Arguments For Another Definition Of Critical Thinking

Inquiry: The Journal of the Virginia Community Colleges
Volume 20 | Issue 1 Article 3
2016
Oral Communication Competency Across the
Virginia Community College System: A Faculty-
Designed Assessment
Lindsey Interlante MPA, MA,
Cynthia De Riemer PhD, cderiemer@reynolds.edu
Philip Tirpak MA, ptirpak@nvcc.edu
Araceli Palomino MA, apalomino@nvcc.edu
Follow this and additional works at: https://commons.vccs.edu/inquiry
Part of the Higher Education Commons, and the Higher Education and Teaching Commons
This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Digital Commons @ VCCS. It has been accepted for inclusion in Inquiry: The Journal of the
Virginia Community Colleges by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ VCCS. For more information, please contact tcassidy@vccs.edu.
Recommended Citation
Interlante, L., De Riemer, C., Tirpak, P., & Palomino, A. (2016). Oral Communication Competency Across the Virginia Community
College System: A Faculty-Designed Assessment. Inquiry: The Journal of the Virginia Community Colleges, 20 (1). Retrieved from
https://commons.vccs.edu/inquiry/vol20/iss1/3

The Journal of the Virginia Community Colleges | 5
Oral Communication Competency Across
the Virginia Community College System: A
Faculty-Designed Assessment
LINDSEY INTERLANTE, MPA, MA
CYNTHIA DE RIEMER, PhD
ARACELI PALOMINO, MA
PHILIP C. TIRPAK, MA
In today’s increasingly competitive market, colleges are constantly striving
to ensure that graduates are proficient in the skills they need to succeed in the
workplace. Of these competencies, the ability
to communicate effectively is often cited as
the most critical skill for college graduates to
acquire. Communication is frequently named
as a top skill by future employers and appears
on a variety of “must-have” lists from both
inside and outside academe. A recent Forbes
article, “The 10 Skills Employers Most Want,”
(Adams, 2013), specifically cited verbal
communication skills as essential, along with
team building and influencing others which
are skills also rooted in a graduate’s ability to
communicate. In a survey of former students
from southern Land Grant Universities, Zekeri
(2004) found that respondents identified skills in oral communications as the
top competency of the 13 skills most needed for career success. Further, with
the recognition that a global economy is now a critical reality, Billing (2003)
finds that international stakeholders (employers, business councils, and the
like) from the United Kingdom, other European countries, New Zealand, and
the United States all rank communication skills, “as the most important skill
valued by stakeholders in most countries surveyed” (p. 343).
While few would argue against the need for communication skill acquisition,
the assessment of our community college graduates for their level of competency
is a topic of discussion, research and debate. This article will describe a full-
scale oral communication assessment conducted by the Virginia Community
College System (VCCS) during the 2013-14 academic year. Key components
of this assessment were faculty involvement at all stages of planning and
implementation, as well as collaboration with assessment coordinators and
lead staff personnel throughout the process. At times, mandated assessments
are viewed as the responsibility of assessment personnel with little faculty
input. The assessment plan discussed here demonstrates that assessment can
be a shared endeavor in which results can be understood and used to inform
curricular planning by all major stakeholders.
At times, mandated
assessments are viewed as the
responsibility of assessment
personnel with little faculty
input. The assessment plan
discussed here demonstrates
that assessment can be a shared
endeavor in which results can
be understood and used to
inform curricular planning
by all major stakeholders.
1
Interlante et al.: Oral Communication Competency
Published by Digital Commons @ VCCS, 2016

