In recent discussions with my students regarding the draft outline assignment, students report when a draft outline is not assigned they wait until the last minute to plan and research his or her speech topic. When feedback is given to the student on a draft outline, a majority of students make the necessary changes to the outline and even continue to conduct additional research prior to submitting the formal outline and delivering the speech. Only a few students continue to plan ahead and seek guidance on the outline from the instructor on his or her next speech assignments. In addition, when speaking with my students regarding rehearsal of his or her speech prior to delivery, a majority of students admit they do not practice and wish they had after delivering the speech in class. Also, while students cringe at the thought of seeing him or herself on film delivering a speech, students often remark how much it helped them to see what the professor was seeing (areas of improvement as well as what is being done well). 

When the first speaking assignment is about the student (e.g., narrative speech) most speech faculty (full-time, adjunct teaching on different campuses) indicate students approach the initial speech with excitement, energy and want to do their best. However, as the semester goes on and as research comes into play, students do not plan as well. For example, a student may submit an outline but no reference material is included. Often students do not engage in practicing a speech prior to delivering a speech in-class. Some faculty indicate students do not see a tangible reward associated with practicing and fail to put forth any effort. Some students have told instructors “I practice in my head,” rather than practicing in front of an audience or even a mirror. One problem is getting students to understand the differences in method choice in relationship to the actual delivery outcome.

The rehearsal action research project is based on the theory of Self-Regulation (SR) where learning strategies (LS) are designed and incorporated into the learning environment to help move the learner toward self-regulating his or her learning. Building off the work of Bandura (1977), Zimmerman created a three-phase self-regulation model. Zimmerman’s (Zimmerman & Schunk, 2001) cyclical model addresses how the interaction within the triadic components of social cognitive theory calls for monitoring due to the change in personal, behavioral, and environmental conditions during learning. Forethought, performance control, and self-reflection are the three interactive processes in the three-phase cyclical model (Zimmerman, 2002). Forethought processes, such as goal setting, set the stage for the performance phase, where strategies designed to attain the goals are deployed. Self-monitoring during performance produces feedback that is evaluated for progress and interpreted for meaning during the self-reflective phase. Self-reflections affect forethought goals regarding subsequent efforts to learn completing the self-regulatory cycle (p. 21).

Forethought is the first phase in the personal influence condition and involves goal setting and social-modeling. Social modeling allows the learner to internalize information transmitted in the social environment and includes self-efficacy, learning goal orientation, and intrinsic beliefs about learning (Zimmerman, 2002). Goal setting includes task analysis and planning. Strategies such as goal setting are planned during the forethought process and then utilized during the performance phase. The forethought phase readies the learner for performance.
 
Behavioral influence consists of two sub-processes; performance control phase and self-reflection phase. The sub-processes interact with each other and the environment, and can assist in the development of self-regulated learning (Zimmerman, 2002). The performance control phase “occurs during learning and affects attention and action” (p. 134). Attributional feedback, strategy instruction, and self-verbalization of strategies are linked with social modeling in the forethought phase. Attributional feedback focuses on the attribute or capability of the learner. Effort feedback may precede attributional feedback until the skill is gained but attributional feedback will nourish self-regulation. Zimmerman states, “Social comparison conveys normative information that is used to assess one’s capabilities” (p. 137). Social comparison is linked with goal setting in the forethought phase.

Self-reflection is the second sub-process under behavioral influence in the cyclical model. During this stage learners assess their performance toward the set goal and make adjustments to their learning strategies (Zimmerman, 1998; 2002). This level of development is influenced by the learner sustaining “their motivation through personal goals and a sense of self-efficacy for attaining them” (Zimmerman & Schunk, 2001, p. 143). Self-monitoring, reward contingencies, feedback and self-evaluation are strategies used to enhance motivation, self-efficacy, and achievement.

Zimmerman (1998) states self-evaluations may serve to motivate and build self-efficacy when the learner believes they possess the capacity to learn. Self-evaluation has been linked with higher skill acquisition, self-efficacy, self-satisfaction, interest, and influences learning strategy planning (Dabbagh & Kitsantas, 2004). Cognitive, motivation, and affect constructs of SR are in use during self-evaluation (Paris & Paris, 2001). A two-part study conducted by Schunk and Ertmer (1999) investigated process and product goals and self-evaluation against achievement among college students enrolled in a computer in education course. The researchers found that process goals had a higher correlation with self-efficacy than did product goal self-evaluation. The study also showed that when self-evaluation occurs more frequently and is tied to process goal, a more powerful relationship occurs between self-evaluation and motivation. Ley and Young (1998) interviewed regular admission students and developmental students (students required to take remedial coursework) attending a rural university and community college to determine if SR could predict enrollment status (regular or developmental). The researchers found self-evaluation had the strongest relationship to SR and SR could predict admission status. More significantly, developmental students used fewer SR strategies compared to regular admitted students, which may partially explain low achievement. In another study, Young and Ley (2003) observed developmental instructors at a community college and found self-efficacy of learners was frequently supported; SR strategies were in use but not frequently reinforced. The findings suggest developmental educators need to incorporate more SR strategies in the developmental classroom. Providing students with an opportunity to use learning strategies (LS) to enhance learning and motivation may also improve self-efficacy of students in the public speaking course. Research shows high self-efficacy has a positive correlation with academic success, and LS help low achieving students improve academic performance.

