Outcomes Data: PhD in Technical Communication and Rhetoric 

As described in “assessment mapping” earlier in this document, we have instituted five points of assessment that all PhD TPPC students must participate in. These are:

  1. Coursework (including seminar papers, projects, and presentations)
  2. Qualifying Exam
  3. Comprehensive Exam
  4. Annual Reviews
  5. Dissertation Proposal Defense
  6. Dissertation Defense

2019-20

A. Outcomes Data from Courses

The Ph.D. assessment requires evaluation of all Ph.D. courses taught in the academic year. The following courses were taught in 2019-2020:
• 7400: Editing
• 7410: Introduction to Technical Communication
• 7420: Usability Studies and Human Factors in Professional Communication
• 7480: Studies in Technology and Writing
• 7830: Introduction to Rhetorical Theory

Year

Total Number of PhD seats 



L1:

Demonstrate mastery of major theoretical and rhetorical contributions to the field.

L2:

Demonstrate field-expertise skills in technology and design. 

L3:

Demonstrate a variety of pedagogical skills and defend pedagogical practices.

L4:

Develop and apply a research method(s) in research projects and dissertation.

Fall 2019 through Summer 2020 19 H:15
M:3
L:1
H:7
M:12
L:0
H:15
M:4
L:0
H:17
M:2
L:0

B. PhD Degree Milestones

5-Yr Span*    

Qualifying Exam  

Annual Exam 

Comprehensive Exam

Internship Presentation 

Dissertation Proposal

Dissertation Defense

2015-2020 7 Passed 
1 Leave of Absence
14 Passed
2 Passed with Distinction
3 Passed with Probation
6 Passed
1 Passed with Distinction

1 Failed
9 Passed*** 8 Passed

7 Passed

2009-2014 8 Passed  4 Passed ***  2 Passed
1 Passed with Distinction
1 Failed 
N/A  2 Passed 

6 Passed 
3 Dropped out

*Data is reported in five-year spans to protect student anonymity. Otherwise, students may recognize themselves and others in the data.
*** This milestone was created in 2014
***More students passed their dissertation proposal than the internship presentation because four students completed their internships before a formal presentation was required. Upon completion of their internship, they proceeded directly to the dissertation proposal.

2018-19

A. Outcomes Data from Courses

Between Fall 2018 and Spring 2019, we offered the following five PhD classes: 

ENGL 7410 Intro to Tech Comm, Walton
ENGL 7440 Cultural Research Methods, Colton
ENGL 7830 Intro to Rhetorical Theory, Colton
ENGL 7860 Teaching Tech Comm, Edenfield
ENGL 7420 Usability Studies and Human Factors in Professional Communication, Moeller

The total number of seats occupied by PhD students in Fall 2016-Summer 2017 classes was 14. Below is a chart that describes how these students performed on the learning objectives

Year

Total Number of PhD seats occupied



L1:

Demonstrate mastery of major theoretical and rhetorical contributions to the field.

L2:

Demonstrate field-expertise skills in technology and design. 

L3:

Demonstrate a variety of pedagogical skills and defend pedagogical practices.

L4:

Develop and apply a research method(s) in research projects and dissertation.

Fall 2018 through Summer 2019 14 H:9
M:4
L:1
H:6
M:8
L:0
H:14
M:0
L:0
H:7
M:4
L:1

B. PhD Degree Milestones

5-Yr Span*    

Qualifying Exam  

Annual Exam 

Comprehensive Exam

Internship Presentation 

Dissertation Proposal

Dissertation Defense

2014-2019 7 Passed 
2 Leave of Absence
2 Passed with Distinction
16 Passed
4 Passed with Probation
2 Passed with Distinction
7 Passed
1 Failed
6 Passed** 10 Passed

7 Passed

2009-2013 7 Passed  N/A 
(This milestone was created in 2014) 
9 Passed  N/A (This milestone was instituted after this 5-yr span) 7 Passed 

5 Passed 

**More students passed their dissertation proposal than the internship presentation because four students completed their internships before a formal presentation was required. Upon completion of their internship, they proceeded directly to the dissertation proposal. 

2017-18

A. Outcomes Data from Courses

Between Fall 2017 and Spring 2018, we offered the following five PhD classes: 

ENGL 7800 Teaching Online, Grant-Davie
ENGL 7400 Advanced Editing, Grant-Davie
ENGL 7460 Studies in Digital Media, Colton
ENGL 7480 Studies in Technology and Writing, Colton
ENGL 7000 Empirical Research Methods, Moeller

The total number of seats occupied by PhD students in Fall 2016-Summer 2017 classes was 12.

Below is a chart that describes how these students performed on the learning objectives

Year

Total Number of PhD seats occupied



L1:

Demonstrate mastery of major theoretical and rhetorical contributions to the field.

L2:

Demonstrate field-expertise skills in technology and design.

L3:

Demonstrate a variety of pedagogical skills and defend pedagogical practices.

L4:

Develop and apply a research method(s) in research projects and dissertation.