6 | Inquiry
BACKGROUND
State-Mandated Core Competency Assessment Requirements
The Code of Virginia (§23-9.6:1.10) requires the Virginia Community College
System (VCCS) to develop, in cooperation with the State Council of Higher
Education for Virginia (SCHEV), a program for the assessment of student
achievement. Each year, the VCCS assesses general education outcomes for
its students and has developed a schedule for assessing the competency of
graduates in each of the six areas specified in the Virginia Public Higher
Education Policy on the Assessment of Student Learning (Virginia Community
College System, 2014). The areas being assessed over the six-year cycle roughly
correspond to the general education goals and student learning outcomes as set
forth in section 5.0.2.2 of the VCCS Policy Manual. The six-year assessment
schedule is shown in Table 1.
Table 1
VCCS ASSESSMENT CYCLE (2010-11 TO 2015-16)
Area of Competency Reporting Year
Scientific Reasoning 2010-11
Information technology literacy 2011-12
Oral communication 2012-13
Critical thinking 2013-14
Quantitative reasoning 2014-15
Written communication 2015-16
At the conclusion of the cycle in 2015-2016, the VCCS will provide a description
of actions taken by the community colleges in response to the results of the
assessments in order to improve student learning. Such actions may include
curricular changes, improvements to assessment methodologies, or other actions.
Assessment of Oral Communication
According to the VCCS Policy Manual (section 5.0.2.2.4), “A competent
communicator can interact with others using all forms of communication,
resulting in understanding and being understood.” The Policy Manual further
identifies six components of information literacy in which degree graduates
should be able to demonstrate competency. Specifically, degree graduates should
be able to:
A. Understand and interpret complex materials;
B. Assimilate, organize, develop, and present
an idea formally and informally;
C. Use standard English;
D. Use appropriate verbal and non-verbal responses
in interpersonal relations and group discussions;
E. Use listening skills;
F. Recognize the role of culture in communication.
2
Inquiry: The Journal of the Virginia Community Colleges, Vol. 20, Iss. 1 [2016], Art. 3

METHODOLOGY
Assessment Selection and Buy-In
In the previous Oral Communication Competency (OCC) assessment conducted
in 2007, VCCS graduates’ oral communication skills were assessed using the
Test of Oral Communication Skills (TOCS), a computerized, multiple-choice
test developed collaboratively by the James Madison University (JMU) School
of Communication Studies (SCOM) and the JMU Center for Assessment
and Research Studies (CARS). Even before the 2012 assessment selection
process got underway, faculty and administrators across the VCCS voiced
concern about using a multiple-choice instrument to assess oral communication
competency. Faculty who teach Communication Studies and Theatre (CST)
within the VCCS were among the most active in seeking alternatives to a
computer-generated test.
In 2010, CST colleagues from across the VCCS gathered for a one day workshop
to explore alternative strategies for the next OCC assessment (Tirpak, 2010).
In 2011 with funding from a VCCS faculty development grant, three faculty
representing small, medium, and large size VCCS colleges designed and
tested a pilot method for conducting oral communication competency using
a nationally recognized rubric for evaluating a public speech (De Riemer,
2011). (Other communication scholars and faculty had successfully used a
similar method for assessing students at the course level. For instance, see
Dunbar, Brooks, & Kubicka-Miller, 2006.) The findings from the 2011 pilot
were presented at the biannual CST Peer Group Meeting (De Riemer, 2011),
which resulted in peer group support for revising the next OCC assessment.
CST faculty again presented findings of their pilot project and information
on peer group support at the 2012 New Horizons Conference (De Riemer &
Palomino, 2012).
In response to these efforts and concerns, the VCCS Office of Institutional
Research and Effectiveness partnered with CST faculty experts experienced
in using the Competent Speaker Speech Evaluation Form, a standardized and
tested instrument used to assess public speaking competency in higher education.
The instrument was designed by the National Communication Association for
several purposes, including classroom evaluation, placement, instruction and
advisement of students, and the generation of assessment data (Morreale,
Moore, Taylor, Surges-Tatum & Hulbert-Johnson, 1993). The rubric classifies
eight competencies; for each of these areas, scorers must identify a student’s
level of performance: unsatisfactory (0), satisfactory (1), or excellent (2).
Table 2 identifies each of the eight competencies on the Competent Speaker
Speech Evaluation form, as well as the corresponding VCCS General Education
Competency mapped by the faculty experts. One competency, “Using listening
skills” was not included in this assessment.
3