In addition to external research, I had the opportunity to attend several Teaching/Learning Academy workshops that helped me prepare for this action research project. The Scholarship of Teaching and Learning facilitated by Dr. Lisa Armour provided the rationale behind action research. This seminar also laid the foundation on how to construct and how to conduct action research while keeping all essential elements in mind. Dr. Philip Bishop’s Core Competencies: TVCA workshop provided me with a means to assess lessons from the TVCA perspective. LifeMap facilitated by Wendi Bush lead me to think about how I can design a learning activity that can help students with life, career, and educational goal setting. The Inclusion and Diversity workshop facilitated by Kim Long was beneficial in two specific ways: (1) it made me think about my teaching approach in relationship to my life experience, and (2) how that approach may help or hinder the way I teach and the way students learn based on his/her life experience. I also had the opportunity to participate in the Action Research track of Destinations during summer and fall 2008 which was an invaluable experience.

References

Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Dabbagh, N., & Kitsantas, A. (2004). Supporting self-regulation in student-centered web-based learning environments. International Journal on E-learning, 3(1), 40-48.

Ley, K., & Young, D. B. (1998). Self-regulation behaviors in under prepared (developmental) and regular admission college students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 23, 42-64.

Paris, S. G., & Paris, A. H. (2001). Classroom applications of research on self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 36(2), 89-101.

Schunk, D. H., & Ertmer, P. A. (1999). Self-regulatory processes during computer skill acquisition: Goal and self-evaluation influences. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(2), 251-260.

Young, D. B., & Ley, K. (2003). Self-regulation support offered by developmental educators. Journal of Developmental Education, 27(2), 2-10.

Zimmerman, B. J. (1998). Academic studying and the development of personal skill: A self-regulatory perspective. Educational Psychologist 33(2/3), 73-86.

Zimmerman, B. J. (2001). Theories of self-regulated learning and academic achievement: An overview and analysis. In B.J. Zimmerman & D.H. Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulated learning and academic achievement (2nd ed., pp. 1-37). Mahway, NJ: Lawrence-Erlbaum.

Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory Into Practice, 41(2), 64-70.

While students will acknowledge that planning ahead and practicing a speech will result in a more polished speech, often students do not engage in the process. For example, some students come to class on the day he or she is to deliver a speech and is attempting to write note cards. Additionally, for the past three semesters I have had students submit a draft outline prior to speech delivery to provide the student with an opportunity to make changes prior to formal outline submission and delivery of speech. What I have noticed is students are not valuing the process of making changes to the outline prior to delivery which effects both outline and speech grade. A formal outline and note card preparation allows the student to practice the delivery of the speech in advance. Introducing students to a rehearsal learning strategy at the start of the semester may promote continued strategy use throughout the semester. Rather than making an assumption that students know how to plan and manage learning tasks, know where and how to go about seeking help, and know the value in comparative self analysis, I believe it is important to help students learn or reinforce such attributes. Cultivating strategy use may lead the student toward valuing the rehearsal process, and may enhance student self-efficacy.

The population for this correlation study consists of 71 to 89 students who elected to enroll in one of four face-to-face Fundamentals of Speech (SPC1600) courses during the fall 2008 semester. The rehearsal assignment called on the student to submit a draft outline of an informative career speech, to make an appointment at the east campus speech lab to video record the student rehearsing the speech, and then complete an Effective Speaking Improvement Survey after the student viewed his or her rehearsal speech. A formal outline and formal delivery of the informative career speech followed. All participants were asked to complete a Pre-Planning and Post Analysis questionnaire, and 2 Pre-Planning Surveys following the second and third speech assignment to investigate how the student prepared for formal outline submission and speech delivery grading. The surveys were administered after the student delivered his or her speech in-class. Each survey took approximately 1 to 3 minutes to complete. All students completing the surveys received 2 extra credit points for each survey completed.

The Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ) is a self-report instrument consisting of 81 Likert scale questions designed to understand college students’ motivation and use of learning strategies. The MSLQ endured five years of formal analysis as the researchers collected data from three Midwest institutions, a four-year public university; a small liberal arts college; and a community college. The instrument was assessed using factor analysis, examining reliability coefficients, and correlation with measures of achievement. The self-reported responses are on a 7-point scale from “not at all true of me” to “very true of me.” Only 25 of the 81 questions were used for this study. The questions used measured intrinsic goal orientation, extrinsic goal orientation, task value, effort regulation, peer learning and help seeking. Question 16 and 22 were reverse coded to represent a positively worded item.

Demographic data were collected with the MSLQ to include gender, age, ethnicity, if it was the participants’ first semester, enrollment and employment status. Data obtained were analyzed using the statistical software package for the social sciences (SPSS), version 10.

During the 3rd and 13th week of class students were asked to complete the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ). The questionnaire was used to measure if the rehearsal assignment resulted in a change to motivation and learning strategy use after treatment. The sections of the MSLQ used were the Value Component (goal orientation and task value) and Resource Management Strategies (effort regulation, peer learning and help seeking). Students who were not in class on the day the survey was administered could make an appointment with the professor to complete the survey during office hours. Students completing the MSLQ received 2 extra credit points.

