Unit Name: COMMUNICATION

Prepared By: DAVID CHESHIER (Assoc Chair), 19 August 2005

Academic Year: 2004-2005

The following summarizes faculty-directed assessment activity relating to five degree programs administered by the department of communication (undergraduate majors in speech, journalism, and film, an MA program that includes tracks in film/video production, human communication & social influence, and mass communication, and a two-track PhD program with emphases in Public Communication and Moving Image Studies).

The 2004-2005 academic year was the first in which full-scale data collection was undertaken after several semesters of area faculty planning and pilot data projects. Assessment of the undergraduate majors was organized mainly through the department's Undergraduate Studies Committee, now chaired by Dr. Doug Barthlow. That committee's membership is organized so that all departmental degree programs are represented. Accordingly, Dr. Greg Lisby and Barthlow oversaw area faculty work relating to journalism, Dr. Ly Bolia organized work connected to film, and Dr. Jaye Atkinson supervised assessment for the speech major. At the graduate level, assessment was organized by the department's two graduate directors, Dr. Greg Smith and Dr. Michael Bruner, working with their colleagues on the department's Graduate Studies Committee (Smith, Bruner, James Darsey, Kathy Fuller-Seeley, and Ted Friedman). Both committees have planned area faculty meetings for the FA05 semester to review 04-05 activity and recommend improvements for the 05-06 academic year.

I. Assessment Procedures	III. Changes to Procedures or Curriculum Based on Assessment
II. Achievement of Departmental Objectives for Students A. Undergraduate-- B. Graduate	IV. Changes in Department’s Assessment Goals

I. Assessment Procedures

The department of communication organized significant assessment activity in the 2004-2005 academic year. Learning outcomes were identified in all departmental majors in SP04, pilot data collected in SU05, and data fully collected and evaluated in both FA04 and SP05. Those results are reported separately in what follows, by major program (film, journalism, speech, graduate). The theater major is being discontinued and a proposal to reconstitute it as a BIS concentration is under revision; for that reason data is not reported for theater.

In each of the following sections, the process generated recommendations for continuing improvement which are being reviewed by area faculty to strengthen content instruction in communication consistent with the university's overall specification of learning outcomes. Similar outcomes are reported below for the department's graduate programs. The process was overseen by members of the department's undergraduate committee (Miller, Lisby, Bolia, Atkinson, Barthlow) and by the department's graduate directors (Smith and Bruner). Assessment instruments were developed in coordination with the Provost's office and the university Center for Teaching and Learning, with a specific view to developing results relevant to disciplinary norms and national accreditation standards.

FILM major

FILM area faculty identified three significant learning outcomes. Those goals are:

• GOAL 1: Students will learn the basics of cinema that will lay the ground work for upper level courses.

• GOAL 2: Students will gain an understanding of the history of cinema

• GOAL 3: Students will be able to understand, interpret, and coherently discuss cinema). 

Assessment was administered in Film 1010, Film 2700, and Film 4750 in FA04 and SP05 to determine the extent to which students were able to demonstrate a fundamental understanding vs. in-depth knowledge of various principles of Cinema history, theory, and criticism.  The difference between scores in three courses was used to assess the extent to which students have gained knowledge of principles sought. These data are being used by Film faculty to guide possible revision of individual course content, overall revision of Film curriculum, and/or consideration of course prerequisites.

JOURNALISM major

Journalism faculty proceeded by matching instruction in its degree tracks (including broadcasting & public relations) with institutional general education goals. While not all goals are specifically addressed in each of the major's classes, most are. The journalism assessment strategy for each of the connected GenEd goals included the following:

• General Education Goal #1: Written and Oral Communication, Goal #3: Critical Thinking, and Goal #4: Contemporary Issues. Written term papers in Jour 3060, Communication Law & Regulation, and Jour 3070, Introduction to Theories in Mass Communication were collected. A sample of term papers was culled from the larger group to determine written communication proficiency. Assigned grades were used to determine proficiency; an average of 70 (out of 100) or better was desired. If that criterion is not reached, the Department's Undergraduate Committee will meet to investigate the reasons behind the failure and will suggest possible remedies. 

