Draft of Proposal

Enhance Oral Rhetoric

Aim:  To develop the oral rhetoric component of the Rhetoric Program so that students have as much instruction in and experience with speaking as they currently do with writing in courses across the curriculum

 

Background:  The faculty’s original mandate for the Rhetoric Program and the College's academic goals (affirmed by the faculty, administration, and trustees in 1998?? and posted on the College’s website) both call for student instruction in writing and speaking. Underlying this mandate is the notion that the Rhetoric Program “belongs” to the faculty as a whole and that, consequently, faculty in all disciplines are—given appropriate levels of professional support—responsible for carrying out the mandate. But because of limited staffing and therefore faculty development efforts, this assumption has been considerably less true of oral rhetoric than it is of written rhetoric. This problem presents us with an unusual opportunity: making a small number of specific changes to enhance oral rhetoric at HSC will lead to wide-ranging pedagogical and curricular changes that will be highly beneficial to our students.

 

Potential Quality Enhancement Plan Item—Enhance Oral Rhetoric

 

Part 1.  Focus of the Plan

 

1)     Has the institution provided a clear and concise description of the critical issues(s) to be addressed?  The critical issue here is clear and concise— bring the level of instruction and the opportunities for experience in oral rhetoric up at least to the same level as writing in the curriculum. To accomplish this goal, the College must increase the number of classes focusing on oral rhetoric; increase the number and kind of speaking assignments across the curriculum; and create on-going opportunities for faculty and student development so that students get adequate and effective instruction in this area and appropriate and instructive assessments of their work.   

2)     Has the institution described the relationship between the focus of the plan and student learning?  Research shows that students who are required to write and speak about issues learn that information in more depth, understand the context for those issues, and retain better what they have learned than they do if they are presented with that same information in classroom lectures. Students who are appropriately instructed about preparing those writing and speaking assignments, and who receive effective feedback not only complete those assignments effectively but also improve their speaking and writing skills so they are more likely to be successful with such assignments in the future, both in the classroom and in the “real world.”

3)     Has the institution provided relevant and appropriate goals and objectives to improve student learning?   [Needs to be done]     

4)     Has the institution provided a comprehensive and clear analysis of the crucial importance of the Plan for improving the learning environment?  [Same as #2??]

5)     Has the institution identified the benefits to be derived from the QEP?  [Overall question??]

 

Part 2.  Institutional Capability for the Initiation and Continuation of the Plan

 

1.     Has the institution provided a time line for implementing and completing the QEP? Over the course of the next two to three years, we should hire the new faculty member, increase tutoring hours in the Speaking Center, schedule more sections of Rhetoric 210 and offer Rhetoric 310 every year instead of every other year, and begin to schedule workshops each year until we have reached our goal.  

2.     Has the institution assigned qualified individuals to administer and oversee its improvement?  Professor Claire Deal and the newly hired individual would work with the Director of the Rhetoric Program and others in the Rhetoric Program in order to accomplish our goals.  

3.     Has the institution provided evidence of sufficient financial and physical resources to implement, sustain, and complete the QEP? The “costing-out” list is attached below. Some of the expenses listed are for potential broader-based projects (renovating a building for office space) or for projects (like the symposia) that already have funding one way or another at the college.

4.     Has the institution identified relevant internal and external measures to evaluate the Plan?  We need to begin the process of defining goals in this area and [perhaps] developing a 6-point scale (or multiple 6-point scales) to help the faculty assess students’ speaking assignments and to help faculty members instruct students in this area. In constructing such a grading rubric (or rubrics) we can draw on rubrics already in place at other institutions. Eventually, this branch of the Rhetoric Program would be evaluated when the program as a whole comes up for its regular external evaluation; in the meantime, the Rhetoric staff, the Assessment Committee, and the Dean of the Faculty would be charged with assessing any progress we make with developing an oral rhetoric program.

5.     Has the institution identified an internal system for evaluating the QEP and monitoring its progress?  We could think about a speaking assessment that would parallel the RPE, but a more likely cross-curricular opportunity to assess students’ work would be in senior projects in the majors. We could also survey departments to determine changes in faculty members’ use and assessment of oral assignments, or examine syllabi to make this detemination.

6.     Has the institution described how the results of the evaluation of the QEP will be used to improve student learning?  [Again, see #2 in Part 1.]

 

Part 3.  Broad Based Involvement of the Community

 

1.     Has the institution described the methods used for the development of the QEP?  

2.     Has the institution demonstrated that all aspects of its community—faculty, staff, students, board members, and administrators—were involved in the development of the QEP?