1. Students will be able to videotape speeches in the speech lab to manage established and personal learning goals.
2. Students will be able to conduct research using library data bases.
3. Students will be able to construct a formal outline with library data base references.
4. Students will be able to construct speaking notes.
5. Students will be able to deliver an informative career speech with supporting evidence (verbal citation of sources) in front of an audience.
6. Students will be able to evaluate written and verbal performance of self and others.
7. Students will be able to interact with a diverse group of people.
8. Students will be able to value the speech rehearsal process and build speaker confidence.
9. Students will be able to self-reflect on motivation and learning strategy use.

To help identify the specific qualities or evidence of student learning and achievement of the rehearsal learning strategy assignment the following performance indicators were established.

1. Completion of library homework assignment.
2. Students complete scramble outline (pair-share) in-class activity.
3. Students practice written and verbal citation of sources (in-class group work).
4. Completion of rehearsal speech assignment.
5. Completion of Effective Speaking Improvement survey.
6. Completion of draft outline.
7. Completion of formal outline.
8. Completion of informative career speech.
9. Completion of 3 peer reviews.
10. Completion of self-evaluation paper.
11. Completion of pre-planning and post analysis surveys.
12. Completion of the MSLQ Surveys.

 

The rehearsal assignment occurred after students participated and/or completed the following activities:

1. Read a handout called How to Build an Outline, and then participate in a pair-share in-class activity to unscramble an outline.
2. Read a handout called Oral Citation and participated in an in-class group activity practicing writing and verbally citing a variety of sources (e.g., book, internet, data base, etc.).
3. Attended a library session instructing students on using data bases and then completing a homework assignment that asked students to evaluate several Web sites following a set criterion, to locate a credible Web site, and locate data base sources and write in APA citation format.
4. Complete a diversity survey and participate in an in-class diversity activity that called for students to formulate main points of a speech.
5. In-class pair-share activity developing key word note cards from student draft outline.

The rehearsal assignment consisted of Part A and Part B. For Part A, students submitted a draft outline of the informative career speech which was then returned to the student for corrections prior to student’s completing the rehearsal speech. For example, all draft outlines were returned to the student on the last meeting date of the week, and the following week is when the student scheduled a lab time. Students made an appointment at the Valencia speech lab located on the east campus to film him or herself rehearsing the informative career speech. Students copied the rehearsal speech to a CD, view it and complete an Effective Speaking Improvement survey. The speech CD and survey were turned in for an effort grade. Students were then filmed delivering the informative career speech in front of the class. Each student completed 3 peer reviews on other speakers. For Part B, each speaker received his/her 3 peer reviews so comments could be incorporated into his/her self-evaluation paper. The student then watched the in-class and rehearsal speech, reviewed the peer reviews and wrote a self-evaluation paper comparing the rehearsal to the formal speech. Grading rubrics accompanied all elements of the assignment. If the student did not complete Part A of the rehearsal assignment the student was still required to deliver the informative career speech in class however, Part B of the assignment could not be completed because the self-evaluation was a comparative analysis paper.

To help gain feedback immediately following the rehearsal assignment, students were asked to complete a pre-planning and post-analysis survey after delivering the informative career speech in class. The survey responses served as a source to gain student feedback immediately following the rehearsal assignment, and served as a prompt to the student to reflect on strategy use. A pre-planning survey was distributed following the next 2 speech assignments to monitor continued use of the learning strategy, and again, serve to prompt the student to reflect on strategy use.

To help measure or gauge student performance in relation to the indicators in the student learning outcome, grading rubrics were utilized to assess performance from both a formative and summative approach to learning. Grading rubrics were used to inform students of the criterion objectives and performance indicators to which his or her work was evaluated or graded. Below is the list of assessments.

1. Formative Assessment: Library Homework (grading rubric)
2. Formative Assessment: Draft Outline (grading rubric)
3. Formative Assessment: Formal Outline Grading Rubric.
4. Summative Assessment: Rehearsal Assignment Part A (grading rubric).
5. Formative Assessment: Informative Career Speech (grading rubric).
6. Formative Assessment: Rehearsal Assignment Part B (grading rubric).
7. Summative Assessment: Pre-planning and Post Analysis Survey (grading rubric).
8. Summative Assessment: 2 Pre-planning surveys (grading rubric).
9. Summative Assessment: MSLQ survey (grading rubric).

The Significant Results section of the portfolio begins with an overview of the results including the draft outline, part A and B of the rehearsal assignment, the formal outline and speech grade, and survey results. The Interpretation of Results and an Artifacts section conclude this section.

There were several underlying goals I was hoping to achieve with the implementation of this action research project. First, I wanted students to see the value (valuing the task as a means to an end rather than an end itself) of practicing and preparing in advance for speech assignments.  Specifically, I wanted students’ to prepare an outline and note cards in advance so he/she could practice the delivery of the speech prior to in-class delivery. Second, by creating assignments around rehearsal strategies, students would be able to experience the effort it takes to prepare for a speech assignment and know where to obtain help (teachers, peers) and resources (e.g., library, speech lab, etc.) during preparation. Finally, I wanted students to learn and continue to engage in the use of the learning strategy to promote self-regulation of learning.

Assumptions

During the development of the action research project there were several assumptions or outcomes I thought would take place. Initially, I thought students would not continue with the rehearsal strategies for Informative Speech 2 as it was not required but would return to the rehearsal strategies for the final assignment (persuasive speech). Finally, it is assumed that students answered the survey questions honestly.