8 | Inquiry
Table 2
COMPETENT SPEAKER SPEECH EVALUATION FORM AND
CORRESPONDING VCCS GENERAL EDUCATION COMPETENCIES
Competent Speaker Speech
Evaluation Form Competencies
Corresponding VCCS
General Education Competency Coverage
1 Chooses and narrows a topic
appropriately for the audience and
occasion
A. Understand and interpret complex
materials
25%
2 Communicates the thesis/specific
purpose in a manner appropriate for the
audience and occasion
3 Provides supporting material (including
electronic and non-electronic
presentational aids) appropriate for the
B. Assimilate, organize, develop,
and present an idea formally and
informally;
25%
4 Uses an organizational pattern
appropriate to the topic, audience,
occasion and purpose
5 Uses language appropriate to the
C. Use standard English
12.5%
6 Uses vocal variety in rate, pitch and
intensity (volume) to heighten and
maintain interest appropriate to the
D. Use appropriate verbal and non-
verbal responses in interpersonal
relations and group discussions;
25%
7 Uses physical behaviors that support the
verbal message
8 Recognized the role of culture and
communication. overall performance in
audience/speaker analysis
F. Recognize the role of culture in
communication. 12.5%
Pilot Implementation
In October 2012, the decision to test efficacy of this assessment instrument
within the VCCS was made. While the NCA rubric was widely accepted within
the communication academic community, this method for assessment had never
been attempted at the scale of a system-wide assessment. Thus three VCCS
colleges elected to participate in an Oral CommunicationAssessment Pilot using
the proposed assessment method: Blue Ridge Community College (BRCC),
Eastern Shore Community College (ESCC), and Patrick Henry Community
College (PHCC). Students graduating in Fall 2012 with an associate degree
were eligible to participate and were asked to record a three- to five-minute
speech based on the following prompt:
The general purpose of this assessment is to demonstrate your ability
to communicate effectively. Prepare and deliver a 3-5 minute speech
to inform an audience about your personal career or educational
goals. Provide basic information about your topic and describe the
duties, requirements, activities, and unique features of your career or
educational goals. Help your audience understand more about how you
personally came to choose this career path or educational goal.
4

Students had the option of recording their speech on campus (with staff
assistance) or completing the assessment remotely using web conferencing
technologies. A total of 21 videos were collected during the pilot, and nearly
all of them were completed in-person. Of the assessment submissions, only
15 were deemed “scorable,” meaning that the student could be both seen and
heard effectively in the recording.
Overall, the pilot implementation was a success, and the decision was made
to continue with a system-wide implementation of the oral communication
assessment. System office staff worked with the faculty experts and college
personnel to streamline the development of the assessment process, investigate
best practices, finalize a coding manual, and create video recording guidelines.
Full Implementation
The full implementation of the oral communication assessment was administered
to selected students at all 23 colleges during the Spring 2013 semester. Students
who applied for graduation with an associate degree in 2012-13 were eligible
to participate in the assessment, and colleges were instructed to administer
the test to at least 25 graduation applicants. VCCS guidelines suggest that the
test could be administered to the following:
a) students enrolled in capstone courses
b) students participating in single-setting test administrations
c) students assessed in a proctored testing center environment.
Differences in Implementation and Challenges
Given the challenges of remote recording during the pilot implementation,
colleges were asked to administer all assessments on campus. Beyond
this requirement, however, each institution’s implementation of the oral
communication assessment varied greatly. Some VCCS institutions require
completion of core competency assessment as a graduation requirement, and
this requirement spurred participation within these colleges. Other colleges used
varying incentives to increase student participation. Strategies to recruit students
to participate in the assessment varied significantly across the system.
Another major variation in this assessment involved the technology used to
record students’ speeches. The System Office provided all colleges with the
opportunity to record speeches using Blackboard Collaborate; however, several
institutions opted to use other technologies for the assessment. The pros and cons
of each technology are detailed in Table 3 below.
5

