Benchmarking ACEJMC Competencies

Abstract

The Accrediting Council on Education in Journalism and Mass Communications (ACEJMC) has developed twelve professional values and competencies that all students in accredited programs must demonstrate before graduation. This study asked Association of Schools of Journalism and Mass Communication (ASJMC) program administrators which competencies were most emphasized in their current programs and which were most important for students graduating in 2020. Findings revealed that the core competencies of “writing,” “thinking,” and “technology” were seen as being most emphasized currently and most important in the future. The authors use these findings to suggest that a tiered assessment system might be more appropriate to accommodate differences in program emphasis.

Keywords

ACEJMC values competencies benchmark assessment journalism education mass communication education accreditation media education

Introduction

“These 12 [ACEJMC values and competencies] cover the field. Obviously some will be more important than others and emphasized more than others.”

—Survey response from administrator in an ACEJMC-accredited program

Started in 1945 as the American Council on Education in Journalism, the Accrediting Council on Education in Journalism and Mass Communications (ACEJMC) is recognized by the Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA) for “accrediting programs for professional education in journalism and mass communications in institutions of higher learning.”¹ Historically, ACEJMC accreditation and reaccreditation have been about the “inputs” or resources of a program (e.g., Who are the faculty? What are the facilities like? Does the curriculum fit specific guidelines?). However, since 2000, ACEJMC requirements have shifted the standards to include “outputs” or outcomes of student learning. It is a paradigm shift that has been refined over the years, yet continues to challenge programs seeking either initial accreditation or reaccreditation from ACEJMC.²

The purpose of this project is twofold. First, it is to determine which professional values and competencies Association of Schools of Journalism and Mass Communication (ASJMC) program administrators say (1) their programs currently emphasize and (2) were most important for students graduating in 2020. Second, it is to suggest implications the findings might have for assessment.

ACEJMC Accreditation

Over the years, ACEJMC accreditation debates have focused on both the utility of accreditation itself and its internal requirements. Administrators have argued that “accreditation standards are not high enough and never have been,”³ the process is too expensive⁴ and/or “time consuming,”⁵ and accreditation makes little sense for programs where communication studies rather than journalism is the main focus.⁶ Others called for “accreditation standards . . . flexible enough to allow for the liberal education content of many of our contemporary mass communication courses.”⁷ One study found that 70.2 percent of journalism and mass communication program administrators rated their students’ math skills as “poor or fair,” which called into question the effectiveness of the current “applying basic numerical and statistical concepts” competency.⁸ Yet, other administrators have noted that the self-study process was valuable.⁹ In addition to the value placed on accreditation by administrators, recent research involving JMC (Journalism and Mass Communications) alumni also found that the ACEJMC competencies were valuable. Alumni in that study rated the competencies related to “writing,” “critical thinking,” and “creativity” as most valued, although they did not seem to find the competencies related to “core knowledge and skills” useful on the job.¹⁰

In the late 1980s, accreditation and reaccreditation were framed as “quality control” for journalism and mass communication programs.¹¹ In 1988, programs were awarded accreditation or reaccreditation if they could show a “[p]rofessional (practitioner) mission, with related goals and objectives; definable budget; administrator and faculty who administer their own budget and define their own destiny of the goals and objectives which they set.”¹² At the time, there were twelve standards (inputs) by which programs were judged, but no competencies (outputs). These standards were as follows: “1) Governance/Administration, 2) Budget, 3) Curriculum, 4) Student Records/Advising, 5) Instruction/Evaluation, 6) Faculty: Full-time; Part-time, 7) Internships and Work Experience, 8) Equipment/Facilities, 9) Faculty Scholarship/Research and Professional Activities, 10) Public Service, 11) Graduates/Alumni, 12) Minorities and Female Representation.”¹³

When the University of Wisconsin opted out of reaccreditation in the 1990s,¹⁴ a renewed discussion regarding the benefits and detriments of accreditation emerged among programs of journalism and mass communication. Changes to the accreditation standards continued as the new 90/65 rule, which “require[d] a minimum of ninety hours outside journalism and mass communication, of which sixty-five hours must be in the liberal arts and sciences,”¹⁵ was changed to 80/65 in 1996.¹⁶ In 2012, the rule was modified again by reducing the number of hours required outside the major. This latest revision reduced the eighty credit hours required outside of the unit to seventy-two.¹⁷