Students were asked to write an outline based on the Informative Speech 1, Career Speech during week 4 (Tuesday-Thursday [TR]) classes and during week 5 (Monday-Wednesday-Friday [MWF]) classes. The outlines were graded using the Draft Outline Grading Rubric and returned to the student in time for making any required modifications prior to video recording the rehearsal speech and prior to submission of the formal outline. Attribution feedback was provided to students on the hardcopy of the draft outline. For example, “You’re on the right track! Review the outlines and APA reference materials in WebCT.  Make changes prior to submitting your formal outline and see me with any questions. Overall nice start.”

The Outline Comparison (artifact) provides comparative data for all draft and informative 1 outlines submitted (183) based on comparing the percentage of grade change from draft to formal outline. The results are represented in Table 1.

Table 1. Percent of Change Draft Outline to Informative 1 Outline

Percent of Change Draft to Inform 1 Comparison (183)
All	Accomplished	Needs Improvement	Not Accomplished
Opening	-34.1%	49.8%	-17.3%
Body	-29.1%	-13.1%	41.6%
Closing	10.6%	11.7%	-21.3%
References	-10.9%	14.1%	-2.1%

The criterions for specific elements of the outline have been grouped into four major sections for ease of comparison. The performance indicators appearing on the grading rubric are: Accomplished, Needs Improvement, and Not Accomplished. The percentage under each indicator represents the change in outline grade from draft to formal grading. The negative numbers in the accomplished column indicate fewer students met the criterion. The positive number represents improvement in the criterion area. The positive number in the needs improvement indicates more students scoring in this area which means students may have moved from accomplished to needs improvement or from not accomplished to needs improvement. The negative number also means fewer students scoring in this area however, students may have moved from accomplished to needs improvement or from not accomplished to needs improvement.  Ideally, the improvement shift in the needs improvement and not accomplished area is represented by a negative number rather than a positive number as this would indicate an upward shift or grade improvement.

According to the comparison from draft to formal outline 1, approximately 65% of students still needed to improve the opening elements, 29% needed to work on the body, 12% on references and approximately 22% improved on the closing elements. The negative results in grade performance from draft to formal outline may be due to harsher grading.
 
Attribution feedback on the draft outline may have given the student a false sense of efficacy rather than the need to correct outline elements. However, when comparing Informative Outline 1 to Informative Outline 2, there is a marked improvement with roughly 38% achieving accomplished in opening and 15% in body. A slight drop in closing elements in the accomplished indicator occurred with only 2% of students achieving the accomplished level. An overwhelming decline or 22%, moved from the accomplished category in the reference criterion to either the needs improvement or not accomplished category. 

When comparing all outlines, there were negligible results across the semester with the average grade remaining the same over time.  When viewing the differences within classes and within categories, the data often indicated while students improved within a category the scores slipped in another category. Another item to be considered is, as the student progresses through the semester each outline category is graded more critically. However, when comparing the persuasive outline to the informative 2 outline the results indicate 54% earned accomplished for opening elements; 40% earned accomplished for body; 37% earned accomplished for closing, and less than 1% earned accomplished for references. The positive numbers appearing in the accomplished area represents an improvement in all outline categories except references over time.

Approximately 85% of students completed Part A of the rehearsal assignment. Students who did not complete Part A (video of rehearsal) could not complete Part B (self-evaluation) because Part B called for students to analyze the rehearsal performance with the in-class speech performance.  An additional 20% of students elected not to complete Part B for unknown reasons.

The cumulative grading results are presented in Table 2.

Table 2. Rehearsal Part A: Video Results

Rehearsal Part A: Video
Meets Expectations	Minor Issues	Not Completed	Total
84.5%	5.5%	10.0%	100.0%

When viewing the rehearsal CD, I found most students waited until the day before the rehearsal speech was due to record the rehearsal speech at the speech lab (e.g., due Tuesday, students recorded on Monday). Some students did not have the opportunity to record because the student neglected to plan ahead and make an appointment at the lab even though there was an announcement pop-up in WebCT, it was on the course calendar in WebCT, and numerous in-class verbal reminders were given to students. When the student attempted to make an appointment there were no available time slots. Some students attempted to record the rehearsal speech on the same day the assignment was due and one student even tried to complete the assignment during the 15 minute time span between my classes (as class was held in the lab the day the video rehearsal assignment was due).

Effective Speaking Improvement Survey

Students completed the Effective Speaking Improvement Survey and submitted with the rehearsal CD of the Informative Speech 1, career speech. The survey consisted of 15 questions related to the components of a speech. The survey asked students to self-evaluate rehearsal performance based on all speaking elements using the following scale: Above Average; Average; Below Average; Missing. Seventy-eight students completed the assignment which was due during week 5 for TR classes and week 6 for MWF classes. The results are represented in Table 3.

Table 3. Effective Speaking Improvement Survey Results

78 Participants	Above Average	Average	Below Average	Missing
Percent	38%	39%	16%	7%

Seventy-seven percentage of students viewed his/her rehearsal speaking performance at an average or above average level with 16% indicating a below average level. A majority of the 7% missing scores represented students not rehearsing with the visual aid (poster) during the rehearsal assignment. The high evaluative marks from the Effective Speaking Improvement Survey may stem from students having high self-efficacy in relationship to organization of ideas. Most students rated themselves as average or below average in the delivery areas (eye contact, vocal, gesture).  It may be a good idea to add a communication anxiety/apprehension question to the survey as this was a common theme written about in the self-evaluation paper (Part B).