• General Education Goal #5: Technology. Researched/written term papers using computer technology were collected in Jour 3060, Communication Law & Regulation, and Jour 3070, Introduction to Theories in Mass Communication. A sample of term papers were collected to determine student proficiency using computer technology. Assigned grades were used to determine student proficiency in the use of technology; an average of 70 (out of 100) or better is desired. Again, if the criterion is not reached, the Department's Undergraduate Committee will meet to investigate the reasons behind the failure and will suggest possible remedies 

In addition, major specific goals and learning outcomes were identified for the undergraduate Journalism major. These goals will be specifically accessed in AY05-06. These goals include: (1) Students will use communication technology and they will be able to adapt to a changing technological environment; (2) Students will communicate effectively in written, oral, visual and/or digital forms; (3) Students will be critical and ethical communicators and consumers of communication, and (4) students will understand the development of communication industries in their political, legal, social and economic environments. The plan is to gather scores on 10-question assessment developed by Journalism faculty. Assessment instruments will be administered in Jour 1000 and again in Jour 3070 each term to determine extent to which students demonstrate a fundamental vs. in-depth knowledge of various principles of journalism/mass communication theory. Measured differences between scores in two courses will be used to assess extent to which students have gained knowledge of principles sought. Data will be used by Journalism faculty to guide possible revision of individual course content, overall revision of journalism mass/communication curriculum, and/or consideration of prerequisites 

SPEECH major

Speech area faculty identified three major goals for students majoring in the program, to be acquired regardless of the specific major courses taken (which are organized into two tracks or major concentrations). These include:

• GOAL 1: Students will understand the processes of human communication and their theories and how to read/conduct research relating to communication across the lifespan.
• GOAL 2: Students will gain the critical/cognitive skills needed to be an informed citizen.
• GOAL 3: Students will possess communication competencies necessary for effective leadership

For each goal an assessment instrument was created and classes identified so that speech majors would be captured and data collected. The results discussion which follows elaborates the details of these instruments more fully.

GRADUATE PROGRAMS in communication (M.A., Ph.D.)

Four professional development outcomes were identified as central to the M.A. curriculum, and five to the doctoral program in communication. Faculty assessed attainment of these outcomes by reviewing submitted thesis and dissertation projects, conducting year-end faculty evaluations of all doctoral students, and review of completed comprehensive examinations.

The department's M.A. programs are organized to achieve the following competencies: (1) Significant mastery of research methods relating to knowledge generation in the communication arts, with specific expertise generated in the methodological approach best suited to the research interests of a particular student; (2) An understanding of the key concepts of communication scholarship; (3) Written and oral communication competency in conveying difficult communication concepts clearly, and in such a way that knowledge generation is facilitated; (4) Detailed knowledge development of a specific area of communication inquiry, such that a student will be able to join high-level advanced conversations and debates relating to a particular area of social importance.

The department's doctoral programs seek to inculcate the following competencies: (1) Significant mastery of research methods relating to knowledge generation in the communication arts, with specific expertise generated in the methodological approach best suited to the research interests of a particular student and at the most disciplinarily advanced level; (2) Pedagogical proficiency, which is to say the student should be able to organize disciplinary findings and areas of inquiry in such a way as can be understood by the field's larger publics (students, audiences, intelligent and interested observers of communication phenomena, etc.); (3) An understanding of the key concepts of communication scholarship, with particular attention to advanced theoretical work undertaken by scholars in the cognate areas connected to communication research; (3) Written and oral communication competency in conveying difficult communication concepts clearly, and in such a way that knowledge generation is facilitated such that students with the doctorate will be competent and comfortable reporting their research in the field's leading academic journals; (4) Detailed knowledge development of a specific area of communication inquiry, such that a student will be able to join high-level advanced conversations and debates relating to a particular area of social importance; (5) Professional development competencies, including a detailed knowledge of the ways in communication scholarship is produced and disseminated, and evidence of high-level participation in such activities.

II. Achievement of Departmental Objectives for Students

The following summarizes the extent to which assessment goals were met in each program of study:

FILM

Final exams in Film 1010, Film Aesthetics and Analysis, Film 2700, History of Motion Pictures, and Film 4750, Film Theory and Criticism were evaluated based on a questionnaire consisting of 10 categories of principles and concepts of cinema. For each category a rating of 1-4 (1 being the lowest and 4 the highest) was given.  

The overall average (2 sections of 3 courses Film 1010, Film 2700, and Film 4750 for spring semester) of all exams were as follows: 

Film 1010 - 1.84

Film 2700 -  2.04

Film 4750 - 2.865 

These results show that at a fundamental level students in the Film major grasp a basic understanding of cinema in Film 1010 and are able to retain this knowledge over the course of their studies.  When evaluated in film 2700 and 4750, they demonstrate that they are advancing in their knowledge of Cinema.  Film faculty are eager to see that students are gaining a basic understanding of concepts and principles of cinema, that they are retaining and building on what they learned in Film 1010, and retaining and building on what they learned in Film 2700 and Film 1010. 