As with the changes regarding the number of liberal arts hours required, program administrators have also debated the Diversity and Inclusion standard. The 2007 “Final Report of a National Study on Diversity in Journalism and Mass Communication” found a divide among program administrators with some contending that ACEJMC was not moving ahead quickly enough with enforcement of diversity requirements and others arguing that the accrediting body was not allowing a broad enough interpretation of the Standard.¹⁸ A 2009 study of diversity found that there were both an “increased number of separate courses” related to diversity and “a greater trend to infuse diversity into traditional courses” across the journalism and mass communication curriculum.¹⁹

Interestingly, a review of studies comparing accredited and unaccredited programs over the last thirty years concluded that “ACEJMC accreditation is a credential whose reputation exceeds its actual benefit.”²⁰

Assessment and Accreditation

Although it can be debated whether the accountability movement in higher education started in the late 1960s and early 1970s, or whether the current assessment movement began in the early 1980s,²¹ by the 1990s, it was clear that regional-accreditation agencies wanted to see how schools were using student-learning metrics to evaluate and improve their programs. For example, in 1990, Robert E. Davis argued for outcome-based program evaluation: “The proof of that quality would be in the students they graduate. It would be their students, not an accreditation report, who demonstrate that the program and its faculty have indeed maintained ‘a level of performance, integrity and quality that entitles them to the confidence of the educational community and the pubic they serve.’”²² Robert M. Smith and Gary T. Hunt explained three months later that “Assessment reverses the usual evaluation model. Instead of the student’s test results being a reflection of the student’s ability, the results are used to reflect on the program’s ability to educate.”²³

It was within this accountability, assessment, and regional-accreditation context that ACEJMC, with its September 2000 adoption of the “Principles of Accreditation,” began to move from an “inputs-only” model of evaluation to include an “outputs” or “student-learning outcomes” model. That move can be seen in the incorporation of the references to “knowledge, competencies and values”²⁴ needed to be demonstrated by undergraduate students prior to graduation.

By 2003, the total number of ACEJMC accreditation standards was reduced from twelve to nine.²⁵ In the process, “one entirely new standard devoted to assessment of learning outcomes” was added.²⁶ It was also during this revision that “the Council removed references to the First Amendment, referring instead to the freedoms and principles underlying it and expecting programs abroad to teach and promote these principles” and strengthened “the Council’s statement on ethical practice.”²⁷ Also in 2003, ACEJMC added eleven professional values and competencies (from here on shortened to “competencies”) under the Standard on Curriculum and Instruction. The accrediting organization now expected that, “irrespective of their particular specialization, all graduates should be aware of certain core values and competencies and be able to” demonstrate their fulfillment.²⁸

In 2009, the competencies went from eleven to twelve when to “demonstrate an understanding of the diversity of groups in a global society in relationship to communications” was modified and the new “diversity” competencies became “demonstrate an understanding of gender, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation and, as appropriate, other forms of diversity in domestic society in relation to mass communications” and “demonstrate an understanding of the diversity of peoples and cultures and of the significance and impact of mass communications in a global society.”²⁹ In 2010, a committee was formed as part of a decennial review of standards, which included a “2012 survey sent to administrators of accredited programs asking for feedback on standards.”³⁰ That survey, which had a response rate of 61 percent among accredited programs, said “Standard 2: Curriculum and Instruction; Standard 3: Diversity and Inclusiveness, and Standard 9: Assessment of Learning Outcomes were identified as areas in need of attention.”³¹ In addition, the June 2012 ACEJMC newsletter reported that Standard 9, Assessment of Learning Outcomes, was the standard most often in noncompliance.³²

Besides the concerns of administrators, in 2012, external stakeholders also voiced concerns about the standards. An open letter from representatives of six journalism foundations³³ to university presidents supported the ACEJMC’s modernization of standards while urging the Council to “spotlight the importance of technology and innovation.”³⁴ A number of changes were implemented after the review, including the modification of the twelfth professional value and competency (changes in italics): “apply current tools and technologies appropriate for the communications professions in which they work and to understand the digital world.”³⁵

