Proposal to Remove Oral Communication from USP

The importance of oral communication At this point, there is widespread agreement

on the importance of oral communication skills

In principle, all UK students should have such training

In fact, in principle, it would be better to have more training – for example, both public speaking and interpersonal communication

So why are we proposing to remove oral communication from USP?

Three major reasons

With current resources, it is not possible to meet course demand

Attempting to meet the demand for oral communication drains resources from the teaching and research missions of the Department of Communication

Oral communication still will be offered for programs that need it and demand will be able to be met

A brief history

Oral communication skills requirement has been a part of USP since its inception in 1988

Five options COM 181, 252, 281, 287 TA 225

Rule change in 1997 permitted alternate paths Approximately 16 identified Nine of these include COM 199

Baselines and assumptions

Originally, planning was based on a first year class of 2,600-2,700 students

Curricula were designed to provide oral communication skills COM 181 – basic public speaking COM 252 – interpersonal communication COM 281 – small group communication COM 287 – persuasive speaking

Class size was set at 22

Changing times

First year class size began increasing in 2000-01 1999-2000, approximately 2,700 2000-01 and 2001-02, approximately 3,000 2002-03 and 2003-04, approximately 3,700

We began scheduling more classes 1995-96 through 1999-00 average sections: 89/year 2000-01: 126/year 2003-04: 138/year

We also increased class size, from 22 to 25, then to 28-30

Impact on resources

New lecturer lines (S.I. #18) Initial request

5.5 lines requested, 3 approved, less than 1 funded Current status

Have received recurring funds for 4.2 lecturers

Devoting TA and other dept. resources Evening/Weekend Growth, Distance Learning

How many students do we serve now? 2003-04, with present resources:

77 sections funded with recurring dollars Lecturers Teaching Assistants

32 funded by EWC and Distance Learning 19 sections funded by Provost with non-recurring 10 sections funded by COM

Total of 138 sections; 3,587 students

How many can we serve next year? 2004-05, with projected resources:

55 sections funded with recurring dollars Lecturers Teaching Assistants

32 funded by EWC and Distance Learning 19 sections funded by Provost with non-recurring 8 sections funded by COM

Total: 114 sections; ~2,964 students

The difference?

24 fewer sections offered/year ~600 fewer students served/year

Demand for oral communication

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

S00 F 00 S 01 F 01 S 02 F 02 S 03

Demand for 181, 252, 281 and 287

Projections for backlog

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

S00 S01 S02 S03 S04 S05 S06

Demand for 181, 252, 281 and 287

What would it take to serve 4,000? Assume a need to serve 90% of student body

TA 225 Alternate paths

Would need 144 sections/year

Implications for lecturer lines SACS is opposed to reliance on PTI’s They also take issue with over-reliance on

TA’s We would need 18 lecturers to cover the

courses Recurring dollars for lecturer salary and

benefits would total ~$596,700.00 Also need funds for equipment, materials

What if we had the money?

There is a lack of qualified personnel Local pool is fully tapped Extremely difficult to attract qualified applicants

Low salary Year-to-year contracts

Insufficient classroom space No office space

Can’t we revise the curriculum? What about large lecture?

We tried that It simply did not work

Still required extensive instructional support for “recitation” sections

Classroom climate negatively impacted

What about COM 199 for everybody? We developed COM 199 for a subset of programs Due to demand, sequencing fails Students tell us they do not get enough practice

Can’t each program teach its own? Presentational assignments certainly are

appropriate in classes across programs However, skills are not being taught Further, instructors lack training in teaching

skills, and they understandably wish to focus on their own discipline

SACS assessment issues cannot be ignored

Additional considerations

The four year graduation contract will require students’ home departments to pay tuition for unavailable classes

Of UK’s benchmarks, only 3 of 17 responding to a survey required oral communication

There is a negative impact on the Department of Communication’s teaching and research missions

Competing demands

The Department of Communication has three instructional missions Oral communication Undergraduate majors

(numbers are increasing again)

Graduate students (doubled this year)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

1994 2003

PCOM & COM Majors

The Department of Communication has a strong research mission One of the top funded social science units

$4.5 million in FY 03 More than $35 million over past 20 years

Health behavior research HIV/AIDS prevention Substance abuse prevention Physician-patient communication

Reallocation of resources

Funds we currently are spending to support oral communication could be reallocated Additional courses for majors could be offered Various research initiatives could be sponsored Graduate students could be better supported Wethington awards (new to “Lexington” campus)

must be covered (~$26K this year) TAs could be reassigned to support faculty

So what are we to do?

It is time to remove the oral communication requirement from USP There will be no “leftover” resources; rather, we

will have the resources needed to meet demand for programs that will continue to require oral communication

We will be able to maintain curricular integrity We will be able to better serve our teaching and

research missions

Concluding thoughts

In a perfect world, every student would have easy access to all required classes Those classes would including training in all oral

communication skills – public speaking, interpersonal, small group

Boundless resources – money, space, and personnel – would make this possible

In a perfect world, faculty would have boundless time and energy To teach and advise To write grant proposals, conduct research and

publish To engage in endless service

Unfortunately, our resources are limited and it is a zero-sum game

We all have been doing more with less for several years now

We are at the point now that it is impossible to complete the oral communication mission for the entire University

We ask for your help to face this reality