http://www.csuchico.edu/fye/documents/great_debate_brochuresp12.pdf

http://www.csuchico.edu/cmst/internship.shtml


Examples of Internships

Enloe Medical Center/Foundation NBC Bay Area Universal Make-a-Wish Foundation

Oakland Raiders Habitat for Humanity

American Cancer Society Enterprise Rent-a-Car

Hewlett-Packard KHSL/KNVN and KCRA TV News

Big Brothers/Big Sisters Camp Adventure (e.g. Korea, Germany)

Farmers Insurance Northwestern Mutual Financial Network

Lulu’s Fashion Lounge Chico Chamber of Commerce

LA Clippers


Highlights of the 2011-2012 Forensics Season:

Tournaments attended: 16

Competitors: 40

Debate Awards: 2nd JV division NCFA Championships Reached Elimination Round National Debate Qualifier Four teams (8 debaters) attended CEDA National Tournament

Individual Events Awards: Numerous awards at regional and local tournaments Five individuals qualified for National Individual Events Tournament (2 in two events)

New event: National Forensics Association Lincoln Douglas debate (7 students competing, two winning awards).

Reflective Comments

The department’s wide variety of extra-curricular activities benefits not only our own students, but also the campus and community at large. These are excellent examples of how we fulfill our mission of enhancing student’s personal and professional communication skills, serving the wider community, and preparing students to become engaged citizens.



Criteria for Review 2.4 The program actively involves students in learning and provides them with appropriate feedback

about their performance and how it can be improved.

Program Performance The department follows the Seven Principles of Good Practice (located at http://www.csuchico.edu/celt/resources/principles.shtml): 1. Good practice encourages student-faculty contact 2. Good practice encourages cooperation among students 3. Good practice encourages active learning 4. Good practice gives prompt feedback 5. Good practice emphasizes time on task 6. Good practice communicates high expectations 7. Good practice respects diverse talents and ways of learning Exhibit 2.4.1 indicates the results of a survey of tenured and tenure-track faculty and their approaches to teaching.

Evidentiary Exhibit 2.4.1 Faculty workload survey responses (8 tenured/tenure-track respondents)

Strongly Somewhat Somewhat Srongly Agree Agree Disagree Agree

Mean Score*

I encourage students to see me outside of class. 6_____ 2____ _____ _____ 3.75___

I encourage students to work with other students on projects outside of class. 4_____ 4____ _____ _____ 3.50___

I ask students to work cooperatively and collaboratively during class.** 6_____ 1____ _____ _____ 3.86___

I respond promptly to student work with feedback that allows them to improve. 6_____ 2____ _____ _____ 3.75__

I demand a lot of my students. 7_____ 1____ _____ _____ 3.88__

I encourage students to ask questions in class. 8_____ _____ _____ _____ 4.00__

I vary classroom/instructional activities to accommodate different learning styles of students. 6_____ 2____ _____ _____ 3.75__

I talk to students about career opportunities in my field. 4_____ 3____ 1____ _____ 3.38__

I inform student about opportunities to learn outside of the classroom. 4____ 4____ _____ _____ 3.50__

*Computed on a 4-point scale with Strongly Agree = 4, Strongly Disagree = 1 **One respondent answered N/A

Reflective Comments

As can be seen from the above exhibit, faculty (1) encourage students to see them outside of class, (2) encourage group work, (3) encourage active learning through the asking of questions, (4) provide prompt feedback, (5) encourage time on task, including cooperative and collaborative work, (6) have high expectations and demand a lot from students, and (7) vary classroom instructional modes to accommodate different learning styles.


http://www.csuchico.edu/celt/resources/principles.shtml


Criteria for Review

2.5. The program has established processes for assessing student-learning outcomes and for assuring that students are achieving core competencies for completion of the program.

Program Performance We have annually been assessing student learning outcomes since 2006-7. Beginning in 2011-12, we will be participating in a new program, the Assessment of Communication & Critical Thinking (IMPACCT), which is an online communication assessment survey. More details on the program can be found at http://impacctassess.org/. Because this is a discipline-based assessment, it will not necessarily line up exactly with the SLOs shown below. Exhibit 2.5.1 below indicates the history of our assessment program through 2010-11.


History of CMST Assessments

STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOMES 2006-7 2007-8 2008-9 2009-10 2010-11

SLO 1.1: Recognize their ethical responsibility to their

community, society, discipline, and profession based on various perspectives and associated standards of ethical communication. SLO 1.2: Demonstrate ability to consume

communication critically. SLO 1.3: Demonstrate intercultural sensitivity.

X

X X

SLO 2.1: Communicate appropriately and effectively

within various organizational contexts. SLO 2.2: Communicate appropriately and effectively

within groups SLO 2.3: Demonstrate the ability to analyze a problem

and devise a solution in a group.

X X

X X

X

SLO 3.1: Capable of effectively monitoring, analyzing,

and adjusting their own communication behavior. SLO 3.2: Demonstrate appropriate and effective conflict

management strategies. SLO 3.3: Capable of addressing perceptual differences

in relational communication for effective outcomes.

X X

X

X

SLO 4.1: Demonstrate the ability to research, analyze,

and reason from evidence to reach an effective

conclusion or outcome. SLO 4.2: Demonstrate the ability to effectively deliver

formal presentations before a variety of live audiences

X

X* X

SLO 5.1: Demonstrate proficiency in the use of written

English, including proper spelling, grammar, and punctuation. SLO 5.2: Demonstrate proficiency in formal writing,

including correct use of a designated style of source citation, such as APA. SLO 5.3: Construct appropriate messages for a variety

of contexts/situations.

X X

X

X X

* This was numbered SLO 5.1 and was equivalent to the current SLO 4.1


http://impacctassess.org/

Reflective Comments

Since 2006-7, all but one student SLO has been assessed and some have been assessed twice. It was originally planned to assess SLO 1.1 during the 2011-12 academic year. However, the opportunity to participate in the new IMPACCT assessment tool was chosen in its place. This tool assesses 40 communication constructs, which are subsequently distilled into primary competency domains: interaction skills, interpersonal competence, group and leadership competence, computer-mediated communication competence, public speaking competence, and overall ability to make good impressions through communication. This will take our assessment to a new level and help us understand how we measure up with other programs in the discipline.


Organizing for Learning: Faculty Resources

Criteria for Review

3.1. The program maintains faculty sufficient to provide stability and integrity of the curriculum and on-going quality improvement for program offerings. Faculty workload is aligned with program mission.

Program Performance

Evidentiary Exhibit 3.1.1 details the changes in the CMST faculty for the past decade. Prior to the first FERP enrollment in 2002 there were nine full-time tenured or tenure-track faculty teaching in the CMST program. By the end of the 2006-2007 there were five. With the addition of four tenure-track hires since 2007, we had eight full-time faculty at the end of the 2008-9 academic year, three of which were senior faculty (i.e., full professors). In 2009-10 one of these senior faculty entered FERP and in 2010-11 the other did as well. The remaining senior faculty member began a leave of absence mid-spring 2010 semester that will end in his retirement at the end of 2011-12 and he will not be eligible to enter FERP. The number of full-time equivalent tenure/tenure-track faculty has been reduced to seven from nine in 2002. One faculty member’s FERP eligibility will end in Spring 2014 and the other’s ends in Fall 2014, reducing the number of full-time tenured/tenure-track faculty to six at the end of 2014 unless authorization is available to resume hiring to replace departing faculty members. Exhibit 3.1.2 shows the numbers of majors and how that compares with the full-time tenure track faculty members.