Research Questions

The history of ACEJMC program accreditation and assessment demonstrates the fluid nature of the requirements. The standards and competencies are works in progress that change as the needs and perceptions of the academy and profession change. To highlight the shifting nature of the rules, it is not clear at the time of this writing whether the recent changes made by the Council in 2012 were enough to address the concerns voiced by administrators or the journalism foundations, or whether additional changes are forthcoming. What is clear, however, is that the twelve professional values and competencies continue to be the centerpiece for the assessment of student learning.³⁶ Understanding the relative weight each program places on the competencies, then, becomes essential when considering whether those competencies in fact ensure high quality academic study today and in the future. To address these important issues, this study asked the following:

RQ1: Which three professional values and competencies do programs emphasize most?

RQ2: Which three professional values and competencies are most critical for students graduating in 2020?

RQ3: Do responses vary between administrators of accredited and nonaccredited programs?

Method

Sample

ASJMC is an administrators’ group from schools that teach journalism and mass communication. ASJMC comprises representatives from accredited and nonaccreditation journalism and mass communication programs. Membership is voluntary. ASJMC programs include everything from large research universities to small, primarily undergraduate liberal arts and sciences institutions.

A mailing list of ASJMC contacts was purchased for this study. The list identified 505 people/programs affiliated with ASJMC. Of these 505, 29 contacts were eliminated for a variety of reasons (e.g., they did not represent undergraduate programs, the person contacted said no one in the program belonged to ASJMC, the program had been eliminated, etc.) leaving 476 valid names. Of the 476 programs/individuals contacted, 179 completed surveys were usable (37.6 percent).

Three administrators (one from an accredited program and two from nonaccredited programs) responded only to the open-ended questions. These three respondents were eliminated from the analysis, leaving one hundred seventy-six total respondents. Of the respondents, fifty-six were from accredited programs, accounting for more than 50 percent of all ACEJMC-accredited programs.³⁷

Survey

The survey consisted of nine questions.³⁸ It was administered online with requests for participation sent to ASJMC administrators via email. The survey was open to participants for four weeks—from April 23, 2013 to May 23, 2013—during which three unique email requests and reminders were sent to ASJMC administrators.

During a pre-test of the survey instrument, some participants noted concern about being limited to three choices from among the list of twelve competencies most emphasized and most critical to students graduating in 2020. However, one pre-test participant, initially concerned about the limitation, reported that the narrow parameters prompted him to “realistically” think about his program. It was decided that asking respondents to select three (one-quarter of the total) as most emphasized was useful in uncovering program priorities. Taking this feedback into consideration, the researchers considered having participants rank order competencies. Trying to rank more than five to seven items, however, has been shown to lead to survey fatigue, causing respondents to abandon surveys.³⁹ Clustering competencies into top third, middle third, and bottom third was another option, although there was concern that small differences along the margins of the clusters would be magnified. We ultimately concluded the most useful data would be derived from limiting survey choices to three.

Two additional demographic questions, one regarding program size and another about the participant’s administrative position in the program, were included to unearth more nuances regarding priorities. Because of the small numbers of respondents in each subcategory, however, valid conclusions could not be made regarding these data.⁴⁰

Survey results were anonymous and aggregated for analysis. While the survey allowed respondents to include their email address if they wished to receive a report of results, these email addresses were not matched with responses.

Results

RQ1 asked, “Which three professional values and competencies do programs emphasize most?” Although there was a diversity of responses (see Table 1), two competencies were selected by more than half the respondents: “Write correctly and clearly in forms and styles appropriate for the communications professions, audiences and purposes they serve” (one hundred twenty-seven [72.2 percent]), and “think critically, creatively and independently” (ninety-one [51.7 percent]). The only other competency that garnered over one-third of the responses was “apply current tools and technologies appropriate for the communications professions in which they work, and to understand the digital world” (eighty [45.5 percent]). The “ethics” competency (“demonstrate an understanding of professional ethical principles and work ethically in pursuit of truth, accuracy, fairness and diversity”) and the “freedom of speech” competency (“understand and apply the principles and laws of freedom of speech and press for the country in which the institution that invites ACEJMC is located, as well as receive instruction in and understand the range of systems of freedom of expression around the world, including the right to dissent, to monitor and criticize power, and to assemble and petition for redress of grievances”), hallmarks of most journalism programs, were fourth and fifth respectively, with “ethics” getting fifty-six responses (31.8 percent) and “freedom of speech” receiving fifty-three responses or (30.1 percent). No administrators checked the competency “apply basic numerical and statistical concepts” as currently receiving most emphasis.