10 | Inquiry
Table 3
TECHNOLOGIES USED TO RECORD STUDENT SPEECHES
Technology Advantages Challenges
Blackboard • Available to all colleges • Difficult for first-time users
Collaborate • Content pre-load of prompt
and instructions
• Student could complete
remotely
• Limited “view” of student
presenting speech
• Long load times at scoring
retreat
Panopto • Strong video quality
• Students able to add electronic
presentation materials
• Not available or licensed at all
colleges in VCCS
YouTube • Easy for users
• Compatible with Flip Cams
distributed to colleges
• Privacy concerns
Change to the Original Assignment Prompt
After the pilot implementation, faculty experts chose to add a sentence to the
prompt, in order to provide students with context about the audience:
The general purpose of this assessment is to demonstrate your ability
to communicate effectively. Prepare and deliver a 3-5 minute speech
to inform an audience about your personal career or educational
goals. Provide basic information about your topic and describe the
duties, requirements, activities, and unique features of your career or
educational goals. Help your audience understand more about how
you personally came to choose this career path or educational goal.
Assume a general audience who potentially has influence over an
employment or academic decision that could affect your life.
Collaboration and Videos Collected
System office staff and the faculty experts leading the assessment worked
closely with colleges throughout the Spring semester to facilitate the recording
of students’ speeches. At the conclusion of the assessment period, a total of
598 videos were submitted for scoring.
6

SCORING RETREAT
To score the assessment, the System Office hosted a scoring retreat in April
2013. Each college was asked to identify at least one faculty member willing
to assist with the scoring of submitted videos. The faculty experts experienced
in using the Competent Speaker Speech Evaluation Form were instrumental
in training scorers on the rubric.
Format of the Retreat
The retreat was split into four rounds of scoring over the course of two days.
The 24 participating faculty members were paired in teams of two and rotated
to a new partner each round. Scorers evaluated approximately 10-15 videos
per round, plus a control video. To evaluate the inter-rater reliability of each
pair, the faculty experts scored four “control” videos prior to the retreat,
and scorers were shown one of these videos in each round. Faculty did not
evaluate submissions from their own college and were unable to see identifying
information about the student other than the submitted video. Scorers were
trained to agree on scores for each of the eight competencies on the rubric and
to self-mediate in the event of a disagreement. Faculty scorers participating in
the Scoring Event were trained not to factor in differences in video and sound
quality while scoring students’ speeches, and videos with compromised quality
were deemed unscorable in an effort not to bias the assessment.
DETERMINATION OF PROFICIENCY CUT SCORE
A Standard Setting meeting was held shortly after the Scoring retreat so that
faculty scorers and system office staff could unpack what it means for students
to be proficient in oral communication. Preliminary analysis of the data was
conducted to examine score distribution, and faculty engaged in debate around
how many unsatisfactory scores students could receive on rubric items and
still be considered proficient in oral communication.
Faculty participants agreed that a proficient student should earn no more than
three unsatisfactory (0) scores on rubric items, which generally translated to
a mean competency score of 0.625 or better. Table 4 below shows students’
mean competency scores by number of unsatisfactory ratings for all students
participating in the assessment.
Faculty participants in the Standard Setting strongly advocated for a goal
mean competency score of 0.75 or above for future implementations of the
assessment, with the goal that students achieve satisfactory (1) scores in at
least six of the eight competency areas.
7

12 | Inquiry
Table 4
MEAN COMPETENCY SCORE BY NUMBER OF UNSATISFACTORY ITEMS ON RUBRIC
Mean
Competency
Score
Number of Unsatisfactory Items on Competent Speaker Form Items
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
0 — — — — — — — — 100%
0.125 — — — — — — — 100% —
0.25 — — — — — — 100% — —
0.375 — — — — — 100% — — —
0.5 — — — — 98% 2% — — —
0.625 — — — 96% 4% — — — —
0.75 — — 89% 11% — — — — —
0.875 — 90% 8% 2% — — — — —
1 81% 14% 3% 2% — — — — —
1.125 86% — 14% — — — — — —
1.25 68% 26% 5% — — — — — —
1.375 88% 13% — — — — — — —
1.5 100% — — — — — — — —
1.625 100% — — — — — — — —
1.75 79% 21% — — — — — — —
1.875 100% — — — — — — — —
2 100% — — — — — — — —
RESULTS AND ANALYSIS
Results of the Oral Communication Assessment were submitted to the VCCS
system office for system-wide analysis. Test-takers were matched with the
2012-2013 degree file to ensure that only students who graduated by Summer
2013 would be counted in the analysis. Additionally, only those students whose
video submissions were deemed scorable at the retreat were included in the
analysis. For those colleges that administered the assessment to more than 25
students, a random sample of 25 graduates was taken when calculating system-
wide averages. A total of 459 scorable videos were evaluated at the Scoring
Retreat; 436 students were included in the random sample.
LIMITATIONS
There are several limitations to the data collected for this assessment of oral
communication. The oral communication assessment was a low-stakes test for
most respondents. Students were not graded on their speeches, and although
several institutions mandate that students complete an assessment as a part of
their graduation requirements, performance on the assessment had no impact
on a student’s ability to graduate.
8