 

Conclusions

 

This proposal for an item in the QEP will appeal to appeal to current students—who on evaluations related to the recent Rhetoric Program evaluation called for more instruction in speaking—and the alumni—who on the Rhetoric Program surveys made an even stronger case for developing this curricular area. The Trustees have on several occasions also stated their support for enhancing our work in oral rhetoric. Some members of the faculty believe that the speaking assignments they already give in their classes present students with sufficient instruction and experiences in oral rhetoric, but many see a need for students to have many such experiences in their careers here. Overall, most faculty admit that they include too few oral assignments in their classes, and that students encounter few of the many types of oral assignments as they make their way through the curriculum. All too often (though, of course not always), what is happening across our curriculum is that “a speech” or “a presentation” is being assigned, but students are being given little or no guidance as they prepare that speech, and then the assessment of that assignment comes only in the form of a letter grade with little other explation of what the student did or did not do well (some oral work is not even graded or assessed in any other way). Such experiences hold little educational value for students.

 

The fact is that, with only one faculty member who has training and credentials in this area, opportunities for students, and for training faculty to help students, are limited. Prof. Deal offers two sections of Rhetoric 210 each semester, but enrollments in these classes must be limited to 16 in order for the students to have the number of opportunities that they need to develop their public speaking skills; Rhetoric 310 is currently offered only once every other year. In addition, the Speaking Center staffing and, therefore, hours, are limited, and Prof. Deal has only so much time to offer workshops and to consult individually with faculty members.

 

The Rhetoric staff needs to construct clear goals and objectives in oral rhetoric to match those that describe our goals for students’ written work. We can begin that work, and we can also begin the work of constructing a grading scale for oral work. But until there is at least one other full-time professional in this field, and money for external speakers and regular workshops, carrying out those goals will be nearly impossible.

 

This proposal does require significant funding; however, if it is approved, the potential educational pay-off for students would be truly significant: students would gain in their ability to understand material and also to retain what they learn, and at the same time, their speaking skills (one of the skills, along with writing, most highly valued in the marketplace and in graduate programs) would improve. The fact that we have one professional in this area already, and that she has done much to set up a usable Speaking Center and to hold occasional workshops (and that the features already established are set up to parallel the writing component of the Rhetoric Program) means that what the college needs to do is simply enhance what is already in place to accomplish our goals. This proposal is not only doable in five years but also would truly work to improve student learning at the College.

 

Changes Required and Outcomes Expected:

 

1.  Create a second tenure-track position in Oral Rhetoric in order to 1) offer more speech classes (both basic and advanced classes) taught by experts in this field; 2) offer more hours of faculty tutoring in the Speaking Center; 3) offer more faculty development in order to enable faculty in all disciplines to include a variety of speaking assignments in their classes and possibly even to teach Rhetoric 210

 

Explanation:

                  1) Offer more speech classes (both basic and advanced classes) taught by experts in this field. While we now offer extensive instruction in writing, our offerings in speaking are, comparatively, quite limited. Currently, we offer two sections (with 16 students per class) each fall and each spring of Rhetoric 210: Public Speaking and one section (with 14 students) of Rhetoric 310: Advanced Public Speaking in the fall of odd-numbered years. An additional faculty member in this position could double these numbers or allow us to offer a wider variety of advanced classes in this field (or to add in a rotation of topics for Rhetoric 401: Topics in Rhetorical Theory and History).

                  2) Offer more hours of faculty tutoring in the Speaking Center. Only one professional is available to serve as a tutor in the Speaking Center, as opposed to the three faculty members who tutor in the Writing Center. Demand for tutorials has been rising over the past several years, and more speaking assignments in classes across the curriculum will only add to that demand. Especially given the dangers and the prevalence of speech anxiety, the Speaking Center is a key element to the oral rhetoric program at HSC.

                  3) Offer more faculty development in order to enable faculty in all disciplines to include a variety of speaking assignments in their classes and possibly even to teach Rhetoric 210. Over the past twenty-five years (since the establishment of the Rhetoric Program in 1978), faculty members in disciplines across the curriculum have invested considerable thought and effort into developing effective writing assignments, guiding students through the process of writing successful essays, and assessing the students’ work in educationally effective ways. A variety of faculty workshops conducted by faculty members in the Rhetoric Program or by invited experts has aided this process. But efforts in terms of helping faculty develop good oral assignments, guiding students through the process of developing those assignments, and effectively assessing those assignments have been minimal, given the inevitable limitations of the time and energy of a single professional in the field. Faculty need to be trained and supported through workshops and individual consultation if they are to find ways to help “students . . . [learn how to] express ideas and solutions effectively in writing and speaking” (Core Curriculum Goals).