Fall 2017 through Summer 2018 12 H:9
M:2
L:1
H:6
M:5
L:1
H:8
M:4
L:0
H:7
M:4
L:1

B. PhD Degree Milestones

5-Yr Span*    

Qualifying Exam  

Annual Exam 

Comprehensive Exam

Internship Presentation 

Dissertation Proposal

Dissertation Defense

2014-2019 5 Passed
2 Leave of Absence
1 Passed with Distinction
13 Passed
4 Passed with Probation
2 Passed with Distinction
8 Passed
1 Failed
6 Passed** 10 Passed

7 Passed

2009-2013 7 Passed  N/A 
(This milestone was created in 2014) 
9 Passed  N/A (This milestone was instituted after this 5-yr span) 7 Passed 

5 Passed 

**More students passed their dissertation proposal than the internship presentation because four students completed their internships before a formal presentation was required. Upon completion of their internship, they proceeded directly to the dissertation proposal.

2016-17 

A. Outcomes Data from Courses

 

Between Fall 2016 and Summer 2017, we offered the following five PhD classes:

ENGL 7410 Walton
ENGL 7830 Moeller
ENGL 7440 Colton
ENGL 7860 Walton
ENGL 7400 Grant-Davie

The total number of seats occupied by PhD students in Fall 2016-Summer 2017 classes was 20.

Below is a chart that describes how these students performed on the learning objectives

Year                              

Total number of PhD seats occupied  

L1:

Demonstrate mastery of major theoretical and rhetorical contributions to the field.

L2:

Demonstrate field-expertise skills in technology and design. 

L3: 

Demonstrate a variety of pedagogical skills and defend pedagogical practices.

L4:

Develop and apply a research method(s) in research projects and dissertation.

Fall 2016 through Summer 2017 13

H: 9

M: 4

L: 0

 

Note that 5 students were included in classes where the data is unavailable due to retirement

H: 6

M: 3

L:4

 

Note that 5 students were included in classes where the data is unavailable due to retirement

H:9

M: 4

L: 0

 

Note that 5 students were included in classes where the data is unavailable due to retirement

H: 9

M: 4

L: 0

 

Note that 5 students were included in classes where the data is unavailable due to retirement

B. Qualifying Exams

 

Between Fall 2011 and Summer 2017, 11 students took qualifying examinations. Below is a table displaying the results of student assessment of qualifying exams. The data is grouped together (rather than presented by year) in this report so that individual students’ performances can’t be identified/discerned. Please note that we are including five years of data in this assessment point in order to protect the identities of students, who might otherwise recognize themselves and others in the data.

Number of students in total who took qualifying exam 

Number who passed qualifying exam with distinction*

*Indicates that student’s performance excels in mastery of all four learning objectives



Number who passed qualifying exam*

*Indicates that student’s performance meet expectations of performance and/or mastery of all four learning objectives.

Number who passed qualifying exam with probation*

*Indicates that student’s performance does not meet expectation of performance and/or mastery in one learning objective



Number who failed qualifying exam probation*

*Indicates that student’s performance does not meet expectations of performance and/or mastery of all four learning objectives

Number who dropped out of program before completing qualifying exams

 

11 1 10

 

0 0 1

C. Comprehensive Exams

Between Fall 2011 and Summer 2017, 7 students took comprehensive examinations. As described in the “Assessment Plan” portion of this document, the comprehensive examination is an extensive written exam undertaken by students as they finish their coursework (usually the fourth semester).  

Note that data for individual years are not supplied because it would violate FERPA, as our program is so small that, depending on the year, only one student might defend.

Number of students in total who took qualifying exam 

Number who passed qualifying exam with distinction*

*Indicates that student’s performance excels in mastery of all four learning objectives



Number who passed qualifying exam*

*Indicates that student’s performance meet expectations of performance and/or mastery of all four learning objectives.

Number who passed qualifying exam with probation*

*Indicates that student’s performance does not meet expectation of performance and/or mastery in one learning objective



Number who failed qualifying exam probation*

*Indicates that student’s performance does not meet expectations of performance and/or mastery of all four learning objectives

Number who dropped out of program before completing qualifying exams

 

8 0 7

 

0 1 1

D. Annual Review (for students in second year and after) from Fall 2014 to present

As described in the “Assessment Plan” portion of this document, all PhD students under an annual exam in the spring semester of years two, three, and four (and beyond the fourth year if the student takes more time to finish).

Below is a table displaying the results of students’ annual reviews from Fall 2014 to Spring 2017.

Number of students in total 

Year

Number who passed  with distinction*

*Indicates student excels in all four learning objectives



Number who passed*

*Indicates student meets expectations of mastery in all four objectives.

Number who passed with probation*

*Indicates student does not meet expectation of mastery in all four objectives



Number who failed*

* Indicates student performs far below expectations of mastery in one or more of four objectives

Number who dropped out of program between comprehensive exam and dissertation defense.

