Using a Mixed-Methodological Approach to Assess the Communication Lab - Gaining Insights and Making Improvements

Oct 15, 2026

The basic course faces growing pressure to assess student achievement and learning outcomes, often tied to funding, yet quantitative measures can miss student voices and emotions. This paper examines assessment of a communication lab through individual and collective observations and analysis of 99 open-ended prompts from 165 post-visit surveys. Findings reveal tension between lab efficiency needs and students’ desire for supportive learning, yielding themes that guide targeted improvements and validate mixed-method assessment.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages28

Reading Time1 h 11 min

AccessFree to download

Abstract

Literature Review

Mixed-Methods Approaches to Assessment Work

Using a Mixed-Methodological Approach to Assess the Communication Lab: Gaining Insights and Making Improvements Lindsey B. Anderson University of Maryland, College Park Lauren Berkshire Hearit Purdue University Melanie Morgan Purdue University Jane Natt Purdue University Abstract The basic course is under increased pressure to complete assessments that report student achievement and learning outcomes, and the results often have funding implications (Liefner, 2003; U.S. Department of Education, 2006). Many of these assessments rely primarily on quantitative forms of data collection and analysis (Morreale, Backlund, Hay & Moore, 2011) . However, these reports are only a partial portrayal of the student experience since quantitatively focused assessments tend to neglect student voices and emotion. This paper highlights the benefits of incorporating a qualitative perspective into basic course assessment work, specifically an assessment of the help provided by a communication lab (com lab) . Through individual and collective observations, as well as an analysis of 99 open-ended prompts from 165 standard post-visit student surveys, we found a tension that was created when the lab’s need for efficiency and effectiveness did not align with the students’need for a supportive learning environment. Two overarching themes--interactional and organizational constraints--emerged that illuminated the tension that would otherwise have been overlooked in a traditional quantitative assessment of the com lab. These findings provide clear avenues for improvement that can enhance learning outcomes and impact available funding, while also legitimizing the need to incorporate a mixed-methodological approach to traditional assessment work in the basic course. In the eighth version of the Communication Education basic course report, Morreale, Worley, and Hugenberg (2010) found that 15.4% of two-year institutions and 19.9% of four-year institutions had communication centers or oral communication labs, and that number was only expected to continue to grow. This was a substantial increase given that these basic course resources were not even mentioned in the original report (Gibson, Gruner, Brooks, & Petrie, 1970) . Despite this increase in the implementation of communication labs on college campuses, there is a lack of corresponding research, especially concerning questions of student experience (Jones, Hunt, Simonds, Comadena, & Baldwin, 2004; Morreale, 2001; Nelson, Whitfield, & Moreau, 2012) . Assessments used to determine the value or effectiveness of communication labs have traditionally relied on quantitative forms of data collection and analysis (Avanzino, 2010; Crocker-Lakness, 1990; Daly, 1994; see Morreale, Backlund, Hay & Moore, 2011 for a review of assessment within oral communication). This approach is preferred in part due to the increased pressure to report learning outcomes and demonstrate teaching effectiveness, which have become priorities in higher education (Boyd, Morgan, Ortiz, & Anderson, 2014) . In addition, state, local, and institutional agencies are increasingly demanding that disciplines like communication develop policies, instrumentation, and procedures to demonstrate that both programs and students are producing results (Backlund, Hay, Harper, & Williams, 1989; Gray, 1989; Goulden, 2009). Within the field of communication, many measurement instruments have been developed for assessment; most of these instruments are quantitative and are focused on if instructors have met learning objectives for coursework (McCroskey, 2007) . A national survey of assessment trends in communication departments found that while most universities assess public speaking learning objectives by using course evaluations, many state legislatures and regional accreditation agencies have begun requiring programs to implement more systematic assessments (Hay, 1992). In a longitudinal study of the basic communication course in

FAQs

Why do basic courses face increased assessment pressure?

They must report student achievement and learning outcomes, and the results often influence funding implications and demonstrations of teaching effectiveness.

What limitation does purely quantitative assessment have in this context?

Quantitative approaches may neglect student voices and emotion, providing only a partial portrayal of the student experience.

How was the communication lab assessed in the study?

Through individual and collective observations and analysis of 99 open-ended prompts from 165 standard post-visit student surveys.

Oct 15, 2026

Uploaded by WPS_1790064749