Upon completion of the rehearsal assignment and submission of formal outline and speech, students were asked to write a self-evaluation paper. The paper called for students to analyze his/her speech performance from rehearsal to formal in-class delivery while incorporating written peer feedback.
 
Table 4 represents the percentage for each grading criterion and performance indicator from the grading rubric for Part B, self-evaluation paper.

Table 4. Rehearsal Part B: Self-Evaluation

The qualitative data from the self-evaluation assignment clearly indicates the student reflecting on his or her speech delivery and peer feedback. Some examples of student comments are:

“The content issues I corrected from the rehearsal speech to the speech delivered in class were developing supporting ideas, transitional elements, and oral citations.”

“The swaying and fidgeting I did not even notice I was doing it until I watched the rehearsal tape. I practiced in a mirror and in front of my family to correct the stiffness and being overly fidgety. I also practiced picturing my audience and visualized myself performing in front of them.”

“I had no confidence while delivering it in my rehearsal speech…I went home and practiced saying it in front of a mirror to see if I looked confident. I also said it in front of a group of my friends. I think after I said my speech a few times I become more comfortable and more confident.”

“My greatest strength in my rehearsal was having my points fully developed including having the research to support them. I believe it was also my greatest strength in my class delivery because I knew it was important to have them developed so the audience could follow what I was talking about.”

“To be better relaxed during the next speech I will use the relaxation exercises such as deep breathing, imagining the class while practicing, trying to remain calm and meditate.”

The average speech grade improved by one point from the informative career speech 1 to informative speech 2. The persuasive speech was not compared due to the point structure and criterion difference. Although the grades demonstrate a modest increase, improvement is demonstrated.

The Pre-Planning Survey 1 had 9 questions and the Pre-Planning Survey 2 had 8 questions asking students to answer True or False based on engagement with rehearsal learning strategies in preparation for the speech assignment. Question 8 (“I reviewed my self-evaluation from my career speech assignment prior to delivering my speech in class.”) was removed from Survey 2. The results are presented in Table 5.

Table 5. Pre-Planning Survey 1 and 2 Results (Cumulative)

QUESTION	Cumulative Results
	TRUE	%	FALSE	%	Total
I prepared a draft outline for instructor feedback prior to submitting my formal outline.	72	48%	78	52%	150
I video recorded myself rehearsing my speech prior to delivering my speech in class.	4	3%	146	97%	150
I practiced my speech but did not video record myself prior to delivering my speech in class.	136	91%	14	9%	150
I practiced my speech with my prepared note cards prior to delivering my speech in class.	135	90%	15	10%	150
I prepared note cards prior to arriving and delivering my speech in class.	140	93%	10	7%	150
I reviewed my instructor’s comments from previous speech assignment(s) prior to delivering my speech in class.	133	89%	17	11%	150
I reviewed my classmate’s comments from previous speech assignment(s) prior to delivering my speech in class.	117	78%	33	22%	150
I reviewed my self-evaluation from my career speech assignment prior to delivering my speech in class.	53	68%	25	32%	78
I wrote down personal thoughts about my speech performance following delivery of my speech in class.	66	44%	84	56%	150

In the Pre-Planning and Post Analysis Survey (PPPA) survey most students indicated the rehearsal assignment was helpful. While 49% of students indicated they planned on video-recording future speech assignments only 3% of students actually engaged in the process according to the Pre-Planning Survey 1 (PPA-1) and Pre-Planning Survey 2 (PPA-2). According to PPA-1, 55% of students submitted a draft outline in preparation for informative speech 2 with only 40% submitting a draft outline in preparation for the final persuasive speech according to PPA-2.  This decrease may be due to high self-efficacy in preparing a formal outline. There was a marked increase from PPA-1 to PPA-2 self-reports in the percentage of students who practiced with note cards and reviewed previous speech comments in preparation for the final speech assignment. Perhaps by the end of the term students realize the importance of engaging in the rehearsal strategies.

Research Question: Is there a difference in Pre-MSLQ scores and Post-MSLQ scores when measuring intrinsic goal orientation, extrinsic goal orientation, task value, effort regulation, peer learning, and help seeking after a learning strategy treatment among students enrolled in fundamentals of speech course?

An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed to seek a mean difference between pre and post MSLQ scores. There was no statistically significant difference (F = .729, df = 45, 30, p > .05) between pre and post test.  Thirty percent of the variance in score can be accounted for by group. The difference in groups cannot be determined.

A frequency was run on the demographic questions appearing on the MSLQ and is presented in Table 6.

Table 6. Demographic Information
Gender	Number
Male	36
Female	41
Age	Number
18-20	58
21-24	15
25-30	4
Ethnicity	Number
White/Caucasian	30
Hispanic/Latino	24
Black/African American	14
Asian/Pacific Islander	4
Other	4
Semester	Number
First	22
Not First	55
Enrollment Status	Number
Part-Time	7
Full-Time	69
Employment Status	Number
Part-Time	27
Full-Time	13
Not Employed	37

 

In reflecting on the project there are several criteria I would change and they are listed below in no particular order.