 

8 2016-17 1 7 0 0 0
4 2015-16 0 4 0 0 0
6 2014-15 1 5 0 0 1

E. Proposal Defense

From Fall 2011 to Summer 2017, seven students have defended their dissertation proposals. Below is a table that describes the outcomes of these oral defenses. As described in our “Assessment Plan” (III.E), the proposal defense results in four possible outcomes.

Please note that data for individual years are not supplied because it would violate FERPA, as our program is so small that, depending on the year, only one student might defend his/her proposal. We include six years of data in this assessment point in order to protect the identities of students, who might otherwise recognize themselves and others in the data.

Number of students in total 

Number who passed  with distinction*

*Indicates student excels in all four learning objectives (or appropriate objectives for topic)



Number who passed*

*Indicates student meets expectations of mastery in all four learning objectives (or appropriate objectives for topic)

Number who achieved low pass*

*Indicates student does not meet expectation of mastery in all four objectives (or appropriate objectives for topic)





Number who failed*

* Indicates student performs far below expectations of mastery in one or more of four objectives (or appropriate objectives for topic)

Number who dropped out of program between comprehensive exam and proposal defense.

 

7 1 5 1 0 1

F. Dissertation Defenses

As described in the Assessment Plan, students must defend their written dissertation in an oral defense. The defense can result in one of four outcomes.

See below the data below for dissertation defense results and how they map onto our learning objectives. Note that data for individual years are not supplied because it would violate FERPA, as our program is so small that, depending on the year, only one student might defend. We include six years of data in this assessment point in order to protect the identities of students, who might otherwise recognize themselves and others in the data.

Number of students in total 

Number who passed  with no revisions*

*Excels in all four objectives (exceeds expected level of mastery)



Number who passed*

*Indicates student meets expectations of mastery in all four learning objectives (or appropriate objectives for topic)

Number who achieved low pass*

*Indicates student does not meet expectations of mastery of all four learning objectives (or appropriate objectives for topic)



Number who failed*

*Indicates student performs far below expectations of mastery in one or more of four objectives (or appropriate objectives for topic)

Number who dropped out of program between comprehensive exam and proposal defense.

 

5 1 3 1 0 1

G. Student Presentations and Publications

As described in the “Assessment Plan” of this document, although not a required part of students’ Program of Study, doctoral students are expected to engage in the professional activities of scholars by attending conferences, presenting at conferences, and if possible, publishing their work in reputable venues. Students also submit evidence of engagement with scholarship and the dissemination of that scholarship in their annual reviews.

Below is a table that describes how student presentations and papers address the program’s learning objectives. Under each learning objective is the number of presentations or papers that year that gave that particular learning objective either High or Medium priorityPlease note that these presentations and publications are organized by calendar year, not academic year.

Event                             

Year


# of presentations that demonstrate L1 (mastery of major theoretical and rhetorical contributions to the field)


# of presentations that demonstrate L2 (field-expertise skills in technology and design)


# of presentations that demonstrate L3 (a variety of pedagogical skills and defend pedagogical practices)


# of presentations that demonstrate L4 (Develop and apply a research method(s) in research projects and dissertation)

Professional Presentations 2017

H=2

M=6

H=2

M=5

H=3

M=3

H=5

M=1

Professional Presentations 2016

H=7

M=8

H=1

M=6

H=4

M=3

H=8

M=6

Professional Publications 2017

H=0

M=1

H=0

M=0

H=0

M=1

H=1

M=0

Professional Publications 2016

H=2

M=2

H=2

M=1

H=0

M=0

H=2

M=2

Presentations

2017

  • Huntsman, S. (27 October 2017). “Deviating Tactics of Dis/abled Bodies in the SSI Application Process.” Western States Rhetoric and Literacy Conference. Salt Lake City, UT.
  • Huntsman, S. (14 October 2017). “Virtual Relationships: Reclaiming Office Hours in Distance Education.” Rocky Mountain Modern Language Association Conference. Spokane, WA.
  • Shirley, B. (October 2017). “Technological embodiment, disability, and environmentalism.” Western States Rhetorics and Literacy Conference. Salt Lake City, UT.
  • Huntsman, S. (7 October 2017). “Perspectives on Accessibility in Course Development”. Councils for Programs in Technical and Scientific Communication Conference, Savannah, GA.
  • Dayley, C. (6 October 2017). Student perceptions of diversity in TPC programs. Council for Programs in Technical and Scientific Communication (CPTSC), Savannah, GA.
  • Shirley, B. (October 2017). “Technological advancement at the inevitable cost of the natural environment? Procedural rhetoric and disruptions in Civilization V.” Rocky Mountain Modern Language Association Conference. Spokane, WA.
  • Dayley, C. (11 August 2017). The effects of desperate naming conventions in TPC academic programs. Special Interest Group for Design of Communication (SIGDOC), Halifax, NS.
  • Huntsman, S. (17 March 2017).“‘Playing’ with Service-Learning and Community Partnerships.” Conference on College Composition and Communication. Portland, OR.
  • Hillen, A. J. (16 March 2017). A Historical Example of How Language Defines Disciplinary Genre. Conference on College Composition & Communication (CCCC), Portland, OR.
  • Shirley, B. (March 2017). “Epistemological play and cultivating impactful relationships through gamification of learning in the classroom, campus, and communities.” Conference on College Composition and Communication (CCCC). Portland, OR.
  • Huntsman, S. (15 March 2017). “Accessing the Future: Institutionalizing Accessibility through Technical Communication Core Values.” Association of Teacher of Technical Writing Conference. Portland, OR.
  • Scucchi, J. (March 2017). "Playing well with others in the composition classroom." Conference on College Composition and Communication (CCCC)Portland, OR.