Evidentiary Exhibit 3.1.1 Summary of Changes in CMST Faculty 2002-12

AY Faculty Name Status # of Faculty After Changes

2002-20051 Gary Collier, Professor Madeline Keaveney, Professor Stephen King, Professor Kristina Shriver, Assistant Professor Stephanie Hamel, Assistant Professor

Began FERP Began FERP Began FERP Resigned Tenure-track Hire

6 tenured 1 tenure-track 3 FERP

2005-2006 Michael Scott, Professor Begins FERP 5 tenured 1 tenure-track 4 FERP

2006-2007 Sam Edelman, Professor Gary Collier, Professor Madeline Keaveney, Professor

LOA followed by retirement Exits FERP Exits FERP


2007-2008 Michelle Givertz, Assistant Professor Kevin Johnson, Assistant Professor

Tenure-track Hire Tenure-track Hire


2008-2009 Kevin Johnson, Assistant Professor Young Cho, Assistant Professor Nan Li, Assistant Professor Stephen King, Professor

Resigned Tenure-track hire Tenure-track hire Exits FERP


2009-20102 Michael Scott, Professor Steven Brydon, Professor Zach Justus, Assistant Professor William Todd Mancillas, Professor

Exits FERP program Began FERP program Tenure-track hire Leave of Absence begins


2010-11 Ruth Guzley, Professor William Todd Mancillas, Professor

Began FERP Program Leave of Absence continued


2011-12 William Todd Mancillas, Professor Leave of Absence continued 2 tenured 4 tenure-track 2 FERP

2012-13 William Todd Mancillas, Professor Retires 2 tenured 4 tenure-track 2 FERP

1Faculty changes in years 2002-2007 are provided to put the 2007-2012 changes in context. 2One tenure-track faculty was tenured and promoted to Associate Professor effective beginning of this AY.



Enrollment compared with number of full-time tenured/tenure-track faculty.

Semester

Communication

and Public

Affairs/Human

Communication

Organizational

Communication

CMST

No

Option

Total

Majors

Full-time

Tenure/TT

Faculty*

Ratio of

Majors to

FTTT

Faculty

Fall 2007 72/79 193 2 346 8 43.25:1

Spring 2008 70/71 197 2 340 8 42.5:1

Fall 2008 126/39 171 2 338 8 42.25:1

Spring 2009 124/28 175 2 329 9 36.56:1

Fall 2009 191/16 144 3 354 8 44:25:1

Spring 2010 183/7 139 3 332 7 47.43:1

Fall 2010 191/3 115 1 310 7 44.29:1

Spring 2011 187 128 1 316 7 45.14:1

Fall 2011 227 119 3 349 7 49.86:1

Spring 2012 222 117 3 342 7 48.86:1

*FERPs counted as full-time during the semester taught.

Reflective Comments

As these exhibits make clear, although the number of majors has remained remarkably constant, the number of faculty has been reduced. Further, with the full retirement of the two remaining FERP faculty members, we will have only 6 tenured or tenure-track faculty by the end of 2014. Thus, it is imperative that faculty members who have retired (three full professors by the end of 2014) be replaced. Further, in terms of coverage of core courses in the major, it is essential that the next person hired be able to fill the void left by the unexpected departure of Prof. Todd-Mancillas, particularly core courses in research methods and gender and communication.



Criteria for Review

3.2 The deployment of faculty resources reflects the mission and program goals. Students in the program and/or its subunits have the opportunity to receive instruction from appropriately qualified faculty.

Program Performance

All tenured/tenure-track faculty possess the terminal degree. Faculty have areas of specialization appropriate to the content areas of the discipline that they are responsible for teaching as detailed in Exhibit 3.2.1. For further details on faculty members see http://www.csuchico.edu/cmst/faculty-office/index.shtml. Many of our general education courses are by their very nature primarily taught by either teaching associates or part-time faculty, thus Exhibit 3.2.2 ( FTES by Faculty Status) understates the extent of majors taught by tenure-track faculty. Therefore, Exhibit 3.2.3 focuses on the percentage of core major courses that are taught by tenured faculty (including FERPs).

Exhibit 3.2.1 Tenured/Tenure-track Faculty*

Faculty Name Degree/Institution Status Areas of Specialization

Susan Avanzino Ph.D., U.S.C., 1997 Tenured Associate Professor

Organizational Communication, Qualitative Methods

Steven Brydon Ph.D., USC, 1979 Professor Emeritus, FERP (Spring)

Political Communication, Argumentation & Debate, Rhetoric

Young Cheon Cho Ph.D., University of Iowa, 2009

Tenure-track Assistant Professor

Rhetoric, Intercultural, Communication, Political Communication

Michelle Givertz Ph.D., University of Arizona, 2002


Interpersonal Communication, Quantitative Research Methods

Ruth Guzley Ph.D., Arizona State U., 1991

Professor Emeritus, FERP (Fall)

Organizational Communication, Quant. Research Methods, Health Comm.

Stephanie Hamel Ph.D. Univ. of Texas Austin, 2005

Tenured Associate Professor

Organizational Communication, Non-profits, Qualitative Methods

Nan Li Ph.D. University of Colorado, Boulder, 2008


Organizational Communication, Globalization

Zach Justus Ph.D. Arizona State University, 2009


Rhetoric, Freedom of speech

*This table excludes Dr. Todd-Mancillas, who has been on leave since Spring 2010 and who will retire effective with the 2012-13 academic year.

Exhibit 3.2.2 CMST Program FTES by Faculty Status 2007-8 through 2011-12

2007F 2008S 2008F 2009S 2009F 2010S 2010F 2011S 2011F 2012S*

Overall CMST Program FTES

477.46 466.71 486.79 466.28 448.82 447.65 397.87 372.58 440.45 415.75

%Taught by TT Faculty**

28 29 36 26 42 27 36 32 39 36

%Taught by PT Faculty**

72 71 64 74 58 73 64 68 61 64

*Spring 2012 calculated from departmental record, not available on Insight at time of report. **Percentages of tenure track and part-time faculty derived from https://insight.csuchico.edu/Reports/Pages/Report.aspx?ItemPath=%2fAcademic+Program+Review%2fP rogram%2fFaculty_Status_%282%29_FTES_Prog_Summary. There are three reports provided for the program, one per option and one for Communication Studies (UNDG). The latter was used for these calculations.


http://www.csuchico.edu/cmst/faculty-office/index.shtml

http://www.csuchico.edu/cmst/faculty-office/index.shtml

https://insight.csuchico.edu/Reports/Pages/Report.aspx?ItemPath=%2fAcademic+Program+Review%2fProgram%2fFaculty_Status_%282%29_FTES_Prog_Summary

https://insight.csuchico.edu/Reports/Pages/Report.aspx?ItemPath=%2fAcademic+Program+Review%2fProgram%2fFaculty_Status_%282%29_FTES_Prog_Summary

Exhibit 3.2.3 Percentage of core major taught by tenured or tenure-track faculty 2007-12

Semester Total

sections

Taught by

tenured/tenure

track

Taught by part-

time lecturers

% taught by

Tenured/TT Comments

Fall 2007 21 12 9 57% Bill Todd-Mancillas on sabbatical

Spring 2008 26 18 8 69%

Fall 2008 24 19 5 79%

Spring 2009 27 19 8 70%

Fall 2009 22 19 3 86%

Spring 2010 24 17 7 71% Bill Todd-Mancillas begins leave

Fall 2010 22 17 5 77% Susan Avanzino on sabbatical

Spring 2011 24 16 8 67% Stephanie Hamel on sabbatical

Fall 2011 23 18 5 78%

Spring 2012 25 16 9 64%

Averages 23.8 17.1 6.7 71.8%

Note: The following courses were included in the analysis as core courses in the major: CMST 233, 330, 331, 332, 334, 335, 350, 354, 370, 424, 428, 452, 459, 470, 472, 482, 484, 486, 488, 489. CMST 424 was included only in the spring because it is a course shared with Journalism, which is responsible for teaching it in the fall. Lower division general education courses (CMST 131, 132, 255), forensics (CMST 139/339), and the Rookie Tournament (CMST 133) were excluded from the analysis. Had they been included, it would have distorted the results by counting the heavy use of part-timers and TAs in courses that are primarily not designed for majors in the CMST program, although our students are required to take them if they are not selected for GE. In spring 2011, one section of CMST 332 was counted as taught by a full-time tenured faculty member, Dr. Kurt Nordstrom, who was on loan from Journalism.

Reflective Comments

The data in Exhibit 3.2.2, unfortunately, don’t differentiate between general education and major classes. Thus, the most useful data are found in Exhibit 3.2.3. On the average, over the past five years, over 70% of classes that comprise the core of the major have been taught by highly qualified tenured and tenure-track faculty in the program. Occasionally the percentage has dropped, often due to sabbatical leaves or retirements/resignations. For the 2011-12 AY as a whole, the average taught by full-time tenure-track faculty was right at about 70%.

Our biggest challenge for the future is to plan for and successfully execute the replacement of three senior faculty members, who through retirement and ending of FERP eligibility, create a need for two full-time replacements by 2014-15 to continue to provide our students with high quality education and advising, while maintaining active scholarship and meeting our service obligations.