1. Grading Rubrics: outline grading rubrics for the informative speeches should be broken down into elements like the draft outline grading rubric for easier comparison of the issues that are not being corrected over time.
2. Change assignment from Part A and Part B to Rehearsal Speech Assignment, Draft Outline Assignment, etc. as it appears students become confused about “parts” of an assignment.
3. Provide students with another mandatory draft outline and rehearsal speech and then measure to see if the student will continue to engage in rehearsal strategies for the final speech assignment.
4. Surveys should not have the student’s name. An alternative way to provide extra credit points (e.g., complete in WebCT or a different sign-in sheet) as I don’t know if all students answered the questions with complete honesty even though I assured the student it was for “research” purposes only and there was no right or wrong answers (and this last statement should also be added to the survey).

I believe the project went fairly well. While I was hoping more students would return to the speech lab to record and rehearse additional speech assignments, many indicated they did practice in advance. I do believe more students did prepare note cards in advance as it was not a common sight to see students writing note cards on speech day. Adding a “submit your draft outline for a free-review” on the WebCT calendar may prompt more students to participate.

In reflecting on the calendar of events, I felt I was pushing my TR classes through all the material I wanted the students to know, understand, experience prior to completing the rehearsal assignment. The MWF classes did not feel rushed, and the timeline felt right. I believe part of this stems from my desire to give the draft outline back to the students a week prior to the week of speech rehearsals at the lab. Based on the dates of recording the rehearsal speech at the lab, a week lead time may not be necessary.

I did run an ANOVA on all value components and resource management strategies of the MSLQ. Like the pre and post results, no component revealed significant results. However, intrinsic and extrinsic goal orientation shows potential for significance with extrinsic goal (F = 1.78, df = 13, 62, p > .05) and intrinsic goal (F = 1.72, df = 18, 57, p > .05). From pre to post MSLQ students may have started to perceive course tasks differently however the direction cannot be determined (e.g., engage for rewards, end, means, etc.).

The artifacts (28) for the rehearsal assignment include handouts, assignments, assessments, examples of student work, and results from data collected. The artifacts are outlined below, linked and presented as PDF files.

Surveys:

• Effective Speaking Improvement Survey: Handout
• Effective Speaking Improvement Survey Quantitative Results
• Pre-Planning and Post Analysis Survey: Handout
  • Pre-Planning and Post Analysis Survey Quantitative Results
• Pre-Planning Survey 1: Handout
  • Pre-Planning Survey 1 Quantitative Results
• Pre-Planning Survey 2: Handout
  • Pre-Planning Survey 2 Quantitative Results
• Pre-Planning Survey 1 and 2 Cumulative Results
• MSLQ Survey: Handout
• Survey Grading Rubric
  
  
  
• Draft Outline Instructions
  • Draft Outline Grading Rubric
    
    
• Rehearsal Assignment: Part A (video and survey)
  • Rehearsal Part A Instructions 
  • Rehearsal Part A Grading Rubric
    
    
• Informative Career Speech Assignment
  • Informative Career Speech Grading Rubric
  • Informative Career Speech Outline Grading Rubric
  • Grade Comparison Speech and Outline 1 and Speech and Outline 2
    
    
• Rehearsal Assignment: Part B (self-evaluation)
  • Rehearsal Assignment Part B Instructions 
  • Rehearsal Assignment Part B Grading Rubric
  • Qualitative Results of self-evaluation
    
    
• Rehearsal Assignment A and B Comparison of Cumulative Performance Indicators
  
  
• Outline Comparison: Draft, Informative 1 and 2, Persuasion
  
  
• Library Homework Assignment
  • Library Homework Grading Rubric
    
    
• Handouts
  • How to Build an Outline
  • Scramble Outline
  • Oral Citation

The rehearsal assignment allowed me to develop and implement a learning strategy aimed at developing self-regulated learners. The draft outline assignment gave students opportunity to learn and correct deficiencies. A majority of students completed the draft outline assignment and I was pleased with the 55% of students whom elected to submit a draft outline for review for the second speech when no grade credit would be earned. I am hopeful that providing additional incentive for draft outline submission will raise this percentage in future semesters.

The library session either introduced or reinforced researching techniques. The library homework assignment reinforced what was learned during the library session and was reviewed in class. Quality in-class dialogue about reference material ensued and led the way to working on verbal citation of sources. One benefit of attending the library session is demonstrating the how-to pages available to the student. The how-to pages (e.g., APA Tips) are a one-stop reference point for students and are user friendly. As students move through the semester, grade point values increase on proper written and verbal citation of sources following APA citation format. Getting students to use available library resources has not netted the desired results and needs further investigation.
 
The rehearsal video (part a) gave students an opportunity to practice with video equipment, see him/herself on video, and make changes prior to formal delivery. One problem that occurred from the rehearsal to formal delivery of the assignment was students were only required to verbally cite one source during the rehearsal video. The reason for this criterion was students may have not finished conducting research at the time of rehearsal. The problem that stemmed from this was some students only cited one source in the formal delivery of the speech. While the rehearsal (part a) and the informative career speech assignment, along with all criterion, was reviewed in class, some students failed to modify content or review the grading rubric prior to formal delivery. To help address this deficiency, during the spring 2009 semester students were given a homework assignment that required the student to watch one of the student speeches housed in WebCT, to print and grade the student using the informative speech grading rubric.