Table 1.

ACEJMC Competencies by Program Emphasis Current and Future.

	Freedom of speech	History	Gender diversity	Cultural diversity	Theories	Ethics	Thinking	Research	Writing	Evaluate	Numbers	Technology
All—current, N = 176	53 (30.1%)	9 (5.1%)	13 (7.4%)	18 (10.2%)	40 (22.7%)	56 (31.8%)	91 (51.7%)	16 (9.1%)	127 (72.2%)	20 (11.4%)	0 (0.0%)	80 (45.5%)
All—future, N = 176	51 (29.0%)	4 (2.3%)	9 (5.1%)	31 (17.6%)	26 (14.8%)	51 (29.0%)	106 (60.2%)	25 (14.2%)	111 (63.1%)	25 (14.2%)	4 (2.3%)	78 (44.3%)
Accredited—Current, N = 56	27 (48.2%)	2 (3.6%)	7 (12.5%)	6 (10.7%)	7 (12.5%)	15 (26.8%)	27 (48.2%)	3 (5.4%)	42 (75%)	4 (7.1%)	0 (0.0%)	25 (44.6%)
Accredited—Future, N = 56	20 (35.7%)	0 (0.0%)	4 (7.1%)	10 (17.9%)	3 (5.4%)	16 (28.6%)	38 (67.9%)	8 (14.3%)	36 (64.3%)	3 (5.4%)	2 (3.6%)	25 (44.6%)
Nonaccredited—Current, N = 114	24 (21.1%)	7 (6.1%)	6 (5.3%)	12 (10.5%)	31 (27.2%)	39 (34.2%)	61 (53.5%)	13 (11.4%)	83 (72.8%)	15 (13.2%)	0 (0.0%)	50 (43.9%)
Nonaccredited—Future, N = 114	29 (25.4%)	4 (3.5%)	5 (4.4%)	20 (17.5%)	22 (19.3%)	34 (29.8%)	65 (57.0%)	17 (14.9%)	73 (64.0%)	20 (17.5%)	2 (1.8%)	49 (43.0%)

Note. “All” = accredited, nonaccredited, and “don’t know” responses (everyone who answered the two questions).

RQ2 investigated the following: “Which three professional values and competencies are most critical for students graduating in 2020?” Perhaps unsurprisingly, the top five competencies reported by administrators as currently emphasized remained the same for students graduating in 2020 (see Table 1). However, the top competency (writing) dropped from one hundred twenty-seven responses (72.2 percent) to one hundred eleven responses (63.1 percent) while the “thinking” competency rose from ninety-one responses (51.7 percent) to one hundred six responses (60.2 percent). The “ethics” competency dropped five responses while the “technology” and “freedom of speech” competencies remained about the same with two people dropping votes from each category. The “numerical/statistical” competency went from zero to four (2.3 percent).

Accredited versus Nonaccredited

RQ3 examined whether administrators’ responses would be different based on whether they worked in an accredited or nonaccredited program. Six respondents checked “do not know” when asked whether their programs were accredited. They were eliminated from this portion of the analysis.

Current emphasis

Program administrators selected “writing” most often as currently emphasized (forty-two [75 percent]) and the most critical future competency for both accredited (current: forty-two [75 percent]; future: thirty-six [64.3 percent]) and nonaccredited programs (current: eighty-three [72.8 percent]; future: seventy-three [64 percent]).

Interestingly, accredited program administrators identified “thinking” (twenty-seven [48.2 percent]) and “freedom of speech” (twenty-seven [48.2 percent]) as the second most emphasized competencies in their programs while nonaccredited program administrators identified “thinking” as second (sixty-one [53.5 percent]) with “freedom of speech” a distant sixth (twenty-four [21.1 percent]). This suggests the traditional “journalism” emphasis of accredited programs.