Criteria for Review

3.3 The program maintains appropriate and sufficiently supported faculty development activities designed to improve teaching and learning consistent with program mission and goals.

Program Performance

Sabbatical leaves have been granted to three faculty members during the past five years (Todd-Mancillas Fall 2007, Avanzino Fall 2010, Hamel Spring 2011). Newly hired faculty members have received 3 units of AWTU each semester for their first year. The remaining AWTU has been awarded primarily for teaching-related activities, advising, and committee assignments as shown in Evidentiary Exhibit 3.3.1. Total faculty development expenditures are reflected in Exhibit 3.3.2.

Evidentiary Exhibit 3.3.1 AWTU By Category Fall 2007-Spring 2012 (Tenured/Tenure-Track Faculty, excluding FERPS)

AWTU Category AWTU Description AWTU

Percent AWTU Percentage of

total AWTU

12 - New preparations New preparations for new hires 2.0 30 22.7

22 - Instructional experimentation, innovation, or research

Faculty research grant, faculty development, Graduate coordinator, Course innovation 1.4 21 15.9

23 - Instructional-related services Internship coordination 2.0 30 22.7

31 - Advising responsibilities Advising, graduate coordinator .4 6 4.5

32 - Instructionally related committee assignments

Assessment coordinator, other instructionally related committee assignments 2.0 30 22.7

33 - Curriculum planning or studies

Assessment, GEAC Report, Graduate assessment 1.0 15 11.4

Totals 8.8 132 99.9* * Does not equal 100% due to rounding.

Evidentiary Exhibit 3.3.2 Faculty Development Expenditures

Category 2007-8 2008-9 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12

Assigned Time 73,282.40 66,547.86 58,584.29 40,848.40 85,480.00

Sabbatical Leaves 42,654.00 0.00 0.00 67,434.00 0.00 Investment in Faculty

Computing* 7,742.26 1,231.45 3,738.59 0.00 7,186.95

Photocopying, fax, phone, mail 0.00 250.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Conference/Development Travel 4,484.06 3,739.00 7,780.36 1,807.90 5,102.17

Other - Membership & Books 1,511.98 1,533.98 2,009.34 600.00 1,889.08

Total 129,674.70 73,302.29 72,112.58 $110,690.30 $99,658.20 *This includes only department purchase and upgrades to the faculty computing project, not base cost for faculty computing project, as those figures are not provided to the department.


Reflective Comments

The major support for faculty development has come from three sabbatical leaves for tenured faculty and AWTU for new hires during their first year. Some support has come from research grants and $600-1,000 in faculty development money provided by the Provost. In 2011-12, there was an increase in conference/development travel over the prior year, but it still remains lower than in 2009-10. Greater support for faculty development is a high priority of the department, but has been difficult to achieve during difficult budgetary times.



Criteria for Review

3.4. Faculty members make scholarly and creative contributions on a continuing basis appropriate to the program’s mission and goals.

Program Performance

Faculty were active in scholarly pursuits over the last five years. Their scholarly contributions are particularly noteworthy when viewed in light of the significant changes in faculty previously discussed, the number of graduate committees on which they served, and the fact that they were also maintaining an undergraduate program with an average of nearly 340 majors over the past five years.


Scholarly Contributions

Faculty Scholarly Contributions1

2007-2008

2008-2009

2009-2010

2010-11 2011-12 Total

Number of faculty members surveyed 5 7 8 8 8

Refereed journal articles 2 5 2 9

Non-refereed journal articles 1 1

Articles in popular media 3 3

Chapters in edited volumes 2 1 3

Textbooks 1 1 2

Other books 1 1

Conference presentations 6 4 5 8 7 30

Reviews of articles for publication or presentation 1 1 5 6 9 22

Serving on editorial board/jury panels

1 2 3 6

Web-based on-line instruction materials

1 1

Encyclopedia article 1 1

1Obtained from APR Faculty Workload survey of CMST faculty. Does not include those faculty who are no longer in the department.

Reflective Comments

For the faculty who remained in the program over the past five years, scholarly activity was a desire but exceptionally difficult. The exiting of so many senior faculty to the FERP program left a significant gap in the available full-time faculty for teaching, advising, and department service activities. It is not a stretch to say that most semesters we had approximately five faculty members doing everything in the department. This was especially true when we began to hire new tenure-track faculty in 2007-2008 (conducting five searches in three years). During this time, senior faculty members did the best they could to remain active scholars, but doing so was difficult because of their workload. Now that our new tenure-track faculty members have had time to adjust to their assignments, they have tightened their focus on increasing scholarly activities. Given the long lead times in publication in our discipline, it will take a few years for new hires’ work-in-progress to be published. In addition, because new hires are now sharing in responsibility for the graduate and undergraduate program and contributing to department service, the remaining faculty are noticing some opportunities to once again pursue their scholarly interests.



Criteria for Review

3.5. Faculty size, composition, qualifications, and development activities result from a comprehensive faculty planning process.

Program Performance

In 2002 (when the first senior faculty member enrolled in the FERP program) CMST faculty began discussions about the number of senior faculty who had stated plans to FERP or retire fully within the next several years. It was at that point that long-term planning began for new tenure-track searches that occurred 2006-2009. The planning process began with development of the program mission statement and redesign of the undergraduate program. This redesign helped us identify the teaching specializations, research interests, and other qualifications we desired in new tenure-track faculty. We acknowledged that the qualifications required for the undergraduate program would also serve the needs of the graduate program because of its broad-based nature. Our hiring plan was revisited when a professor (who had not previously announced plans to retire), took a leave of absence and subsequently retired during 2006-2007 AY, and when two assistant professors resigned, one at the end of the 2004-2005 AY and the other at the end of the 2007-2008 AY. The hiring activity of the program over the past five years is summarized in Evidentiary Exhibit 3.5.1

We have been very fortunate to hire high quality new faculty who met our qualifications. To help them adjust to their new assignments and get their research activities underway, CMST faculty agreed to give them a 3/3 teaching load for their first year. In addition, they were not required to do any student advising (graduate or undergraduate) the first year. CMST faculty members usually advise 50-60 undergraduate students each semester so this reduction in workload for the first year is significant.

Faculty have continued discussions to determine the qualifications needed for future CMST tenure-track hires. We have concluded that our most pressing need is to hire someone who has strengths in quantitative research methods. After 2014, when Dr. Guzley’s FERP eligibility ends, there will be only one such faculty member in the program. Additionally, the growth in the Communication and Public Affairs option will need attention in terms of tenure-track positions. Discussions will continue as to the specific areas of specialization needed.

Development for all CMST faculty is aided by the RTP process, where they receive feedback on their performance in instruction, professional growth/achievement, and service. The Communication Arts & Sciences Department RTP document was revised in Spring 2011 and attention was given to clarifying the criteria for evaluation as well as the rating standards. Elements of RTP review for tenured and tenure-track faculty appear in Evidentiary Exhibit 3.5.2.



Hiring Plan for CMST Faculty 2005-2012

SEARCH YEAR

TYPE OF SEARCH REPLACEMENT NEED

2006-2007 TT, Rhetoric TT, Interpersonal Communication

Retirement of Gary Collier, rhetorical scholar FERP of Michael Scott, interpersonal scholar

2007-2008 TT, Rhetoric TT, Organizational Communication

Retirement of Sam Edelman, rhetorical scholar Reduction of teaching workload for Ruth Guzley (organizational communication scholar) as of fall 2004 when she becomes department chair and continues as graduate coordinator, thus reducing the number of organizational communication courses she is available to teach.

2008-2009 TT, Rhetoric Resignation of new TT faculty Kevin Johnson, replacement for Sam Edelman

2009-10 FERP of Steve Brydon, Political Communication, Director of Basic Course; Bill Todd-Mancillas begins leave in mid-semester Spring 2010 and will retire as of Fall 2012.

20010-11 FERP of Ruth Guzley, who instructed graduate and undergraduate research methods courses

Next 3 years

Propose TT, Quantitative Research Methods. Discussions of other TT needs will continue throughout the next few academic years

FERP of Dr. Brydon will end in Spring 2014 FERP of Dr. Guzley will end in Fall 2014


RTP Process

FACULTY STATUS CYCLE OF REVIEW ELEMENTS OF REVIEW1

Tenured Faculty Every five years

Student evaluations of teaching (SETs)

Peer evaluations

Teaching materials

Self-reflection of teaching

Professional currency

Scholarly activities

Service to the department, college, university

Tenure-track Faculty Each year

Student evaluations of teaching (SETs)

Peer evaluations

Teaching materials

Self-reflection of teaching

Professional growth (e.g., regular attendance at conferences associated with the discipline)

Professional achievement (e.g., scholarly publications, competitively select conference papers)

Service to the department, college, university

1The elements of review are examples taken from the most current version of the CMAS Department RTP document (revised Spring 2011).