2016

  • Huntsman, S. (14 October 2016). “Cyborgs in the Writing Center.” International Writing Center Association Conference. Denver, CO.
  • Scucchi, J. (October 2016). "Put yourself in their shoes: Empowering technical communication students with pedagogy of empathy." Rocky Mountain Modern Language Association (RMMLA), Salt Lake City, UT.
  • Huntsman, S. & Johnson, C.  (7 October 2016). "Women Have Always Played: Degendering Play History and Game Rhetoric.” Rocky Mountain Modern Language Association, Salt Lake City, UT.
  • Shirley, B. (October 2016). “Ethical agency: New materialism as a mode for effective climate change communication.” Rocky Mountain Modern Language Association Conference. Salt Lake City, UT.
  • Matheson Martin, B. (October 2016). Broadening our view of audience awareness: Writing for posthuman audiences. ProComm 2016, IEEE International Professional Communication Conference in Austin, Texas.
  • Dayley, C. (7 October 2016). Informing Efforts to Increase Diversity in TPC Academic Programs. Rocky Mountain Modern Language Association (RMMLA), Salt Lake City, UT.
  • Petersen, E. J. (11 June 2016). Mother’s work: Organizing Mormon motherhood in the early twentieth century. Mormon History Association, Snowbird, UT.
  • Huntsman, S. (8 April 2016). “Women’s Experience in Secular Higher Education: Confronting Secularism Through the Collaboratively Social.” Humanities Conference on Secularism. Provo, UT.
  • Matheson Martin, B. (April 2016). Broadening the scope of disability advocacy in technical and professional communication: A mental health perspective. ATTW 2016 in Houston, Texas.
  • Huntsman, S. (6 April 2016). “Advocating for Intercultural, Diversely Abled Pedagogy Through Partnerships.” Association of Teachers of Technical Writing Conference. Houston, TX.
  • Petersen, E. J. (6 April 2016). “Reasonably bright girls”: Theorizing women’s agency in technological systems of power. Association of Teachers of Technical Writing (ATTW), Houston, TX
  • Petersen, E. J. (1 April 2016). Using antenarrative to uncover systems of power in mid-twentieth century policies on marriage and maternity at IBM. European Social Science History Conference, Valencia, Spain.
  • Petersen, E. J. (9 January 2016). The state of female practitioners in technical and professional communication. Modern Language Association, Austin, TX.
  • Petersen, E. J. (October 2016). A pioneer of distance education: Anna Eliot Ticknor’s administration of the Society to Encourage Studies at Home. Rocky Mountain Modern Language Association, Salt Lake City, UT.
  • Petersen, E. J. (3 March 2016). Beyond biography: Using technical and professional documentation to contextualize Mormon women’s lives. Church History Symposium, Salt Lake City and Provo, UT.
  • Hoffman, D.D. “Considering the Experiences of Online Educators.” Rocky Mountain Modern Language Association Conference, Salt Lake City, UT, October 8-10, 2016.  
  • Beth Shirley. “Ethical Agency: New Materialism as a Mode for Effective Climate Change Communication.” RMMLA (Rocky Mountain Modern Language Association. October 2016

 

Publications

2017

  • Dayley, C, & Walton, R. (in press). Informing efforts to increase diversity. Programmatic Perspectives.

 

2016

  • Shirley, B., & Colton, J. S. (2016). What can Horse_ebooks tell us about rhetorical agency? The moral act of attributing agency to nonhumans. Present Tense: A Journal of Rhetoric in Society.
  • Matheson Martin, B. (2016). Broadening our view of audience awareness: Writing for posthuman audiences. Proceedings of IEEE Professional Communication Conference.
  • Petersen, E. J. & Moeller, R. M. (2016). Using antenarrative to uncover systems of power in mid-twentieth century policies on marriage and maternity at IBM. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication.
  • Petersen, E. J. (2016). Empathetic user design: Understanding and living the reality of an audience. Communication Design Quarterly 4(2), 23-36. (Special Issue: Online Networks, Social Media, and Communication Design)

 

 