DEMOGRAPHICS
To help determine how well the population of VCCS associate degree graduates
is represented by students who completed the Oral Communication Assessment,
comparisons were made between the gender, race/ethnicity, age, and degree
type composition of the two groups. Comparisons of the demographic groups
for test takers and the general population are shown in Table 5. As the data
suggest, graduates completing this assessment did not significantly differ in
demographic categories when compared to the characteristics of all graduating
students during this year.
Table 5
DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF ASSESSMENT PARTICIPANTS AND POPULATION
All Test Takers
Students Who Did
Not Participate In
Assessment
All Graduating
Students
N % N % N %
Gender
Male 170 34.3 6,865 39.6 7,035 39.5
Female 325 65.7 10,456 60.4 10,781 60.5
Race/Ethnicity
White 370 74.7 10,947 63.2 11,317 63.5
Black 81 16.4 2,832 16.4 2,913 16.4
Other 44 8.9 3,542 20.4 3,586 20.1
Age
24 or younger 290 58.6 9,219 53.2 9,509 53.4
Older than 24 205 41.4 8,102 46.8 8,307 46.6
Degree Type
College Transfer 288 58.2 11,531 66.6 11,819 66.3
Career Technical 207 41.8 5,790 33.4 5,997 33.7
Cohort
All Graduating Students 495 100 17,321 100 17,816 100
SYSTEM-WIDE RESULTS
Independent t-tests were conducted on both the mean competency score and
mean scores by competency for the Oral Communication Assessment. Table 6
provides the mean and standard deviation for overall score and for item on the
Competent Speaker Evaluation Form, as well as results of the t-tests. Table 6
shows the percentage of students who scored at or above the 0.625 threshold
on the assessment overall.
The average score on oral communication assessments for VCCS degree
graduates is estimated to be .8015 (Table 4), which is above the minimum
proficiency score of 0.625. Based on this cut score, over 70% of VCCS graduates’
oral communication skills were at least minimally proficient (see Table 7).
9

14 | Inquiry
Table 6
MEAN SCORES OVERALL AND BY STANDARD
Graduates in
Random Sample Mean
Standard
Deviation
90% Confidence
Interval (N=436)
t-Value Probability
Upper Lower
Mean
Competency
Score
0.8015 0.4355 0.7671 0.8359 8.46 <.0001
Competency 1 0.7333 0.6387 0.6829 0.7838 3.54 0.0004
Competency 2 0.7982 0.6543 0.7465 0.8498 5.53 <.0001
Competency 3 0.7701 0.6386 0.7196 0.8206 4.74 <.0001
Competency 4 0.6216 0.6549 0.5699 0.6733 -0.11 0.9127
Competency 5 1.0276 0.4064 0.9955 1.0597 20.66 <.0001
Competency 6 0.7362 0.6115 0.688 0.7845 3.8 0.0002
Competency 7 1.03 0.4625 0.9934 1.0665 18.24 <.0001
Competency 8 0.6972 0.6215 0.6482 0.7463 2.43 0.0156
Table 7
PERCENT OF STUDENTS SCORING ABOVE MINIMUM PROFICIENCY LEVEL
Graduates in
OCA Random
Sample Passed* Failed
Passing
Rate
436 307 129 70.41
* To pass, students had to earn a mean score on the assessment of 0.625 or greater.
To achieve the cut off for the pass rate, the speech provided by each graduate
completing this assessment had to receive at least a satisfactory rating in any
five of the eight competencies. The eight competencies were weighted equally.
Analysis of the mean scores on each of the Competent Speaker Evaluation
Form items shows that VCCS graduates performed highest on Competency
5 (uses language appropriate to the audience and occasion) and Competency
7 (uses physical behaviors that support the verbal message). Relating this
finding to Table 2, Competency 5 corresponds to the VCCS General Education
Competency of using standard English; Competency 7 corresponds to using
appropriate verbal and non-verbal responses in interpersonal relations and
group discussions. Given that this assessment was based on a recorded speech
focused on the graduates’ personal academic goals with the target audience
identified as individuals who could potentially have influence over employment
or academic decisions, the two competencies with highest scores appear
appropriate.
However, graduates scored lowest on Competency 4 (uses an organizational
pattern appropriate to the topic, audience, occasion and purpose). This competency
relates to the VCCS General Education Competency of being able to assimilate,
10