JOURNALISM

The overall AY0405 average (3 sections each for both fall and spring terms) of all term papers submitted to Jour 3060 is: 75.05. The overall AY0405 average (3 sections for fall semester and 2 sections for spring semester) of all papers submitted to Jour 3070 is: 81. The overall AY0405 average of all papers submitted in both courses is: 78.02. 

Students in the Journalism major (including broadcasting and public relations) meet the General Education goals the major addresses. Specifically, students write proficiently (Goal #1 - however, it must be noted that oral communication is not a component of Jour 3060 or Jour 3070 and, thus, was not measured), think critically (Goal #3), are able to understand and discuss contemporary issues (Goal #4), and use technology (Goal #5, specifically, word processing using computers) effectively. 

Preliminary data were collected to assess departmental learning outcomes in SP05. The overall AY0405 average for Jour 1000 is: 40.8. The overall AY0405 average for Jour 3070 is: 57.6.  Students in the Journalism major (including broadcasting and public relations) demonstrate a greater depth of knowledge of various principles of journalism/mass communication theory (Goal #3) by a factor of 16.8, after having taken Jour 3070. With respect to the fourth goal, the overall AY0405 average for Jour 1000 is: 39.9. The overall AY0405 average for Jour 3060 is: 50.2.  Students in the Journalism major (including broadcasting and public relations) demonstrate a greater depth of knowledge of various principles of journalism/mass communication law (Goal #4) by a factor of 10.2, after having taken Jour 3060.

SPCH

Speech area faculty created assessment instruments that related to a series of major-designated content goals. Aspects of all three goals for speech majors were assessed in AY 2004-2005, as well as outcomes relating to institutional general education goals.  Plans are underway to refine the assessment process, which will continue in AY 2005-2006, though both the objectives assessed and the procedures used will be clarified/more focused in the upcoming year.  Results are specified by goal in the following:

• Speech Major Goals 2 ("students will gain the critical/cognitive skills needed to be an informed citizen") and 3 ("students will possess communication competencies necessary for effective leadership"): Students performed well, meeting the standard set for achieving these objectives (evaluations were based on a speech graded in SPCH 1500); however, the group of assessed students in selected classes only included two majors out of 29 total students. More majors need to be assessed for these results to be conclusive. For students in SPCH 3010, who also were graded on a public speech, students also performed well. Speech grades as well as scores on the Competent Communicator scale indicate students are meeting this objective.  Of the 18 students assessed, only 6 were speech majors; more speech majors need to be included for this result to be conclusive.
• For Speech Major Goal 1 ("students will understand the processes of human communication and their theories and how to read/conduct research across the lifespan), student performance on a faculty-prepared assessment exam was mixed. Speech majors performed well in three areas: models of communication, public speaking, and how to write a research paper. Speech majors are clearly learning the basics. Speech majors performed inadequately in these areas, in order of highest knowledge to lowest: interpersonal, argumentation, language, diversity, and rhetoric. Although this exam was given in a sophomore-level course (SPCH 2650), 95% of the students were junior or seniors, thus likely to have already had advanced courses in the major.  Questions on the exam need to be reviewed to be sure they test what is taught in each of the classes. Since the speech major is divided into two tracks, it will also be important to focus on those topics all speech majors are expected to know. Students are meeting this objective as measured by an in-class exam in SPCH 4400. Almost all (93%) of the students performed well, and 29 students assessed were majors.
• For General Education Goal 1, all students (N=8 speech majors) did meet the standard for their oral presentations (assignment: speech in SPCH 4400); however, more students need to be assessed in the future. The average grade, M=70.2%, across both sets of research reports suggests that students are meeting the written presentation portion of Goal 1.  Unfortunately, 66% of the students (N=19 speech majors) assessed are not actually performing adequately. This particular assignment requires students to summarize an academic journal and may not be the best assignment to reflect their writing abilities.
• For General Education Goal 2, 3, 4, & 5, the assessed students met these objectives, but none of the students assessed were speech majors. Students are working together, thinking critically, discussing contemporary issues, and using technology. (Assignment: group projects in SPCH 2500). Two additional assignments expected to assess these goals were not actually assigned by instructors.