2016

  • S. (14 October 2016). “Cyborgs in the Writing Center.” International Writing Center Association Conference. Denver, CO.
  • Scucchi, J. (October 2016). "Put yourself in their shoes: Empowering technical communication students with pedagogy of empathy." Rocky Mountain Modern Language Association (RMMLA), Salt Lake City, UT.
  • Huntsman, S. & Johnson, C.  (7 October 2016). "Women Have Always Played: Degendering Play History and Game Rhetoric.” Rocky Mountain Modern Language Association, Salt Lake City, UT.
  • Shirley, B. (October 2016). “Ethical agency: New materialism as a mode for effective climate change communication.” Rocky Mountain Modern Language Association Conference. Salt Lake City, UT.
  • Matheson Martin, B. (October 2016). Broadening our view of audience awareness: Writing for posthuman audiences. ProComm 2016, IEEE International Professional Communication Conference in Austin, Texas.
  • Dayley, C. (7 October 2016). Informing Efforts to Increase Diversity in TPC Academic Programs. Rocky Mountain Modern Language Association (RMMLA), Salt Lake City, UT.
  • Petersen, E. J. (11 June 2016). Mother’s work: Organizing Mormon motherhood in the early twentieth century. Mormon History Association, Snowbird, UT.
  • Huntsman, S. (8 April 2016). “Women’s Experience in Secular Higher Education: Confronting Secularism Through the Collaboratively Social.” Humanities Conference on Secularism. Provo, UT.
  • Matheson Martin, B. (April 2016). Broadening the scope of disability advocacy in technical and professional communication: A mental health perspective. ATTW 2016 in Houston, Texas.
  • Huntsman, S. (6 April 2016). “Advocating for Intercultural, Diversely Abled Pedagogy Through Partnerships.” Association of Teachers of Technical Writing Conference. Houston, TX.
  • Petersen, E. J. (6 April 2016). “Reasonably bright girls”: Theorizing women’s agency in technological systems of power. Association of Teachers of Technical Writing (ATTW), Houston, TX
  • Petersen, E. J. (1 April 2016). Using antenarrative to uncover systems of power in mid-twentieth century policies on marriage and maternity at IBM. European Social Science History Conference, Valencia, Spain.
  • Petersen, E. J. (9 January 2016). The state of female practitioners in technical and professional communication. Modern Language Association, Austin, TX.
  • Petersen, E. J. (October 2016). A pioneer of distance education: Anna Eliot Ticknor’s administration of the Society to Encourage Studies at Home. Rocky Mountain Modern Language Association, Salt Lake City, UT.
  • Petersen, E. J. (3 March 2016). Beyond biography: Using technical and professional documentation to contextualize Mormon women’s lives. Church History Symposium, Salt Lake City and Provo, UT.
  • Hoffman, D.D. “Considering the Experiences of Online Educators.” Rocky Mountain Modern Language Association Conference, Salt Lake City, UT, October 8-10, 2016.  Beth Shirley. “Ethical Agency: New Materialism as a Mode for Effective Climate Change Communication.” RMMLA (Rocky Mountain Modern Language Association. October 2016

 

Publications

2017

  • Dayley, C, & Walton, R. (in press). Informing efforts to increase diversity. Programmatic Perspectives.

 

2016

  • Shirley, B., & Colton, J. S. (2016). What can Horse_ebooks tell us about rhetorical agency? The moral act of attributing agency to nonhumans. Present Tense: A Journal of Rhetoric in Society.
  • Matheson Martin, B. (2016). Broadening our view of audience awareness: Writing for posthuman audiences. Proceedings of IEEE Professional Communication Conference.
  • Petersen, E. J. & Moeller, R. M. (2016). Using antenarrative to uncover systems of power in mid-twentieth century policies on marriage and maternity at IBM. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication.
  • Petersen, E. J. (2016). Empathetic user design: Understanding and living the reality of an audience. Communication Design Quarterly 4(2), 23-36. (Special Issue: Online Networks, Social Media, and Communication Design)

 

Publications

2017

  • Dayley, C, & Walton, R. (in press). Informing efforts to increase diversity. Programmatic Perspectives.

 

2016

  • Shirley, B., & Colton, J. S. (2016). What can Horse_ebooks tell us about rhetorical agency? The moral act of attributing agency to nonhumans. Present Tense: A Journal of Rhetoric in Society.
  • Matheson Martin, B. (2016). Broadening our view of audience awareness: Writing for posthuman audiences. Proceedings of IEEE Professional Communication Conference.
  • Petersen, E. J. & Moeller, R. M. (2016). Using antenarrative to uncover systems of power in mid-twentieth century policies on marriage and maternity at IBM. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication.
  • Petersen, E. J. (2016). Empathetic user design: Understanding and living the reality of an audience. Communication Design Quarterly 4(2), 23-36. (Special Issue: Online Networks, Social Media, and Communication Design)



2015-16 

A. Outcomes Data from Courses

The PhD courses address four learning objectives. Below are tables evaluating how students met their learning objectives in classes from Fall 2014-2016. Students are evaluated by their high, medium, or low (H, M, or L) proficiency/mastery of the learning objective. Note that the assessment begins in Fall 2014 because this is when the new Director of Graduate Studies took over the position. Previous to this year we do not have data for how students met learning objectives in the graduate classes. Please also note that several classes have no data available because the instructor has retired. In the future we will make certain to collection this data every year, before a faculty member retires.