organize, develop, and present an idea formally and informally. The assessment
results suggest that VCCS students could benefit from additional attention
and curricular development directly addressing the ability to organize and to
present ideas in a verbal setting. Specific instructional objectives relating to
the structure and design of different kinds of presentations could address this
deficiency.
Moreover, while the 70% pass rate on this assessment is acceptable, further
thought must be given to the 30% of participants whose speech did not merit
satisfactory scores on at least five competencies. A system-wide assessment
such as this one may not have the ability to focus attention on this smaller
subset. Individual campus assessment activities could fruitfully focus on
course-imbedded oral communication competency assessments to identify specific
student needs regarding all of the competencies, including Competency 4.
Faculty experts who led the assessment’s development also presented the
results of this assessment to the CST Peer Group in 2013 (Palomino, Tirpak
& Interlante) and solicited feedback to guide future OCC assessments.
Specifically, peer group faculty recommended testing the assessment with
a prompt that is more structured to guide students’ ability to organize their
speeches. For instance, one suggestion was to ask students to describe a
specific number of goals, thus limiting the broader content of the original
prompt. Others suggested that future OCC assessment be designed to be course-
imbedded thus eliminating the somewhat artificial environment of a recorded
speech not connected to an actual classroom learning activity.
CONCLUSIONS
The best way to conduct oral communication competency assessment within
the VCCS became the subject of discussion, debate and collaboration among
Communication Studies and Theatre faculty who advocated for a more
performance-based method that addressed actual speaking competencies.
CST faculty were able to use multiple resources such as faculty development
grants to conduct research and sponsor workshops, peer group meetings, and
a presentation at the annual VCCS-sponsored New Horizons conference to
build faculty consensus across the 23 colleges within the system. Implementing
these multiple methods to communicate and discuss faculty concerns and
suggested alternative assessment methods increased both awareness and
cooperation.
Consequently, an assessment methodology, developed and tested by VCCS CST
faculty using the nationally accepted NCACompetent Speaker Evaluation Form,
was ultimately adopted by the majority of VCCS Assessment Coordinators.
Faculty experts emphasized the need to use a live speech in real time to create
a meaningful assessment of oral communication competency. The VCCS Office
of Institutional Effectiveness coordinated the assessment implementation by
sponsoring a faculty training retreat; addressing the practical details associated
with recording and submitting live speeches; and by conducting the final
scoring retreat and analyzing the data collected. This assessment technique had
11