Overall, speech majors are performing well on a majority of the objectives set for them. Lower performance in some knowledge areas may be a function of irrelevant questions (i.e., information not actually taught in the courses) being included on the assessment exam and of the two-track division of the speech major (i.e., objectives cover both tracks of the major but students only take one track).

GRAD: Master's Degree Program

Students enrolled in the department of communication's Master's Degree programs were judged to be satisfactorily reaching desired learning outcome levels, specified as follows:

• Master's Degree Goal 1:  Research Methods. Two datasets were assessed to establish the level of student understanding of research methods:  the final research proposal for our required Research Methods in Communication courses (Comm 6030) and the research theses completed in 2004-2005.  66% of the research proposals were judged as having a score of at least 80 out of 100.  100% of the research theses met that criterion.  In the year 2005-2006, the graduate committee is going to focus on reexamining how our curriculum prepares Master's students to do research. 

• Master's Degree Goal 2:  Key Concepts. The assessment was based on the final research papers for our required Issues and Perspectives in Communication course (Comm 6010).  91% of the final papers were evaluated as having a score of at least 80 out of 100.   

• Master's Degree Goal 3:  Oral and Written Competencies. Our current mechanism only keeps track of successful oral thesis proposal defenses and full thesis defense.  We do not have a form that records when a student fails an oral thesis proposal defense or an oral defense of the full thesis.  In 2004-2005 ten students successfully defended their thesis proposal, and 11 successfully passed their oral thesis defense.  In the 2005-2006 year we will implement a form that will allow us to track failed defenses, thus allowing us evaluate the percentage of oral competence better.  100% of theses were judged as having a written competence score of at least 80 out of 100. 

• Master's Degree Goal 4:  Development of Knowledge. 100% of the 11 completed theses for 2004-2005 were judged as meeting at least a criterion of 4 out of 5 (5=high achievement) in demonstrating the students' development of knowledge in his/her area of concentration. 

• Overall, the exit projects for our Master's students demonstrate an acceptable understanding of concepts, research competence, and area-specific knowledge.  We are not entirely sure to what extent this competence comes from our Master's curriculum; from one-on-one work between the thesis advisor and the student; and from work between the thesis committee and the student.  The graduate committee will reexamine our evaluation procedures in the year 2005-2006 to try to target these issues more specifically.

GRAD: Ph.D. Degree Program

• The programs in Public Communication and Moving Image Studies have now completed their fifth year of Ph.D. education, and both programs have matured considerably during the 2004-2005 year.  In recognition of this progress, the National Communication Association named Georgia State as the 16th best program in the country in Rhetorical Studies and the 3rd most "up-and-coming" such program.  In 2004-2005 one student received his Ph.D. degree in Communication.  Eleven students passed their doctoral comprehensive exams, and one failed.  Seven students successfully defended their dissertation proposals. 

• Ph.D. Degree Goal 1:  Research Proficiency. 91% of the written doctoral comprehensive exams passed the research questions, and the completed dissertation was judged to be proficient. 

• Ph.D. Degree Goal 2:  Pedagogical Proficiency. Each Ph.D. student on a teaching assistantship was evaluated for evidence of teaching proficiency, looking at syllabi, student evaluation scores, and grade distribution.  72% of doctoral teaching assistants were evaluated as meeting a criterion score of 4.5 out of 5.  All Ph.D. teaching assistants participate in a year-end evaluation, and those whose performance was below the criterion were given specific suggestions about how to address problem issues in their teaching. 

• Ph.D. Degree Goal 3:  Proficiency in Communication Theory. 91% of the written doctoral comprehensive exams passed the theory questions.   

• Ph.D. Degree Goal 4:  Oral and Written Communication Competency. 91% of the oral doctoral comprehensive exams received a passing grade.  For the first time, our doctoral program held a year-end mock conference to provide additional opportunities for oral professional presentations.  60% percent of the presentations evaluated were judged as having a 4.5 grade (out of 5).  In the 2005-2006 year we will implement a form that helps us keep a more formal record of failed written and oral comprehensive exams and the remedial procedures recommended by the examination committee.  Research papers from Ph.D. topics seminars in Moving Image Studies and Public Communication were evaluated, and 80% of those received a grade of at least 90 (out of 100).    