The intention of the informative career speech assignment was to have students engage in the learning process by making the assignment relevant to the learner. The assignment sought to have students think about, evaluate and determine educational goals in relationship to career and life goals. The diversity element of the assignment complimented the audience analysis content of a speech course. Students generally enjoyed learning more about their career job and the company they may work for in the future. While the diversity requirement of the assignment was difficult for many students, once understood students benefited from learning about a company’s approach to diversity. For example, one student who plans to work in his family eye-glass business formulated a diversity plan for the family business because they did not have one in place.

Students were able to work in and outside of class with others to build a community of learners. For example, when viewing the rehearsal videos I could see other students in the class helping to operate the camera or sitting at the table listening to the speaker. In-class groups did not remain constant providing students an opportunity to work with all members of the class at one point in time.

The self-evaluation paper (part b) directed students toward analyzing the speech making process from an individual and audience perspective. When students learn they will be videoed delivering speeches, the standard response is “oh, no.” However, once the student experiences the process, the remarks are positive. For example, “I did not want to see myself on video but it really helped me see what I was doing wrong and what I was doing right.”

The function of the surveys was to gain student feedback on teaching and learning strategy use and to prompt student reflection on and cast intention of strategy use on future speaking assignments. I was disappointed that few students utilized the speech lab in preparation for future assignments. Many indicated time as the biggest hindrance. Since some students had difficulty in scheduling a time for rehearsing the career speech at the lab, many students had the impression that it was always difficult to get into the lab to rehearse. Unfortunately, I did not learn of this misconception until the end of the semester but was able to correct this perception during the spring 2009 term.

TVCA

1. Engage students in construction of knowledge (through guided research projects or other applications of the discipline’s procedures for creating knowledge).
2. Align course, library, or counseling outcomes and learning activities with core competencies.

Life Map

1. Help students to continue clarifying and developing purpose (attention to life, career, education goals).
2. Help students transfer life skills to continued learning and planning in their academic, personal, and professional endeavors.

Inclusion and Diversity

1. Develop reciprocity and cooperation among students (interdependence and teamwork).
2. Foster connections among students in and out of the classroom, counseling, and library environments (learning communities).

SofTL

1. Produce professional work (action research or traditional research) that meets the Valencia Standards of Scholarship.
2. Build upon the work of others (consult literature, peers, self, students).
3. Be open to constructive critique (by both peers and students).
4. Make work public to college and broader audiences.
5. Demonstrate relationship of SofTL to improve teaching and learning processes.
6. Demonstrate current teaching and learning theory and practice.

 

1. Engage students in construction of knowledge.
2. Align course, library or counseling outcomes and learning activities with core competencies.

Students had the opportunity to use library sources to investigate desired career and then organize the ideas into a written outline and verbal presentation. Attending a library research session provided students with an opportunity to learn what resources were available and how to retrieve information. For example, the library session provided hands-on experience with using data bases, checking out books, and provided electronic how-to pages making the information accessible to students on his/her schedule. The library homework assignment was designed to reinforce what was learned. Specifically, students used the Evaluating Web Sites how-to page to investigate internet sources, revisited data bases to retrieve articles pertaining to career and then used the APA Tips how-to page to learn how to properly write citations. During the library session students were also shown how to obtain information about the company under investigation including the company’s approach to diversity and to gain insight into the desired position (e.g., nurse, engineer, etc.) by using sources such as, Hoovers Premium, Occupational Outlook Handbook, etc. The library activity asked students to think clearly and critically about sources, to approach research creatively (e.g., to think about indirect relationships), to analyze data available, and to then synthesize information and integrate sources into an outline in preparation for speech delivery.

The rehearsal assignment was designed to engage students in the construction of knowledge and to help students value the skills being taught. Following the library session students’ had the opportunity to submit a draft outline for credit. This activity served to correct any deficiencies in the construction of ideas prior to submitting the formal outline and it prepared students for rehearsing the speech. The speech lab session called on the student to act purposefully, effectively and responsibly. The student was responsible for making his/her own speech lab appointment, to recruit classmates to attend the video recording session (if desired), and assess the effectiveness of choices. For example, the student viewed the rehearsal video and completed an Effective Improvement Speaker survey as a means to self-evaluate readiness of delivery and message construction. Students then made reasoned judgments about content, audience, and delivery. Students then submitted the formal outline, and delivered his/her career speech in front of the class. All students were responsible to complete 3 peer evaluations on 3 different speakers. This allowed the speaker an opportunity to gain feedback on the effectiveness of his/her own message. It allowed student evaluators an opportunity to listen to a variety of speeches and communicate impressions.
 
Students wrote a comparative analysis self-evaluation paper (rehearsal part b) and completed a Pre-Planning and Post Analysis survey to bring together the core competencies of think, value, communicate, and act. The formal and rehearsal speech video and peer evaluations were used to construct the paper. During the process the student revised or confirmed conclusions with new observations, interpretations, and/or reasons (think). Recognize values as expressed in attitudes (self and peers), choices and commitment by engaging in assignments and learning the discipline (value). By completing the assignment, students had opportunity to apply disciplinary knowledge, skills, and values to educational and career goals (act). The culmination of class activities and assignments afforded the student to communication with different audiences using varied means such as in-class group work, speech, etc. (communicate). The survey asked students to think about the rehearsal learning strategies, to formulate intention to act in the future, to determine the value of the assignment and to communicate strengths and weaknesses.