16 | Inquiry
not been used for OCC assessment within the VCCS before, and the efficacy
of the technique was thoroughly vetted.
The results of this assessment indicate that over 70% of students who graduate
with an associate degree from a Virginia community college have proficient
oral communication skills. Although a majority of students in the sample scored
above the minimum proficiency level, further analysis needs to be conducted to
determine why 30% of students still scored below the minimum proficiency level.
Particular emphasis should be placed on investigation of students’ performance
on Standard 4 (uses an organizational pattern appropriate to the topic, audience,
occasion and purpose).
Ultimately, this OCC method allowed faculty, assessment professionals, and
administrators to work together in new ways and facilitated increased levels of
collaboration throughout the system. Because the assessment instrument was
well understood by faculty, plans for improving instruction and addressing
student weaknesses can now go forward with focus and appropriate strategy.
REFERENCES
Adams,S.(2013,November10).The ten skills employers most want in 20-something
employees. Forbes. Retrieved August 25, 2014.
Billing, D. (2003). Generic cognitive abilities in higher education: An
international analysis of skills sought by stakeholders. Compare: A Journal
of Comparative Education, 33(3), 335-350.
De Riemer, C. (2011, November). OCC assessment pilot project. Paper presented at
the meeting of the VCCS Communications Studies Peer Group in Staunton, VA.
De Riemer, C., & Palomino,A. (2012, March). Oral communication competency
assessment: Report of pilot project. Paper presented at the meeting of the
VCCS New Horizons conference in Roanoke, VA.
De Riemer, C. (2011, December). Planning for VCCS oral communication
competency assessment: A three-college pilot of a proposed method. Paper
presented at the VCCS Paul Lee Professional Development Workshop in
Richmond, VA.
Dunbar, N. E. (2006). Oral communication skills in higher education: Using
a performance-based evaluation rubric to assess communications skills.
Innovative Higher Education, 31(2), 115-128.
Morreale, S. P., Moore, M.R., Taylor, K. P., Surges-Tatum, D., & Hulbert-
Johnson, R. (1993). The competent speaker evaluation form [Pamphlet].
Annandale, VA: Speech Communication Association.
Palomino, A., Tirpak, P., & Interlante, L. (2013, November). Pot of gold! results
of the VCCS oral communication competency. Paper presented at the meeting
of the VCCS Communications Studies Peer Group in Richmond, VA.
12

Tirpak, P. (2010, October). “What’s up DOCC?”: Developing an assessment of
the oral communication competencies. Paper presented at the VCCS Paul
Lee Professional Development Workshop in Richmond, VA.
VCCS policy manual (Vol. 5.0.2.2). (1999). Richmond, VA: Virginia Community
College System.
Zekeri, A. A. (2004). College curriculum competencies and skills former
students found essential to their careers. College Student Journal, 38(3),
412-422.
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Lindsey Interlante currently serves as the Executive Director of the Colonial
Academic Alliance; she previously served as the Director of Institutional
Effectiveness at the Virginia Community College System, leading assessment,
accreditation, and strategic planning efforts. She held research and policy
positions at the State of Delaware Office of Management and Budget,
University of Delaware’s Institute for Public Administration, the American
Association of Community Colleges, and Drexel University. Lindsey holds
an MPA from University of Delaware and an MA in Geography from Arizona
State University.
Cynthia De Riemer, Ph.D., is Professor of English/Speech at J. Sargeant
Reynolds Community College in Richmond, VA. She is also Program Head for
Communication Studies and Theatre and served as Project Manager with the
NEH-UVA Bridging Cultures in Virginia’s Community Colleges Grant, 2013-
2015. Her research interests include communication core competency, cross
cultural communication and film studies.
Araceli Palomino, M.A., Communication Studies, is an Instructor at
Northern Virginia Community College. Araceli’s primarily teaches intercultural
communication courses. Her current research focuses on the Spanish cultural
identity and values in bullfighting, and on assessing community college students’
public speaking skills.
Philip C. Tirpak, M.A., Communication, is an instructor of Communication
Studies at Northern Virginia Community College. Philip is the First Vice-
President of the International ListeningAssociation and was Convention Planner
for the 36th Annual Convention of the ILA held in Virginia Beach, March 25
- 28, 2015. His work focuses on the practical application of communication
skills to empower individuals to build strong and healthy relationships.
The authors express their appreciation to Dr. Sandra Fulton, formerly
Coordinator of Assessment and Institutional Research at J. Sargeant Reynolds
Community College, for her advice and assistance freely offered throughout
the development of this assessment project.
13

Arguments For Another Definition Of Critical Thinking

More Related Content

Similar to Arguments For Another Definition Of Critical Thinking (20)

More from Brittany Brown (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Arguments For Another Definition Of Critical Thinking