• Ph.D. Degree Goal 5:  Development of Professional Development Competency. Ph.D. students either published or had accepted for publication 14 articles, and our students presented 43 papers at conventions.  For a young program, this was judged to be high achievement.  In the 2005-2006 year, we will distribute a schedule of "recommended" and "excellent" professional development goals for each year of our Ph.D. program, more clearly articulating our expectations for students to submit papers and presentations as they progress through the program.  This should encourage broader participation in publishing and presentation by a fuller range of our Ph.D. students. 

III. Changes to Procedures or Curriculum Based on Assessment

In the 05-06 academic year, the department has planned several activities designed to significantly improve the assessment process. All address the need to make continued procedural improvements, and no curricular modifications are expected in the immediate future (apart from the longer term reviews which will start in 05-06 and which are explained below). In each case planned activity is occurring in response to degree program-specific recommendations elaborated above. Specifically:

• The departmental Undergraduate Studies committee has been charged with undertaking a comprehensive curricular review of all major programs based on the first full cycle of data collection. The undergraduate area faculties will meet in FA05 to determine if the existing curricular offerings adequately train students in the identified learning outcomes (these plans were reviewed at the first major FA05 faculty meeting). The committee will likely start with a review of the SPCH major, which is relatively small (approximately 100 majors) but has experienced significant staffing changes since the curriculum was last comprehensively reviewed a decade ago (since then Rifkin and Moomaw have retired, Winkler, Romski, Cheshier, and Bruner have all moved into significant administrative responsibilities, and four basic course directors have cycled through SPCH 1000 oversight duties). The committee will then look more carefully at the JOUR and FILM majors.

• At the Graduate level, the Graduate Studies Committee has been charged with undertaking a major review of the Master's Degree program curricular offerings in 05-06. Because the MA tracks serve several distinctive student populations, including those anticipating further doctoral education, students interested in explicitly professionalizing/industry-preparatory training, and those seeking educational certification for one reason or another (K-12 teaching, certifications required for work in public relations and journalism/media management positions, etc.). The Graduate Studies Committee has also been charged with continuing improvement in the department's annual in-house doctoral conference, so that student performances there can be built into annual reviews of student and assistantship work.

• Communication-related undergraduate majors are deliberating on the desirability of implementing a senior capstone experience for all students. The faculty are in agreement that such a senior seminar experience would both facilitate desired learning outcomes and their assessment, but staffing constraints prevent immediate senior seminar offerings. The department's action plan envisions a hire in the film production area, and faculty in that area have explicitly connected this hire with direction of a senior seminar. The journalism faculty have also expressed interest in a capstone experience, although there the staffing issue is more significant given the number of majors. The department plans to investigate the options for senior seminar staffing, with the potential idea of starting a seminar which would enroll honors students and then be expanded to cover all majors.

• Area faculty representatives for each program (Smith graduate, Atkinson SPCH, Lisby/Barthlow JOUR, Bolia FILM) are reviewing assessment instruments, and will have completed their work in time that any changes can be reflected in 05-06 data collection activity.

• SPCH area faculty have recommended the following changes to procedures or curriculum based on assessment. In AY 2005-2006, the area faculty propose to:
• Focus on required speech courses and/or higher-level speech courses in order to obtain information from MORE speech majors (replace 1500 with 3210, 3010, or 4400; replace 2500 with 2650, 3050, or 4450).
• Instructors will be contacted at the first faculty meeting prior to the beginning of the semester, and provided handout packets with details on information required for assessment. If such assignments are not planned by the section instructor, possible replacements will be immediately planned.
• Collect data from Speech 4450, one of the required courses for the speech major; papers in this class are much more likely to reflect critical thinking and writing ability of students (GE goals 1 & 3).
• Revise assessment exam (after possible revision of speech goals). Some sections need more questions, and a determination must be made about which sections assess speech goals determined most important by faculty.
• Determine better methods for assessing General Education Goal #4 on contemporary issues and General Education Goal #5 on using technology. GE#5 may be better assessed with a grade from SPCH 3210, using a speech integrating presentation software such as PowerPoint.
• Changes to Curriculum based on assessment results will be discussed among the speech faculty in fall meetings: Should the speech major be simplified? How can objectives be clarified to better reflect the knowledge speech majors should have when they have completed the degree? Should courses be added or eliminated as a result of this process, or should prerequisites be modified? How can instruction (assignments and grading procedures too) be made more consistent with respect to important content across sections?
• Faculty in the JOUR major (including broadcasting and public relations) identified the following as potential areas of assessment improvement, and all are being reviewed for 05-06 implementation where possible:

o Based on review of the Journalism major's goals and objectives by Harry Dangel and the General Education Committee, the "pre-test" of students enrolled in Jour 1000 was eliminated in December 2004, at the end of the fall semester. The committee stated that the Journalism faculty should not assess the extent to which students have progressed toward a certain goal but whether students have achieved goals set for them. The Journalism faculty should now determine what level of achievement it expects of students in the undergraduate Journalism major and assess that. To facilitate this change (above) and to reduce the amounts of additional measurements taken and data collected during assessment, it is recommended that the 10-question assessments developed by Journalism faculty for Jour 3060 and Jour 3070 be discarded and, instead, that a new measure based on in-class student test performance (e.g., the average of all student test grades in both Jour 3060 and Jour 3070 each term) be used to assess Journalism goals #3 and #4. As with the other goals discussed above, if assigned grades on tests are used to determine whether undergraduate students meet these goals, an overall average of 70 (out of 100) or better is desired.

o The biggest dilemma still facing the Journalism major (including broadcasting and public relations) when dealing with the new assessment requirement is that the major does not now have an exit course in which its goals would normally (and fairly easily) be assessed. The Journalism faculty plans to address this shortcoming, and will consider making a course such as Jour 4800, Mass Media & Society, its exit course again – or some other course focusing on communication ethics. The Journalism faculty would also do well to consider the statement of Lee C. Bollinger, president of Columbia University, who on April 15, 2003, published a thoughtful discussion of "The Future of Journalism Education." It is available online at: http://www.columbia.edu/cu/president/communications%20files/futurejournalismeducation.htm (last accessed May 24, 2005). From this, the Journalism faculty may find that we are placing too much emphasis on communication theory (especially in our requirement that it be a core class) and not enough on communication ethics in the undergraduate Journalism major.

o The department's Undergraduate Studies Committee might benefit from a reorganization that would more fully empower it to handle General Education and undergraduate portions of the annual assessment report. The committee chair/Director of Undergraduate Studies must take a proactive and inclusive approach to assessment. Individual committee members must be charged with collecting specific data each semester from faculty teaching courses whose materials will be used in assessment by certain deadlines and with developing specific portions of the annual report, which can then be collated and submitted to the department chair. Because faculty must be brought fully into the assessment process and given clear responsibilities and specific deadlines for the collection of specific types of data and for its interpretation and written analysis, regularly scheduled area meetings of faculty are planned to evaluate findings and make recommendations for change in goals, assessment procedures and curriculum.

• It is fairly clear that the Journalism faculty should re-examine the major's goals, especially #3 and #4. They are very broad and require outcomes that either particular courses do not address or an understanding of topics not covered in the major. For example, Goal #3 requires students to be critical and ethical consumers of communication. Though Jour 3070 may allow the extent to which students are critical consumers of communication to be assessed, the course does not deal with ethics. (Then, of course, there is the question of what a "critical" consumer is. Is it someone who applies critical theory - as opposed to social science theory - to communication questions or is it just someone who is skeptical of mediated messages?). As another example, Goal #4 requires students to understand the development of communication industries in their economic environments. Yet no course specifically addresses this development. Jour 3060 certainly addresses the regulation of communication (and, by extension, communication industries) from political and legal – and, arguably, social – standpoints, but it addresses economic regulation only tangentially. The question thus becomes: Exactly what is it that we expect undergraduate Journalism students to learn under our tutelage? And how will that knowledge help them become (1) gainfully employed and (2) effective professionally as journalists, broadcasters, and public relations practitioners?
• In the FILM area, a number of challenges remain to be addressed in obtaining more nuanced assessment results. One dilemma that faces the Film faculty is how to incorporate the production courses into the assessment process. At the moment the assessment process is centered on advanced film studies courses, but that bypasses students who concentrate in filmmaking. To make assessment more uniform a designated film will be screened in Film 1010, Film 2700 and Film 4750.  Based on a single questionnaire, faculty will evaluate students.

IV. Changes in Department's Assessment Goals

No specific changes in identified curricular content or learning outcomes are planned for the 05-06 academic year. Rather, the department's attention is focused on improving data collection efforts and the instruments by which these goals are measured, as detailed above. The only specific anticipated change in assessment goals and outcomes is that the Undergraduate and Graduate Studies committees have been asked to review University general education goals and make another determination of whether our majors connect to each of those goals in assessable ways. In some cases earlier review only identified limited connections to specific outcomes, or were unable to specify particular seminars where general education skill outcomes could be targeted and improved.