Because our PhD program is very small, students might easily recognize themselves and others in the data if we were to publish the results for individual classes online. Therefore, rather than giving semester by semester tables online, we have regrouped the data here to protect student identities.

Between Fall 2014 and Summer 2015, we offered the following nine PhD classes:

ENGL 7410 Moeller

ENGL 7460 Hailey (data unavailable due to retirement)

ENGL 7480 McNeill (data unavailable)

ENGL 7830 Grant-Davie

ENGL 7400 Grant-Davie

ENGL 7430 Hailey (data unavailable due to retirement)

ENGL 7860 Walton

ENGL 7470 Walton

ENGL 7470 McLaughlin

The total number of seats occupied by PhD students in Fall 2014- Summer 2015 classes was 7.

Between Fall 2015 and Summer 2016, we offered the following nine PhD classes:

ENGL 7890 McLaughlin

ENGL 7410 Walton

ENGL 7420 Hailey (Data unavailable due to retirement)

ENGL 7480 Colton

ENGL 7400 Grant-Davie

ENGL 7450 Hailey (Data unavailable due to retirement)

ENGL 7460 Hailey (Data unavailable due to retirement)

ENGL 7800 Grant-Davie

The total number of seats occupied by PhD students in Fall 2014- Summer 2015 classes was 15.

Below is a chart that describes how these students performed on the learning objectives in all of these classes, combined.

Year                             

Total number of PhD seats occupied  

L1:

Demonstrate mastery of major theoretical and rhetorical contributions to the field.

L2:

Demonstrate field-expertise skills in technology and design.

L3:

Demonstrate a variety of pedagogical skills and defend pedagogical practices.

L4:

Develop and apply a research method(s) in research projects and dissertation.

Fall 2015 through Summer 2016 15

H: 10

M: 0

L: 0

 

Note that 5 students were included in classes where the data is unavailable due to retirement

H: 9

M: 1

L:0

 

Note that 5 students were included in classes where the data is unavailable due to retirement

H:10

M: 0

L: 0

 

Note that 5 students were included in classes where the data is unavailable due to retirement

H: 8

M: 2

L: 0

 

Note that 5 students were included in classes where the data is unavailable due to retirement

Fall 2014 through Summer 2015 7

H: 3

M: 0

L: 0

 

Note that 4 students were included in classes where the data is unavailable due to retirement

H: 3

M: 0

L: 0

 

Note that 4 students were included in classes where the data is unavailable due to retirement

H: 3

M: 0

L: 0

 

Note that 4 students were included in classes where the data is unavailable due to retirement

H: 3

M: 0

L: 0

 

Note that 4 students were included in classes where the data is unavailable due to retirement

B. Qualifying Exams

Between Fall 2011 and Summer 2016, 10 students took qualifying examinations. Below is a table displaying the results of student assessment of qualifying exams. The data is grouped together (rather than presented by year) in this report so that individual students’ performances can’t be identified/discerned. Please note that we are including five years of data in this assessment point in order to protect the identities of students, who might otherwise recognize themselves and others in the data.

Number of students in total who took qualifying exam

Number who passed qualifying exam with distinction*

*Indicates that student’s performance excels in mastery of all four learning objectives



Number who passed qualifying exam*

*Indicates that student’s performance meet expectations of performance and/or mastery of all four learning objectives.

Number who passed qualifying exam with probation*

*Indicates that student’s performance does not meet expectation of performance and/or mastery in one learning objective



Number who failed qualifying exam probation*

*Indicates that student’s performance does not meet expectations of performance and/or mastery of all four learning objectives

Number who dropped out of program before completing qualifying exams

 

11 1 9 0 0 1

C. Comprehensive Exams

Between Fall 2011 and Summer 2016, 7 students took comprehensive examinations. As described in the “Assessment Plan” portion of this document, the comprehensive examination is an extensive written exam undertaken by students as they finish their coursework (usually the fourth semester).  

Note that data for individual years are not supplied because it would violate FERPA, as our program is so small that, depending on the year, only one student might defend.

Number of students in total

Number who passed  with distinction*

*Indicates written exam excels in all four learning objectives



Number who passed*

*Indicates written exam meet expectations of performance and/or mastery of all four learning objectives.

Number who received a low pass*

*Indicates written exam does not meet expectation of mastery in all four objectives



Number who failed*

*Indicates exam displays performance far below expectations of mastery in one or more of four learning objectives

Number who dropped out of program between qualifying and completing comprehensive exams

 

7 0 6 0 1 1

D. Annual Review (for students in second year and after) from Fall 2014 to present

As described in the “Assessment Plan” portion of this document, all PhD students under an annual exam in the spring semester of years two, three, and four (and beyond the fourth year if the student takes more time to finish).

Below is a table displaying the results of students’ annual reviews from Fall 2014 to present.