Reflective Comments

The CMST faculty members have exercised early and thoughtful planning to ensure that faculty enrollment in the FERP program and retirements over the last five years did not decimate the number of program faculty, nor the research and teaching specializations needed to maintain high quality instruction in the graduate and undergraduate program. New tenure-track faculty members hired in the past five years represent the vibrant and progressive research interests in our discipline and innovative teaching strategies that serve our students well.

Our biggest challenges with regard to faculty resources lies in finding effective ways to help new faculty members succeed in their professional growth and achievement while also meeting the instructional and service needs of the program.


Organizing for Learning: Students as Partners in Learning

Criteria for Review

4.1 The program recruits, enrolls, supports and graduates a diverse and high-quality student population.

Program Performance

The program attempts to recruit, enroll, support and graduate a diverse and high-quality student population. We are active in programs such as Chico Expo and Summer Orientation. Our highly successful forensics team helps recruit students from the community college level who desire to continue their participation at a four-year university. That being said, a fairly high percentage of our majors are on-campus transfers from either undeclared or other programs. Additionally, for the last two fall semesters, the highest percentage of majors are upper division transfers, and with the decreases in CSU enrollments and Transfer Curriculum Model in place, that will probably grow in future semesters. Exhibit 4.1.1 shows our applicant, admission, and enrollment rates for the past 5 years. Exhibit 4.1.2 shows that we graduate nearly 100 students per year, which is consistent with an overall major enrollment in the mid-300s. Exhibit 4.1.3 shows our major enrollment by ethnicity over the past five years, as well as the percentage of those who are identified as white.

Evidentiary Exhibit 4.1.1 Applicants, Admissions, and Enrollments 2007-12

First Time Freshmen Lower Division Transfer Upper Division Transfer

Applied Admitted Enrolled Applied Admitted Enrolled Applied Admitted Enrolled

Fall 07 307 260 43 29 18 13 97 66 36

Spr 08 3 3 1 9 6 6 38 24 12

Fall 08 316 275 39 22 15 12 80 56 22

Spr 09 3 2 1 3 3 3 35 21 13

Fall 09 266 225 48 3 2 2 109 73 40

Spr 10 1 1 1 15 11 9

Fall 10 218 126 23 6 4 3 159 99 36

Spr 11 1 0 0 4 2 2 26 22 19

Fall 11 272 209 37 3 3 3 198 118 48

Spr 12 4 2 1 1 0 0 65 46 28

Evidentiary Exhibit 4.1.2 CMST Graduates Per Academic Year

Program 2007-2008

2008-2009

2009-2010

2010-2011

2011-2012

Communication Studies BA 77 101 92 99 99*

*Estimated, based on those filing for graduation.


Evidentiary Exhibit 4.1.3 CMST Major Count by Ethnicity

Semester

African

American

Native

American

Asian

American

Hawaiian

Pacific Is.

Hispanic-

Latino

Two

or

More White

Not

Known

White

%

Fall 07 7 2 12 2 42 257 18 75.6

Spring 08 5 2 12 2 39 256 22 75.7

Fall 08 8 4 9 1 36 253 24 75.5

Spring 09 9 3 6 1 31 256 26 77.1

Fall 09 11 1 2 1 41 6 259 30 73.8

Spring 10 12 1 3 1 35 6 244 35 72.4

Fall 10 12 0 5 3 40 7 221 25 70.6

Spring 11 9 0 6 3 36 8 221 28 71.1

Fall 11 12 1 6 2 49 10 236 33 67.6

Spring 12 11 2 7 2 46 9 230 36 67.1

Reflective Comments

The major implication of these data is that although our number of majors overall is stable and consistent with the resources allocated to the program, greater efforts need to be made to diversify our student population. Overall the university has a more diverse population, with about 58 percent identified as White-Non Latino for the most recent semester (Spring 2012). That compares with about 67 percent White Non-Latino for the same semester majoring in CMST. University, department, and major data are available at http://ir.csuchico.edu/ERSDB_Reports/Enrollments/. Although recent hires have diversified the composition of our faculty membership, we recognize the need to extend that diversity to the student population as well.

The CMST program has adopted a diversity action plan in accordance with the university-wide diversity action plan that will focus on eight priorities divided into four categories: Access and success; education and scholarship; intergroup relations and campus climate; and institutional vitality and viability. Specifically, the department faculty and staff will be divided into three subgroups, each focusing on one of the following: student experience, faculty experience, and the CMAS (department) experience. Part-time faculty members and students will be invited to provide input. Specific goals and timelines will be established during the fall of 2012.


http://ir.csuchico.edu/ERSDB_Reports/Enrollments/


Criteria for Review

4.2. Students understand the requirements of the program and receive timely, useful and regular information and advising about program requirements.

Program Performance

We make sure that students understand the requirements of the program and receive timely, useful and regular information and advising about program requirements. Each student is assigned a faculty advisor and the list is posted at the department, outside of every faculty office, and on our website (http://www.csuchico.edu/cmst/undergrad-advising.shtml) In addition, students enrolled in CMST 330 (which is a prerequisite to most upper division classes) have an assignment requiring them to meet with their advisors and fill out graduation planners to determine what courses remain to be completed and in what order. The department also has planning guides posted on its website that faculty regularly use to guide students through the program.

Evidentiary Exhibit 4.2.1 CMST Department Website for Advising

Reflective Comments

The system of assigned advisors has been successful in assuring students that they receive timely and consistent advising. Further, the CMST 330 graduation planner assignment assures that students meet with their advisers early in their career and have a plan in place to meet the requirements of the major and graduate successfully in a timely fashion.


http://www.csuchico.edu/cmst/undergrad-advising.shtml


Criteria for Review

4.3 Retention policies for the students are consistent with the objective of producing high quality graduates.

Program Performance

Retention policies include the use of assigned advisors, discussed in section 4.2, as well as a system of well-designed prerequisites to assure students progress through the program in an orderly fashion. Exhibit 4.3.1 details first-time freshmen graduation rates for CMST majors. Keep in mind that most of our majors do not come to us as first-time freshmen, and many who do end up changing their major before graduation. Exhibit 4.3.2 details the time to degree completion for both freshmen and transfer students. (These are the most recent data available from Insight at the time of preparation of this report.)

Evidentiary Exhibit 4.3.1 First Time Freshmen Graduation Rates

Evidentiary Exhibit 4.3.2 Average Years to Degree for CMST Majors


Reflective Comments

The average number of years to completion has varied in recent years, peaking in 2009-10 at slightly over 5 years. The most recent data (2010-11) shows some improvement for freshmen, with the time approaching the norm of four years. However, it remains a little over three years for transfer students. Careful advising, particularly at summer orientation for transfer students can improve this number. Also, recent revisions in the curriculum have made it easier for transfer students to complete more of their major work at the community college level through the Transfer Curriculum Model. Two classes, CMST 334 (Gender and Communication) and CMST 335 (Intercultural Communication) are being changed to 200 level classes, making the task for transfer students easier.



Criteria for Review

4.4 The program engages students directly in scholarship/creative activity and service to the community, consonant with program purpose and character.

Program Performance

There have been limited opportunities for undergraduate students to engage in scholarship as those opportunities are usually taken by graduate students. However, one professor has directly used undergraduates as assistants in her research, as described in Exhibit 4.4.1. The program engages students directly in service to the community in a number of ways. For example, almost all our general education classes, and many of our major classes (such as CMST 452, Freedom of Speech) are involved in the Great Debate program discussed in section 2.3. Service learning is integrated into CMST 488 (Communication Issues in Nonprofits) and CMST 484 (Advanced Interviewing); both courses regularly partner with local or state agencies and actively involve students in service learning. One of the requirements for the speech and debate teams is that members engage in service learning as described in Exhibit 4.4.2. Internships often involve service organizations such as Big Brothers/Sisters.

Evidentiary Exhibit 4.4.1 Scholarly Research Opportunities for Students.