Both accredited and nonaccredited administrators identified “technology” as one of their top four competencies: accredited programs, fourth (twenty-five [44.6 percent]), and nonaccredited programs, third (fifty [43.9 percent]).

Future needs

“Thinking,” “writing,” and “technology” were the three most important competencies identified by accredited program administrators for the future graduate, while the nonaccredited program administrators had a slightly different order: “writing,” “thinking,” and then “technology” (see Table 1).

For accredited program administrators looking to the future, “freedom of speech” lost its second place and moved to fourth place after “technology,” while “thinking” moved from a tie for second into first place. Nonaccredited program administrators kept the same ordering from what they emphasize now to what will be critical in the future.

Discussion

So what are the takeaways from this study and what do the results mean for assessment? For the vast majority of our respondents, selecting three competencies appears not to have been a problem. Statistically, if all of the competencies were equally emphasized, then an even distribution of responses across all competencies would be expected. This was not the case. Three of the twelve competencies received more than 40 percent of responses (“writing,” “thinking,” “technology,”), two received more than 25 percent (“ethics” and “freedom of speech”), and three of them received less than 10 percent of the responses (“history,” “gender,” and “numerical/statistical”). Therefore, it could be argued the five most emphasized competencies (those more than 25 percent) comprise the core of JMC education, while the three competencies receiving less than 10 percent are secondary learning objectives. If this is the case, what does it mean for assessment?

Flexibility and a Tiered System of Assessment

As every program administrator can attest, assessment is a difficult, time-consuming activity. To do it well requires the linkage of objectives with the curriculum and syllabi, and then reliable and valid direct and indirect measures.

The ACEJMC gives programs some flexibility on how assessment may be conducted: “The Accrediting Council invites units to adopt, revise or expand this [competency] list as they choose . . . [w]hatever a unit decides, it must ensure that its curriculum and instruction addresses all of ACEJMC’s expectations for all students.”⁴¹ Even with this flexibility, programs must still show how they are assessing all twelve competencies whether they are expanded, collapsed, or modified.

The ACEJMC also recommends all twelve competencies be assessed on at least one of three levels of achievement: “awareness: familiarity with specific information, including facts, concepts, theories, laws and regulations, processes and effects”; “understanding: assimilation and comprehension of information, concepts, theories and ideas”; and “application: competence in relating and applying skills, information, concepts, theories and ideas to the accomplishment of tasks.”⁴² The ACEJMC has also stated that “mastery” rather than awareness, understanding, or application is the assessment expectation: “assessment evaluates student learning . . . and mainly wants to know whether graduates have mastered the professional values and competencies” (emphasis added).⁴³

If one interprets the findings as supporting one survey paticipant’s assertion that “. . . some [professional values and competencies] will be more important than others and emphasized more than others,” then should assessment not take that differential importance into account? For programs that believe some competencies might be “more important than others,” would it make sense for their assessment of student learning to be truly flexible? Would it make sense to have a tiered assessment plan of student learning, where those competencies most emphasized by a program are directly measured to establish student understanding, application, or even mastery while those less emphasized are indirectly measured for awareness or familiarity? For example, “writing,” “thinking,” and “technology” could be assessed for understanding, application, or even mastery, while “free speech” and “ethics” might be assessed at the level of understanding or application. The three competencies that were emphasized the least could be assessed for awareness or familiarity. Or, a program that emphasized the “numerical/statistical” competency most would assess this competency for understanding, application, and mastery while not requiring such a high level of expertise for another competency.

Would such an assessment system allow programs more flexibility, consume fewer resources, and be more reflective of a program’s true priorities? Some might argue that programs can do that now, but the wording of the professional values and competencies (i.e., requiring understanding and application) along with the guidelines presented by the ACEJMC (i.e., promoting mastery) suggest otherwise. While the authors realize the difficulty in implementing any assessment system, a tiered assessment plan of student learning is worth exploring.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

Author Biographies

Jennifer J. Henderson, PhD, is a professor and chair of the Department of Communication at Trinity University in San Antonio, Texas. Her research addresses the boundaries of speech in media and participatory cultures as well as the ethics of this speech.

William G. Christ, PhD, Florida State Unversity, is a professor in the Department of Communication at Trinity University in San Antonio, Texas. He has been writing about media education issues for more than 35 years.