Number of students in total

Year

Number who passed  with distinction*

*Indicates student excels in all four learning objectives



Number who passed*

*Indicates student meets expectations of mastery in all four objectives.

Number who passed with probation*

*Indicates student does not meet expectation of mastery in all four objectives



Number who failed*

* Indicates student performs far below expectations of mastery in one or more of four objectives

Number who dropped out of program between comprehensive exam and dissertation defense.

 

4 2015-16 0 4 0 0 0
6 2014-15 1 5 0 0 1

E. Proposal Defense

Since Fall 2011 to present, 5 students have defended their dissertation proposals. Below is a table that describes the outcomes of these oral defenses. As described in our “Assessment Plan” (III.E), the proposal defense results in four possible outcomes.

Pass with distinction


Written proposal and oral exam excel in all four objectives

Pass


Written proposal and oral exam meet expectations of mastery in all four objectives

Low Pass


Written proposal and oral exam do not meet expectation of mastery in all four objectives

Fail


Written proposal and oral exam display performance far below expectations of mastery in one or more of four objectives

Please note that data for individual years are not supplied because it would violate FERPA, as our program is so small that, depending on the year, only one student might defend his/her proposal. We include five years of data in this assessment point in order to protect the identities of students, who might otherwise recognize themselves and others in the data.

Number of students in total

Number who passed  with distinction*

*Indicates student excels in all four learning objectives (or appropriate objectives for topic)



Number who passed*

*Indicates student meets expectations of mastery in all four learning objectives (or appropriate objectives for topic)

Number who achieved low pass*

*Indicates student does not meet expectations of mastery of all four learning objectives (or appropriate objectives for topic)




Number who failed*

*Indicates student performs far below expectations of mastery in one or more of four objectives (or appropriate objectives for topic)

Number who dropped out of program between comprehensive exam and proposal defense.

 

5 1 3 1 0 1

F. Dissertation Defenses

As described in the Assessment Plan, students must defend their written dissertation in an oral defense. The defense can result in one of four outcomes.

See below the data below for dissertation defense results and how they map onto our learning objectives. Note that data for individual years are not supplied because it would violate FERPA, as our program is so small that, depending on the year, only one student might defend. We include five years of data in this assessment point in order to protect the identities of students, who might otherwise recognize themselves and others in the data.

Number of students in total

Number who passed  with no revisions*

*Excels in all four objectives (exceeds expected level of mastery)



Number who passed*

*Indicates student meets expectations of mastery in all four learning objectives (or appropriate objectives for topic)

Number who achieved low pass*

*Indicates student does not meet expectations of mastery of all four learning objectives (or appropriate objectives for topic)



Number who failed*

*Indicates student performs far below expectations of mastery in one or more of four objectives (or appropriate objectives for topic)

Number who dropped out of program between comprehensive exam and proposal defense.

 

5 1 3 1 0 1

G. Student Presentations and Publications

As described in the “Assessment Plan” of this document, although not a required part of students’ Program of Study, doctoral students are expected to engage in the professional activities of scholars by attending conferences, presenting at conferences, and if possible, publishing their work in reputable venues. Students also submit evidence of engagement with scholarship and the dissemination of that scholarship in their annual reviews.

Below is a table that describes how student presentations and papers address the program’s learning objectives. Under each learning objective is the number of presentations or papers that year that gave that particular learning objective either High or Medium priority. Please note that these presentations and publications are organized by calendar year, not academic year.