During the spring semester of 2008, Dr. Michelle Givertz had two undergraduate students assist with a research project that involved coding nonverbal communication behavior from videotaped couple interviews. At the completion of the coding, both students wrote a paper reflecting on the experience. Also, Dr. Givertz was awarded a faculty development grant for fall semester 2008 that enabled her to hire a student to assist with a longitudinal study of mood functioning in romantic relationships and its impact on communication patterns and perceived relationship quality.

Evidentiary Exhibit 4.4.2 Service Requirement for Forensics Students.

From Forensics Syllabus: “Each student is expected to use his/her talents as researchers, speech writers, and speakers in a service-learning setting during the semester. These experiences can vary, but must include the teaching/helping of others with something related to the skills being taught in this class. This requirement is designed to give you a hands-on, real-world application of the skills we are learning in class, while helping others to accomplish their goals. Failing to participate in the required number of service-learning hours will result in a deduction in the service-learning portion of the grade. (25% of grade)”

Reflective Comments

Although we have made considerable use of service learning in a number of classes and activities, we have been less successful in involving undergraduates directly in communication research. This remains an area that needs further development, particularly in terms of finding support for students to assist in faculty research projects, which both supports the faculty member’s development and engages students in the scholarly research process. As new faculty members develop their programs of research and become aware of resources to support student assistants, it is reasonable to expect this area to improve.


Organizing for Learning: Other Learning-Enabling Resources

Criteria for Review

5.1. Fiscal resources are effectively aligned with the mission and objectives, are appropriately diversified, and are sufficiently developed to support and maintain the level and kind of program offerings both now and in the foreseeable future.

Program Performance

The CMST program, like virtually every other program in the university, has faced significant budget cuts over the past five years. This has led to a decline in faculty positions and, quite simply, doing more with less. The figures in Exhibit 5.1.2 demonstrate the overall decline in resources and Exhibit 5.2.1 shows the decline in full-time equivalent positions from 2007-8 to the present.

Evidentiary Exhibit 5.1.1 Budget Figures All CMST Program Expenditures

2007-8 2008-9 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12

General Fund Expenditures

Faculty 999,361.78 1,043,196.10 915,803.71 928,256.18 914,083.71

Non-faculty 52,352.00 53,280.00 48,361.79 53,280.00 53,280.00

Temp Help 8,464.43 3,752.42 2,639.08 4,316.00 1,685.54

Operating Expenses 72,246.33 42,328.97 20,114.66 14,975.01 18,871.91

Work-Study 3,999.50 3,500.00 2,538.21 3,399.20 3,399.93

Total 1,136,424.04 1,146,057.49 989,457.45 $1,004,226.39 $991,321.09

Faculty Development Expenditures

Assigned Time 73,282.40 66,547.86 58,584.29 40,848.40 85,480.00

Sabbatical Leaves 42,654.00 0.00 0.00 67,434.00 0.00

Difference in Pay Leave* 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 45,552.00

Investment in Faculty Computing** 7,742.26 1,231.45 3,738.59 0.00 7,186.95

Support thru photocopy, fax, phone, mail services 0.00 250.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Conference/Developmen t Travel 4,484.06 3,739.00 7,780.36 1,807.90 5,102.17

Other - Membership & Books 1,511.98 1,533.98 2,009.34 600.00 1,889.08

Total 129,674.70 73,302.29 72,112.58 $110,690.30 $145,210.20

Foundation Expenditures

Grants & Contracts

Foundation

Total 1,266,098.74 1,219,359.78 1,061,570.03 $1,114,916.69 $1,136,531.29 *This leave was for a faculty member who is retiring at the end of AY 2011-12, thus is not included in Evidentiary Exhibit 3.3.2 . **Does not include base cost for faculty computing project. We are not provided that information. This is only department purchase and upgrades to the faculty computing project.


Evidentiary Exhibit 5.1.2 Budget Figures for CMST Faculty Positions

2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 Furlough Year

Costs Positions Costs Positions Costs Positions

Full-time 531,282.08 7.5/7.1 554,081.15 8.5/7.5 505,160.05 7.5/8.5

Part-Time 364,668.90 8.86/7.59 425,548.59 9.46//9.86 295,486.86 5.46/6.86

TAs 103,410.80 4.0/3.2 63,566.40 2.4/2.0 115,156.80 4.00

Total 999,361.78 20.36/17.89 1,043,196.16 20.36/19.36 915,803.71 16.96/19.36

2010-2011 2011-2012

Positions Positions Costs Positions

Full-time 548,678.18 8.00 527,844.00 8.00

Part-Time 291,759.80 5.86/6.26 300,653.31 6.27/5.867

TAs 88,117.41 3.20 86,278.00 3.20

Total 928,555.39 17.06/17.46 914,775.31 17.47/17.07

Reflective Comments

As can be seen from Evidentiary Exhibit 5.1.2, our department has faced a significant reduction in funding and positions between 2007-8 and 2011-12. We have lost nearly 10% of our funding and been reduced from over 20 positions to a little over 17. At the same time, we have maintained roughly the same number of majors and increased our FTES. Thus, it is clear that resources are being managed efficiently and to maximum effect. Without the help of TAs and part-time faculty, it is clear the program would not be able to meet its obligations to both general education and our major program. The TA program is particularly important, as they teach a large number of students for a minimal cost. This program is directly dependent on the continuation of our MA program, which was reviewed last year and received an affirmative report.



Criteria for Review

5.2. The program employs staff personnel sufficient in number and professional qualifications to maintain its operations and to support its mission and program goals.

Program Performance

The Communication Arts & Sciences Department employs two full-time Administrative Support Coordinators (I and II) (see Evidentiary Exhibit 5.2.1). The ASC I works only with the Communication Sciences and Disorders program, while the ASC II’s responsibilities include both programs in the department and supervision of one or two work study undergraduate students in the department office.


Communication Arts & Sciences Department Staff

2007-2008

2008-2009

2009-2010

2010-2011

2011-2012

Full-Time Equivalent Staff

Administrative Support Coordinator II 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Administrative Support Coordinator I 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Total 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00

Reflective Comments

The CMST program currently receives sufficient aid from the ASCII in the department office to maintain day-to-day functioning as well as to deal with periodic needs. However there is a critical need for consistent student assistance, as the current ASC’s workload is at the maximum one can reasonably expect.



Criteria for Review

5.3. The program’s student support services resources are sufficiently coordinated and supported to fulfill its mission and educational purposes.

Program Performance

The CMST program offers a variety of support services for students that are well coordinated. CMST 330, Introduction to Communication Studies, includes a presentation from the Career Center every semester to orient students to the resources available. CMST 330 also promotes and prepares students for the role of internships in their program of study. Exhibit 5.3.1 lists scholarships available to students in the program. In addition to our faculty, who provide both academic and career advising, the university has a number of readily available resources including Financial Aid & Scholarship Office (http://www.csuchico.edu/fa/) Career Center (http://www.csuchico.edu/careers/index.shtml) Student Judicial Affairs (http://www.csuchico.edu/sjd/) Accessibility Resource Center (http://www.csuchico.edu/arc/) Office of Diversity (http://www.csuchico.edu/diversity/index.shtml). Office of Veterans’ Affairs (http://www.csuchico.edu/va/)

Evidentiary Exhibit 5.3.1: Scholarships Available in the CMST Program

Scholarship Name Amount Major Min. GPA

Financial Need

Required? Additional Requirements

Communication Studies Alumni Scholarship

Varies CMST 2.5 Can, but not need be, a consideration

None

Wallace Fung Lee Scholarship

$ 1000 CMST 3.0 Yes First preference to a student who is the first in his/her immediate family to attend college. If no student meets this criterion preference goes to student who shows the most promise in the major and who exhibits financial need.

Brydon/Scott Forensics Grant

$ 500 Any 3.0 Can, but not need be, a consideration

Student with forensic ability, as established by letter from prior forensics director or record as competitor attested to by CSUC Director of Forensics. Financial aid may be a consideration in receiving this award. Priority will go toward students who demonstrate financial need.