 

Position Description:  

Generalist to teach courses in beginning and advanced public speaking. Depending on area(s) of expertise, courses such as persuasion and argumentation, political rhetoric, small group communication, communication theory, etc. are possible. Expertise in Speaking in the Disciplines (particularly in the natural or social sciences), a strong background in the liberal arts, and experience in the use of instructional technology in oral rhetoric preferred.

 

2.  Provide funds for faculty development workshops, for symposia, for speech contests, and for visiting speakers and other experts in order to increase awareness on the part of faculty and students of the importance of oral rhetoric in HSC’s liberal arts educational program and to create the sense of College-wide “ownership” of this aspect of the Rhetoric Program.

Costs Associated With This Proposal:

 

I.             Hiring a tenure-track professor

                                   

                                    •Salary                                     $45,000

                                   

                                    •Basic benefits                                    $11,500

                                    Other benefits:

                                    •Moving expenses          $1,500

                                    •Travel allowance          $1,000

                                    •Library allowance        $5,000   

 

                                    TOTAL SALARY AND BENEFITS =                               $64, 000                                

                                   

                                    Other related costs:

                                    •Costs related to search                                 $4,000

 

                                    •Costs related to setting up a new office

                                                      •Furniture                                                $5,000

                                                      •Computer/printer                            $2,000

                                                      •Renovation of office bldg.      $5,000

 

                                    TOTAL EXTRA COSTS                                                                $16,000

                                    GRAND TOTAL                                                                                   $80,000

 

II.          Conducting faculty workshops (these expenses would repeat every year)

                                   

                  Two six-hour-long faculty workshops, each with 15 participants

 

                                    •Stipends, @ $75.00 per participant                                       $2,250

                                    •Food (coffee/pastries @ 5.00 per person; lunch @ $12.00 per person)                                                                                                                                                                                             $510

                                    •Materials (videos, photocopies)                                                $500

 

                                    GRAND TOTAL                                                                                   $3,260

 

III.        Other events aimed at faculty and student development

                                   

                Speech contests (these expenses would repeat every year)

                                    •Prizes, @ $100.00 per winner                                                   $200

 

                  Visiting speakers or workshop leaders (one each year)

                                    •Honorarium                                                                                               $3,000

                                    •Travel expenses                                                                                     $2,000

 

                  Symposia (one every three years with a focus or partial focus on oral rhetoric)

                                    •Speakers and other related expenses                                     $10,000

 

                                    GRAND TOTAL                                                                                   $15,200

 

                                    OVERALL GRAND TOTAL                                                  $98,460

QEP Proposal: Enhance Oral Rhetoric

 

PROS:

 

• Directly reflects the      College’s goals for its core curriculum.
• No curricular changes, with      respect to requirements.
• There is an existing      (parallel) structure for this program, in written rhetoric; thus, little      real adjustment in structure or organization will be necessary.
• There is evidence to support      the need for enhancement of instruction in oral rhetoric (Speaking Center      evaluations; comments by Trustees, alumni, and potential employers; but not      evidence in the NSSE results—see below)
• Proposed program is affordable      (estimated annual cost of approximately $100K, representing approximately      $2M in endowment).
• Proposed program is straightforward,      thus the plan should be easy to develop.
• Plan is directly related to      enhancing student learning.
• Can be carried out within five      years.
• Can be “sold” with relative      ease to the Trustees—should get their buy-in.

 

 

CONS:

 

• Already have such a program,      and a staff person/faculty member to lead it.
• According to some faculty, we      are already doing enough instruction in and support of oral rhetoric.
• Plan only enhances what we’re      already doing decently (or even quite well), and does not represent a      truly new initiative. Lacks boldness.
• Empire building by the current      Rhetoric Program faculty, directors. (??)
• Plan requires adding new      faculty with other needs for new faculty for existing programs or      departments may be just as (or even more) important. Pushes this faculty     position ahead of competing requests that have been on the table much      longer.
• Space limitations: need both      office space for the new faculty member (when we have virtually no office      space to spare), and may require a new and larger speaking center (with no      new place for it to go).
• Plan likely will not get the      full and enthusiastic support of all of the faculty, and there may      be some (perhaps small amount of) highly vocal opposition.