1. Help students to continue clarifying and developing purpose (attention to life, career, education goals).
2. Help students transfer life skills to continued learning and planning in their academic, personal, and professional endeavors.  

The informative career speech helped students continue to clarify and develop career and educational goals. Students investigated the position and company they wanted to work for in the future. By researching desired career, company and how the company addresses diversity, students could formulate an opinion by using facts. Once information was gathered, students could draw well-supported conclusions.

LifeMap is a step procedure that asks the student to plan personal, professional and educational goals. However, LifeMap can also be viewed and utilized as a step procedure that asks the student to plan personal, professional and educational goals in relationship to a specific course. For example, when teaching concepts or theories of persuasion the student learns that persuasion seeks to change an attitude, change and/or reinforce attitude and/or behavior. Depending on whom the receiver is the goal of LifeMap is to persuade the student to plan, utilize resources, and seek partnerships as the student identifies his or her goals and works toward being self-sufficient. The goal of the rehearsal assignment was to have students learn strategies that would help the student investigate career goals while learning the communication discipline and is based on the guiding principles of LifeMap.

F -->  Fs -->  FS -->  fS -->  S

Where F is faculty and S is student. The Rehearsal assignment begins as the Faculty instructs students on aspects of the discipline specifically outlining, research and public speaking. The Faculty and student then move through learning elements of the discipline (in-class group work, pair-share, etc.), the Faculty and Student interact (draft outline, topic selection, summative and formative assessment, etc.), and then the faculty role diminishes as the Student gains experience (speech lab, library, etc.), leading the Student to be self-sufficient in creating learning products (speech, outline, self-evaluation, etc.) and managing learning goals.

The benefits to using learning strategies following the LifeMap principles are:

1. Ability to establish learning and career goals that fit area of interest and/or aptitude.
2. Ability to build a connection with course content and life goals.
3. Ability to seek help from peers or instructor (e.g., draft, rehearsal, peer evaluations).
4. Ability to evaluate performance criterion (grading rubrics) for assignments.
5. Ability to access Valencia resources (communication center, advising, library, etc.) providing both internal and external sources of information.
6. Ability to gain or advance skill with content and delivery of a speech.
7. Ability to gain experience with different forms of technology enhancing skill set.

How do students know when they are using principles of LifeMap:

1. When students engage in the learning process.
2. When students establish career, education and life goals and recognize the transferability of learning content to goal.
3. When students utilize resources independently of course requirement.
4. When students successfully complete educational/assignment goals.

How does the professor know when the principles of LifeMap are utilized:

1. When students are prepared for class.
2. When students successfully complete assignments.
3. When students ask questions related to assignments or sources.
4. When students utilize resources independently of course requirement.
5. When students monitor and improve performance.

 

 

1. Develop reciprocity and cooperation among students (interdependence and teamwork).
2. Develop student self-awareness (assumptions).

In class group work (e.g., learning how to verbally cite sources, constructing speech elements, etc.), pair-share activities (e.g., scramble outline), learning about and investigating diversity in an organization were methods used to develop reciprocity and cooperation among students. To help students develop self-awareness a diversity survey was administered and in-class group work (developing main ideas of a speech) occurred. This activity along with the lecture set the stage for students investigating how organizations work toward addressing issues of diversity (e.g., associations, diversity statement, etc.). The performance criterion of the speech assignment called on students to recognize the diversity of an audience through message development. Additionally, the peer evaluations allowed students to receive and express his/her impressions which are content and contextually based.

 

1. Produce professional work.
2. Building upon the work of others.
3. Be open to constructive critique (by peers and students).
4. Make work public to college and broader audience.
5. Demonstrate relationship of SoTL to improved teaching and learning processes.
6. Demonstrate current teaching and learning theory and practice.

SoTL
The action research project was based on the social cognitive theory of self-regulation. The project sought to build on the work of Bandura, Pintrich, Zimmerman, Schunk, and other researchers who have investigated the role of learning strategies to self-regulating behavior. The survey instruments I designed and used for this project provided a method to evaluate the project from the students’ perspective. Participating in the Action Research Track of Destination during the summer and fall 2008 term provided opportunity to gain peer feedback on a portion of the project. The feedback along with my own interpretation of the results allowed me to modify the rehearsal strategy during the spring 2009 term. For example, extra credit was offered to students who submitted a draft outline and/or submitted a video of the student rehearsing other speech assignments. The formal outline grading rubric was modified to reflect a more detailed performance criterion. Also, the schedule in teaching content and assignment due dates were modified. Through dissemination of the project I hope to gain additional feedback.

While the MSLQ did not indicate significance, I do believe further investigation and modification to the rehearsal learning strategy may produce significant results. More importantly, I believe the theory and the theory in practice serves to enhance the personal, behavioral and environmental factors that occur in the learning situation.

 

Part of this project was shared with a group of faculty at the Destinations wrap-up session on Saturday, December 6, 2008 at the Valencia College East campus. During this session projects and results were shared and feedback for improvement provided.

It is my intention to inform communication faculty of the action research project.

Finally, it is my desire to attain IRB approval to run the project again during the fall 2009 term and to present the findings at an international conference on teaching and learning in the future.