Reflective Comments

Although the CMST program has done a good job of providing support services to students, we could improve student awareness of the programs by mentioning them during orientation and regular advising. Links to many of these services are provided on our department’s home page, but more could be added. In addition, we need to build our endowment for scholarships, as sometimes scholarships are not awarded due to lack of funds. Further, because the Brydon/Scott grant is specifically designated for forensics students, it sometimes goes to a non-major. In the past it has sometimes gone unclaimed, but it has recently been converted to a grant, which will increase the pool of students who are eligible.


http://www.csuchico.edu/fa/

http://www.csuchico.edu/careers/index.shtml

http://www.csuchico.edu/sjd/

http://www.csuchico.edu/arc/

http://www.csuchico.edu/diversity/index.shtml

http://www.csuchico.edu/va/


Criteria for Review

5.4. The program holds, or provides access to, information resources sufficient in scope, quality, currency, and kind to support its academic offerings and the scholarship of its members.

Program Performance

The library has sufficient books to support the CMST undergraduate program. The budget allocated to the Communication Arts & Sciences Department each year for library acquisitions (approximately $1,735 for the past few years) has been sufficient for the CMST program to purchase books relevant to our discipline. The budget serves both programs in the department (i.e., Communication Studies and Communication Sciences & Disorders). The library coordinator for the department puts out a call annually asking faculty for the names of books they would like purchased for library holdings. In the past four years all book purchases requested by CMST faculty have been made.

There are sufficient library data bases available to serve the research needs of the CMST undergraduate program. These databases are listed below in Evidentiary Exhibit 5.4.1. In addition, Aaron Bowen, the reference librarian assigned to Communication Studies, has developed a Communication Studies Research Guide available through the library webpage to offer additional information resource assistance to CMST students (see Evidentiary Exhibit 5.4.2). Interlibrary Loan is available for resources not found in the library collections or databases.


Library Databases Most Often Used by Communication Studies

Communication & Mass Media Complete Academic Search Linguistics and Language Behavior Abstracts SAGE Journals Online LexisNexis Academic ABI/Inform Global and Trade & Industry Business Source Premier GenderWatch ERIC PubMed/Medline SOCindex PsycINFO



Communication Studies Research Guide (http://libguides.csuchico.edu/communication-studies)

Reflective Comments

We are fortunate that our students have sufficient information resources to complete their studies. Our reference librarian, Aaron Bowen, has worked diligently with Communication Studies faculty and students to provide whatever information resource assistance is necessary for classes and research projects. We are concerned about the impact of the budget crisis on library resources, but for the time being are satisfied with the quality, quantity and scope of information resources available to the undergraduate program.


http://libguides.csuchico.edu/communication-studies


Criteria for Review

5.5. The program’s academic technology resources are sufficiently coordinated and supported to fulfill its educational purposes and provide key academic and administrative functions.

Program Performance

In addition to the information resources accessed via technology that were discussed in section 5.4, our program’s academic technology resources consist of Blackboard capabilities, training for Blackboard classroom use provided by TLP, smart classrooms, and upgrades on faculty computers. All CMST faculty are using Blackboard in their courses to varying degrees. TLP staff have been an excellent resource for fine-tuning that use or for suggesting additional uses. As reflected in Evidentiary Exhibit 5.5.1, all four classrooms assigned to the department are “smart” classrooms, equipped with computers, projectors, Internet connectivity and the like. Although courses requiring software use are able to reserve the THMA131 lab for instructional purposes with sufficient lead time, the department is in need of a dedicated computer lab for its classes. The department has a rotation schedule for upgrading faculty computers and printers and we have been fortunate to keep that rotation current over the past five years. Our new faculty received new computers and printers upon arrival and were given some choice in that selection.

Our two oral communication general education classes have been involved in two cohorts for Academy e-Learning: Cohort one in 2009 involved Dr. Justus and Dr. Guzley in the redesign of CMST 131 (Speech Communication Fundamentals); Cohort two in 2010, involved Justus, Guzley, and a part-time faculty member (Vivi McEuen) in the redesign of CMST 132 (Small Group Communication). The academy provides three-weeks of intensive summer training that results in substantial course redesign utilizing technology to enhance the learning experience.

The Speech and Debate (forensics) program has a dedicated self-instruction lab, Tehama 350, sometimes referred to as the debate “squad room.” There are several computers, a printer, scanner, copier available top support the team’s research and preparation.

The CMST home page provides links to a variety of information such faculty office location, contact information, and office hours (see Evidentiary Exhibit 5.5.2).


Smart Classrooms Assigned to Communication Arts & Sciences Dept.

CLASSROOM SMART STATUS CMST USE

THMA113 Yes Graduate and undergraduate

THMA115 Yes Graduate and undergraduate

THMA119 Yes Undergraduate; exclusively used for CMST131 sections (GE)

THMA230 Yes Graduate and undergraduate; assigned to CDES but shared with CMAS



Communication Studies Website (http://www.csuchico.edu/cmas/cmst/index.php)

Reflective Comments

In general the CMST program is functioning well with the current academic technology resources. Faculty computers are regularly upgraded and contain necessary software. Blackboard has greatly expanded the possibilities for online instructional support. Recently, we collaborated with Communication Design Department (CDES) on the redesign of THMA 230, which is now a smart classroom. A new computer was installed in Spring of 2012. We share scheduling of that room with CDES and have been able to move some of our courses to that room. The redesign of both oral communication courses was accomplished in part through our participation in Academy e-Learning.


http://www.csuchico.edu/cmas/cmst/index.php


Criteria for Review

5.6. The program’s space and facilities are sufficient to support its academic offerings.

Program Performance

The Communication Arts & Sciences Department office is located on the second floor of Tehama Hall in Rooms 201 and 201A. All CMST tenured, tenure track, and FERP faculty offices are located on the fourth floor of Tehama. Shared offices for the graduate students who are TAs are on the third floor of Tehama. As mentioned above, there are four classrooms assigned to the department (including one shared with CDES): THMA 113, THMA 115, THMA 119, and THMA 230.

Aside from the department office, faculty and TA offices, the only other space the department has is the Speech & Debate Team squad room located in THMA 350. The room has approximately six computers dedicated to the team. It is also used to administer comprehensive exams and for thesis or project defenses, as well as department and program meetings.

The Communication Arts & Sciences Department is the only department in the College of Communication & Education that does not have a computer lab. In the past we have tried to schedule time for classes in labs held by other departments, but they are heavily used by the departments to which they are assigned and generally unavailable for outside use.


Locations: CMAS Department, CMST Faculty Offices, & Classroom Locations

Classrooms: THMA 113, 115, 119 CMAS Dept. Office: THMA 201, 201A Shared Classroom: THMA 230


TA Offices: THMA375, THMA377 & THMA381 CMST Faculty offices: THMA428, THMA430, Debate Squad Room THMA 350 THMA431, THMA432, THMA433, THMA434,

THMA 435 & THMA436

Reflective Comments

We have sufficient office space for all CMST full-time and FERP faculty, as well as for TAs. Classroom space is limited and we frequently have to seek rooms in other buildings, particularly for our general education classes.

Our ability to use and instruct students in software specifically relevant to our discipline is limited by the lack of a dedicated computer lab. Such instruction adds to our graduates’ job qualifications and improves the quality of their learning experience. Although we have been reserving the THMA131 lab (open to all university students) for instruction in software such as SPSS, the lab is in high demand by students on a daily basis and by instructors for class sessions. Thus, minimal dates are available per semester. We are trying to be creative in finding ways to meet our needs for a computer lab, but it remains a challenging task.


Organizing for Learning (Summary)

Content Area 2: Organizing for Learning

This content area centers on the alignment of program assets and characteristics with the goal of producing high levels of student learning. This requires a review of curriculum, pedagogy, mode of delivery, faculty recruitment and development, scholarship in support of improved teaching and learning, information resources, student services and co-curricular activities, and resources and facilities.


In the past five years, the CMST faculty gave considerable attention to development of strong program goals and SLOs that are a good fit to the mission of the undergraduate program. Courses are representative of the discipline and also represent the desire of faculty to offer a broad-based curricular experience for students. Our faculty members employ a range of pedagogical tools to engage students.

Four new tenure-track faculty members have been hired and retrained during this review period. These hires were essential to replace senior faculty who entered the FERP program followed by full retirement and those faculty members who resigned. During the 2005-2006 AY 40% of the full-time faculty were FERP faculty. By the 2011-2012 AY 25% were FERP faculty. This turnover in senior faculty has made it difficult at times for remaining faculty to balance service requirements and professional growth and achievement. Despite these difficulties, CMST faculty members have continued making scholarly contributions and have served the program well in instruction, program redesign, assessment, and service on search committees that led to four new hires very well suited to our program.

