Abstract
This study attempted to develop and evaluate a course module in Purposive Communication for freshmen college students in National University Fairview during the school year 2023 - 2024. Specifically, it identified the lessons that could be developed into a course module based on the course syllabus, compared the evaluation of instructors and expert respondents on the developed module based on the course learning outcomes (CLOs), lesson content, processing tasks/questions and assessment tasks, and recognized the comments and suggestions of evaluators to improve the module. The descriptive type of research was utilized to gather and evaluate data from the two groups of respondents which include fifteen (15) Purposive Communication instructors with degrees in Language, English, Curriculum Development or equivalent and with aligned MA units, and fifteen (15) expert respondents with at least master's degree in Language, English, Curriculum Development or equivalent. Furthermore, weighted means and independent sample t-test were utilized to determine the magnitude of the evaluation and to identify the significant difference between the evaluations of the two groups of respondents. Evaluations and analyses of data reveal that the lessons that were developed into a Purposive Communication course module based on the course syllabus are: a) Communication processes, principles, and ethics, b) Communication and globalization, c) Local and global communication in multicultural settings d) Varieties and registers of spoken and written language, e) Evaluating messages and/or images of different types of texts reflecting different cultures, f) Communication aids and strategies using tools of technology, g) Communication for various purposes, and h) Communication for academic purposes. In addition, instructors and expert respondents evaluated the course module in terms of the course learning outcomes, lesson content, processing tasks/questions and assessment tasks with grand weighted mean ratings of 3.92 and 3.81, respectively, both interpreted as Very Strongly Agree (VSA). Furthermore, there is no significant difference between the evaluations of the two groups of respondents in terms of the aforementioned criteria with p-values of 0.05, 0.14, 0.20, and 0.29, respectively, which are all not less than the 5% level of significance. There are also some comments and suggestions on how to improve the developed course module in Purposive Communication.