Event                            

Year


# of presentations that demonstrate L1 (mastery of major theoretical and rhetorical contributions to the field)


# of presentations that demonstrate L2 (field-expertise skills in technology and design)


# of presentations that demonstrate L3 (a variety of pedagogical skills and defend pedagogical practices)


# of presentations that demonstrate L4 (Develop and apply a research method(s) in research projects and dissertation)

Professional Presentations 2016

H=4

M=4

H=5

M=2

H=2

M=1

H=7

M=2

Professional Presentations 2015

H=2

M=1

H=2

M=0

H=2

M=0

H=2

M=2

Professional Presentations 2014

H=3

M=1

H=3

M=0

H=2

M=0

H=1

M=3

Professional Publications 2016

H=2

M=0

H=1

M=1

H=0

M=2

H=2

M=0

Professional Publications 2015

H=2

M=1

H=3

M=1

H=1

M=1

H=2

M=0

Professional Publications

2014

H=2

M=2

H=3

M=0

H=2

M=1

H=2

M=1

Presentations

2016

  • Petersen, E. J. (accepted for October 2016). Reterritorializing workspaces: Entrepreneurial podcasting as situated networking, connected mediation, and contextualized professionalism. ProComm, IEEE International Professional Communication Conference, Houston, TX.
  • Petersen, E. J. (11 June 2016). Mother’s work: Organizing Mormon motherhood in the early twentieth century. Mormon History Association, Snowbird, UT.
  • Petersen, E. J. (6 April 2016). “Reasonably bright girls”: Theorizing women’s agency in technological systems of power. Association of Teachers of Technical Writing (ATTW), Houston, TX.
  • Petersen, E. J. (1 April 2016). Using antenarrative to uncover systems of power in mid-twentieth century policies on marriage and maternity at IBM. European Social Science History Conference, Valencia, Spain.
  • Petersen, E. J. (9 January 2016). The state of female practitioners in technical and professional communication. Modern Language Association, Austin, TX.
  • Petersen, E. J. (accepted for 8 October 2016). A pioneer of distance education: Anna Eliot Ticknor’s administration of the Society to Encourage Studies at Home. Rocky Mountain Modern Language Association, Salt Lake City, UT.
  • Petersen, E. J. (3 March 2016). Beyond biography: Using technical and professional documentation to contextualize Mormon women’s lives. Church History Symposium, Salt Lake City and Provo, UT.
  • Hoffman, D.D. “Considering the Experiences of Online Educators.” Rocky Mountain Modern Language Association Conference, Salt Lake City, UT, October 8-10, 2016. (Accepted.) 
  • Beth Shirley. “Ethical Agency: New Materialism as a Mode for Effective Climate Change Communication.” RMMLA (Rocky Mountain Modern Language Association. October 2016

 

2015

  • Petersen, E. J. (2 October 2015). Students exit quietly: Using critical theory to encourage the dialectic. Council for Programs in Technical and Scientific Communication, Logan, UT.
  • Petersen, E. J. & Martin, B. M. (13 July 2015). Misuse, play, and disuse: Technical and professional communication’s role in understanding and supporting website owners’ engagement with Google Analytics. ProComm 2015, IEEE International Professional Communication Conference, Limerick, Ireland. Hayhoe Fellow Award Winners
  • Petersen, E. J. (6 June 2015). Looking for career-woman models in the 1930s: Virginia Hanson’s correspondence with Margaret Sanger and Clare Boothe Luce. Mormon History Association, Provo, UT. Helen Z. Papanikolas Award Winner, Best Graduate Student Paper on Utah Women’s History
  • Hoffman, D.D. “Current Research About the Best Practices in Online Education.” International Research Forum (Broadcast), Salt Lake City, UT, December 22, 2015. 

 

2014

  • Petersen, E. J. (27 September 2014). Women, religion, and professional communication: Communication design for the Female Relief Society, 1842–1920. Special Interest Group on Design of Communication (SIGDOC), Colorado Springs, CO.
  • Petersen, E. J. (24 April 2014). ‘Invent this, o ye men’: The female inventor of the dishwasher and communication. European Social Science History Conference, Vienna, Austria.
  • Dayley, C. M., & Hoffman, D.D. “The Work of Education in the Age of Digital Reproduction: Frankfurt School and Marxist Critiques of Online Education.” International Professional Communication Conference, Pittsburgh, PA, October 13-15, 2014. 
  • Dayley, C. M., & Hoffman, D. D. “Looking Before We Leap: Using the Frankfurt School’s Critical Lens to Address Weaknesses in the Shift to Online Learning.” Rocky Mountain Modern Language Association Conference, Boise, ID, October 9-11, 2014. 

 

Publications

2016

  • Petersen, E. J. & Moeller, R. M. (forthcoming 2016). Using antenarrative to uncover systems of power in mid-twentieth century policies on marriage and maternity at IBM. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication.
  • Petersen, E. J. (2016). Empathetic user design: Understanding and living the reality of an audience. Communication Design Quarterly 4(2), 23-36. (Special Issue: Online Networks, Social Media, and Communication Design)

 

2015

  • Petersen, E. J. & Martin, B. M. (2015). Misuse, play, and disuse: Technical and professional communication’s role in understanding and supporting website owners’ engagement with Google Analytics. In Proceedings of IEEE International Professional Communication Conference. Hayhoe Fellow Award Winners
  • Petersen, E. J. (2015, September). “Get me out of here!”: Networking for women in technical and professional communication. Intercom: The Magazine of the Society for Technical Communication: 17-20
  • Petersen, E. J. (2015). Mommy bloggers as rebels and community builders: A generic description. Journal of the Motherhood Initiative for Research and Community Involvement, 6(1), 9-30.
  • David Hoffman. (2015). Professional communication and online education. [Web log]. Retrieved from http://professionaldigitaleducation.blogspot.com/

 

2014

  • Petersen, E. J. (2014, October). Women, religion, and professional communication: Communication design for the Female Relief Society, 1842–1920. In Proceedings of the 32nd ACM International Conference on the Design of Communication, ACM 2014. doi: 10.1145/2666216.2666224
  • Dayley, C. M. & Hoffman, D. D. (2014). “The work of education in the age of the digital classroom: Resurrecting Frankfurt school philosophies to examine online education. In IPCC Proceedings, 2014 IEEE International (1-11). 
  • Hoffman, D. D. (2014) “Bell and Lancaster.” In Richards, A. L., Called to teach: The legacy of Karl G. Maeser. Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book, 231-232. 
  • Petersen, E. J. (2014). Redefining the workplace: The professionalization of motherhood through blogging. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 44(3), 277–296.