Currently approximately 70% of our core undergraduate courses are taught by tenured or tenure-track faculty. There are sufficient library resources to sustain faculty research and to support our undergraduate classes. Technology resources are being put to good use by faculty. Students support services offered by the university are very good and supplement those provided by the department. We have adequate classroom space for the program and staff support, although the lack of a dedicated computer lab has made scheduling students for instruction in use of specific software difficult at times.

Reflective Thoughts on Overall Program Performance in Content 2

We are pleased with the revisions to our program and our assessment efforts. The most recent assessments indicate our curriculum is designed well to meet course objectives and SLOs. Thanks to the hiring of four new tenure-track faculty members, full-time faculty are experiencing some relief as we now have more faculty to share service responsibilities. Our biggest challenge in maintaining a high-quality program is how to help our new tenure-track faculty balance teaching responsibilities and program needs for service with tenure and promotion requirements of professional growth and achievement. We continue to explore mechanisms for making this balance more manageable without sacrificing scholastic standards.

The hiring of two additional tenure-track faculty members in the next three years will be essential to maintain the quality of the program. One is needed as soon as possible to replace Dr. Todd-Mancillas, who has been on leave and is now retiring. The use of part-time faculty to teach courses in quantitative research methods and gender and communication has been a necessary expedient, but is not a long-term solution. Further, after 2014, both FERPs will have ended their eligibility, and another faculty member will need to be hired to replace them. Thus we would hope to hire in 2012-13 for a replacement for Todd-Mancillas to begin teaching in 2013-14. Hopefully in 2013-14 and additional search can be conducted to replace Dr. Guzley and Dr. Brydon as they end their FERP eligibility. Thus, we would have replaced all three senior professors (Todd-Mancillas, Brydon, Guzley) by the beginning of 2014-15. This need is underscored by the number of majors in the CMST undergraduate program, which has remained around 340 despite reductions in faculty. If the budget crisis makes these hires impossible, we will need to rely even more heavily on part-time faculty for core courses in the major.


Commitment to Learning and Strategic Improvement

Criteria for Review

6.1. The mission statement and program goals are subject to periodic review and revised as needed. The review process involves appropriate stakeholders.

Program Performance

The Communication Studies faculty developed a mission statement for the program in 2005. As a foundation for doing so we reviewed mission statements for all CMST programs in the CSU system as well as a mission statement that had been developed for the program some 12-15 years earlier. After the review of our MA program last fall, we are revisiting or mission statement in the 2012-13 year to comply with the recommendation that separate mission statements be articulated for the graduate and undergraduate programs (See Exhibit 6.1.1). This will also provide us the opportunity to revisit the undergraduate mission statement. The program goals and student learning objectives were last revised in 2007 and are reviewed each year as part of our assessment process. Stakeholders are involved through our advisory board (membership is detailed in Exhibit 6.3.1). In addition, changes in specific classes or programs are made as the ongoing assessment process indicates either a problem or an opportunity for improvement. Examples are provided in Exhibit 6.1.2.

Evidentiary Exhibit 6.1.1: Mission Statement Review and Revision Process

CMST mission statement and program goals developed in 2005 ↓

Program goals revised 2007 ↓

Mission statement reviewed as part of MA 5-year review 2010 ↓

Separate mission statements to be developed for graduate and undergraduate programs 2012-13


Evidentiary Exhibit 6.1.2 : Examples of Curricular Changes Based on Results of Assessment

• CMST 489 (internship) instituted changes based on results of 2009-10 assessment that showed many students had negative attitudes prior to entering their internships. At the mandatory information sessions held every semester for those planning an internship, students who have recently completed their internships are invited to present their experience to prospective interns. This has reduced student uncertainty and led to more positive attitudes of prospective interns.

• CMST 370 (Introduction to Organizational Communication) curriculum was revised based on results of assessments that showed students wanted more relevancy in assignments. Changes included: 1. a presentation that asks students to use organizational strategies discussed in class to solve a real organizational issue; 2. a semester-long project that requires students to find a local organization, observe and examine strategies used by that organization, and provide suggestions for changes and improvements; 3. a newsletter assignment that requires them to design an alumni newsletter for Communication Department; 4. Rewritten assignments to highlight skills being used in each of them, and a list careers in which those skills are desired.

• The written communication rubric developed for assessment of SLO #5 in 2007-8 has been revised and used in CMST 331 (Communication Scholarship) as well as adapted for several other classes, including the writing proficiency (WP) courses for both options (CMST 452 & 472). Writing assignments in the WP courses were adjusted based on the assessment data.

Reflective Comments

Having all CMST faculty involved in program decision making has worked well for us. All faculty are committed to meeting program goals and SLOs, and the discussions surrounding program decisions have led to innovative solutions that served us well. The advisory board is involved and their suggestions sought as we move through the process. As indicated in Exhibit 6.1.2, because all faculty are involved in assessment, when issues arise, curricular changes can be made promptly to address any problems and improve the learning experience for our students.



Criteria for Review

6.2. The program employs a deliberate set of processes to assess program effectiveness, track results over time, and use the results of these assessments to revise and improve structures and processes, curricula and pedagogy.

Program Performance

We have been assessing student learning outcomes annually since 2006-7 as was discussed in section 2.5. Beginning in 2011-12, we will be participating in a new program, the Assessment of Communication & Critical Thinking (IMPACCT), which is an online communication assessment survey. Evidentiary Exhibit 6.2.1 details the communication competencies assessed by IMPACCT. More detailed information is available at the IMPACCT website (http://impacctassess.org/). The CMST program also employs a local free software system, STEPS (Student Tracking Evaluation Portfolio System) that has been used to facilitate gathering assessment data, as well as reporting and archiving assessment activity for yearly university reporting.


Core Communication Competencies Assessed Through IMPACCT


http://impacctassess.org/

Reflective Comments

Students in three classes (CMST 330, 452, and 472) participated in the IMPACCT assessment in spring 2012. Results will be reviewed during the 2012-13 academic year. CMST 330 is a general introduction to the discipline and therefore provides a baseline of student competencies early in their careers in the major. CMST 452 and 472 are senior-level classes, typically taken in students’ last semester and will provide an end-point for measuring competencies shortly before students graduate from the program. Additionally, the IMPACCT program will provide us with comparative data on a wide variety of competencies and allow us to see how our program measures up to other similar programs. Further, since these competencies include some areas not currently among our SLOs, it should provide useful data to help us make necessary revisions to our program goals and SLOs. It has the added advantage that we can track changes over time in how well our students are doing, and thus will allow us to make curricular changes based on reliable data from established measures. IMPACCT provides a new tool that may be a viable longitudinal system for assessment. The department is in the process of evaluating this system and potential benefits.



Criteria for Review

6.3. The program engages appropriate stakeholders, including alumni, employers, practitioners and others defined by the program, in the assessment of program effectiveness.

Program Performance

The program maintains an active advisory board that meets twice a year. In addition to the members listed in Exhibit 6.3.1, all faculty are invited to attend meetings. Every two years we have an alumni reunion that brings together past graduates and our current undergrads. Also, every spring we hold a student recognition event and invite prominent alumni from our program. The CMST program has also participated in the School of Communication Spring CONNECT program, which invites successful alumni back to campus to meet with current students and address the connections between their major and the professional world. We also maintain close contact with many potential employers of graduates through our internship program, which is required of all students. Supervisors evaluate interns and their observations help us adapt our program to the needs of potential employers. The assessment in process in Spring 2010 (see section 1.4) allowed us to directly compare supervisor perceptions of students with our stated SLOs and the results will help us as we continue to hone our SLOs and curriculum to best serve the needs of students and potential employers.


CMST Advisory Board Members

Suzanne Miller CMAS Department Chair

Susan Avanzino CMST Faculty

Zach Justus* CMST Faculty

Michelle Anderson Curran* Assistant Director of Community Alliance for Educational Excellence

Vernon Andrews* The Andrews Project, Instructor at San Jose State University

Stacey Bartlett* Chair Communication Studies and Performing Arts, Butte Community College

Deanne Blankenship Project Director, California Health Collaborative, Chico

Michael Briand Director of Civic Engagement, CSU Chico

Michele Brown* Political Consultant

Eric Bullis* Assistant Professor, Virginia Highlands College

Charles Carter Associate Director for Leadership Programs, Student Activities, CSU Chico

Monica Chesini* Group Therapeutic Representative, Pfizer, Inc.

Scott Dinit*s Human Resource Director, Boys & Girls Clubs of the North Valley

Roseanna Galindo-Kuhn* Director of Volunteer Services, Enloe Medical Center

Jillian Hopewell Director of Education & Professional Development, Migrant Clinicians Network

Jeff Martin* District Manager—Specialty Sales, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals Inc.

Janet Perez* Director of Categorical Programs, Willows Unified School District

Gina Pestana* Administrative Assistant, North Valley Property Management

Jodie Rettinhouse Career Advisor, Career Center, CSU Chico

Rick Rigsby* President & CEO, Rick Rigsby Communication

John Rucker Assistant City Manager, City of Chico

Shelly Spratt* Adjunct Faculty, Chabot College

Thia Wolf Director, First-Year Experience Program, CSU Chico

Student Representative: Chris Melendrez BA program

*Denotes Alumni

Reflective Comments

Among the questions we pursue with our advisory board and other stakeholders are these: (1) Are our program offerings still current? (2) Have the professional goals of our students changed, and if so, to what


extent do our course offerings accommodate these changes? (3) Who do we want to serve and are we serving them well? (4) To what extent are our pedagogy and delivery methods appropriate for the students we serve? (5) What changes in the program may be needed based on assessment results? (6) How does our program compare to competitive CMST programs? (7) How might our alumni be of service to our current students? (7) What other constituents might we consult to help us improve our program? (8) How can we address diversity in recruitment of majors?



Criteria for Review

6.4 The program periodically engages its multiple constituencies in processes that define its strategic position; articulate its priorities; examine the alignment of its purposes, core functions and resources; and shape the future direction of its efforts.

Program Performance

We are in regular contact with our constituencies including alumni, advisory board, internship providers, and the community at large. We have regular alumni reunions, where former students and current students and faculty interact. Our advisory board, as discussed in the preceding section, is involved on a semi-annual basis and represents many constituencies, including alumni, community colleges, the city, and the university itself. Internship evaluations of students are reviewed every semester by Dr. Givertz, who in addition to being internship supervisor has been our assessment coordinator. As noted previously, in 2010 these two functions were combined allowing us to assess our student’s performance and the SLOs internship supervisors rated most important (see section 1.4 and Exhibit 6.4.1). Finally, the community is involved, particularly through the Great Debate program, which brings students and community members together to debate issues such as immigration and freedom of speech.

Evidentiary Exhibit 6.4.1 Internship Supervisor Ratings of the Importance of Skills (SLOs)

Supervisors were asked which skills/abilities (i.e., SLOs) they would rate as most important to their organization. The number indicates the number of times the SLO was rated as an important skill.

Skill/Ability Importance of Skill 1. Effective communication within the organization 5 by setting goals and achieving them. 2. Appropriate communication by upholding norms 2 and expectations within the organization. 3. The ability to communicate effectively in small 2 groups/teams by setting group goals and achieving them. 4. The ability to communicate appropriately in 1 small groups by upholding group norms and expectations. 5. The ability to analyze a problem and formulate 13 a solution while working independently. 6. The ability to analyze a problem and formulate 1 a solution while working in a group. 7. The ability to monitor his/her own communication 0 behavior. 8. The ability to analyze his/her own communication 1 behavior. 9. The ability to adjust his/her communication 7 behavior based on the situation. 10. Effective conflict management strategies 3 by setting goals and achieving them during a conflict situation. 11. Appropriate conflict management strategies 4 by upholding norms and expectations during a conflict situation. 12. The ability to engage in perspective taking 6 (i.e., see a situation as the other person might see it) for the purpose of understanding another person’s point of view.


Supervisors were asked which skills/abilities (i.e., SLOs) they would rate as most important to their organization. The number indicates the number of times the SLO was rated as an important skill.

Skill/Ability Importance of Skill 13. Intercultural sensitivity by working effectively with 11 people from different cultural/ethnic backgrounds. 14. The ability to consume communication 1 critically (i.e., offer a judgment of the validity and/or quality of a message). 15. The ability to conduct research to reach 3 an effective conclusion or outcome. 16. The ability to analyze evidence to reach 2 an effective conclusion or outcome. 17. The ability to reason from evidence to reach 2 an effective conclusion or outcome. 18. The ability to effectively deliver formal 4 presentations before a variety of audiences. 19. Proficiency in the use of written English 2 (i.e., proper spelling, grammar, and punctuation). 20. The ability to construct written messages for 10 a variety of situations (i.e., memos, press-releases, reports, etc.).

Reflective Comments

The close relationship with a wide variety of constituencies, including potential employers, the community, and alumni, have enabled us to evaluate our program’s goal and objectives in a manner that ensures that we are serving a wide variety of stakeholders in a positive and effective manner. We will continue to look for new and improved ways to serve all of these constituencies in the future.



Criteria for Review

6.5 The program leadership is committed to improvement based on the results of processes of assessment, inquiry and evaluation.

Program Performance

The CMST undergraduate program is one of two undergraduate programs situated in the Communication Arts & Sciences (CMAS) Department. By tradition, the Chair of the Department has rotated periodically between the two programs and is how held by Dr. Suzanne Miller, a Professor in Communication Sciences and Disorders.

All CMST faculty act as a committee of the whole to make decisions related to the program (e.g., curriculum, policy, and procedure). The CMAS chair offers support to the program in the form of providing necessary departmental or university information related to decision making. Numerous other leadership roles are detailed in Exhibit 6.5.1.


CMST Program Leadership

Department Chair: Suzanne Miller (CMSD Faculty member)

CMST Program Committee membership for 2011-12: • Diversity: Committee of the whole, Hamel & Cho co-chairs • 5 yr Review: Brydon, Guzley, Givertz • Alumni events: Hamel & Peterson • Connect: Hamel, Avanzino, Li • Curriculum: Committee of the Whole • Student Orientation: Givertz • Part-time file review: Miller, Avanzino, & Justus (Givertz & Hamel for 2011-12) • Student Appreciation Night: Givertz, Li, & Armocido • Advisory Board faculty representatives: Avanzino & Justus • Preview Days: Cho & Peterson • Representative to CA CSU CMST coordinators: Avanzino • Scholarships: Cho • SOCS (Students of Communication Studies) faculty advisor: Justus • Lambda Pi Eta (Communication Honorary) advisor: Hamel • Internship Coordinator: Givertz • Assessment Coordinator: Givertz (Li to assume duties fall 2012)

Reflective Comments

Because of CMST’s relatively unusual situation, being part of a department where the other program has a quite different focus, specifically training those who will engage in clinical practice related to speech-language pathology, we have largely functioned autonomously with respect to curricular and pedagogical matters. Both programs have long respected and deferred to the judgment of the other when it came to matters unique to their program. Thus, the leadership of the CMST program is really the entire faculty of the program. As the above exhibit indicates, all members are involved in the program, with different faculty members taking on different roles from time to time as needed.


Becoming a Learning Organization (Summary)

Content Area 3: Becoming a Learning Organization

This content area centers on the degree to which the program has developed systems—to assess its own performance and to use the information to improve student learning over time—that reflect the input of stakeholders, identify key dimensions of performance, and are based on standards of evidence that prominently feature educational results. The general objective of this section of the Self-Study Report is to demonstrate that the program has clear, well-established policies and practices for gathering and analyzing information that leads to a culture of evidence and improvement.


At the end of these five years we have an improved recruitment strategy, four new faculty members, and are strongly committed to the success of our undergraduate program. It would appear that our strategic planning efforts have been effective.

Decision making in the program rests with all CMST faculty for essentially all functions. For example, all faculty are involved in recruitment and selection of candidates, program review and revision, and SLO assessment activities. This practice has worked well and is desired by faculty. Consequently, faculty share the responsibility for quality assurance processes.

Reflective Thoughts on Overall Program Performance in Content 3

The stability of our program over the past five years as we dealt with serious challenges (e.g., several retirements and resulting workload increases for remaining faculty) could not have been achieved without effective strategic planning, innovative thinking, and hard work. Developing our mission statement, goals, and SLOs at the beginning of this five-year period served us well and provided strong direction for selection of new hires and program revision. Our future strategic planning must include support of junior faculty to meet our standards for tenure and promotion.


ba in communication studies self-study€¦ · opportunities. prior to the first ferp enrollment in...

Documents