Program: Communication Sciences & Disorders (MS)
Date: Fri Oct 09, 2015 - 10:54:46 am
1) Institutional Learning Objectives (ILOs) and Program Student Learning Outcomes (SLOs)
1) Below are your program's student learning outcomes (SLOs). Please update as needed.
Our program is accredited by the Council on Academic Accreditation in Audiology and Speech-Language Pathology (CAA) through 2020.
- Students will be able to explain normal and abnormal human communication and swallowing processes across the life span and apply that knowledge in clinical practice. (IV-B, V-B)
- Students will be able to describe different types of communication and swallowing disorders and differences across the life span and apply that knowledge in clinical practice. (IV-C, V-B)
- Students will be able to communicate current principles and methods of prevention, assessment, and intervention for people with communication and swallowing disorders and differences and apply that knowledge in clinical practice. (IV-D, V-B)
- Students will be able to conduct themselves in accordance with professional ethics, including the current ASHA Code of Ethics. (IV-E)
- Students will understand evidence-based practice: locate credible and reliable research, critically evaluate research, and relate research findings to clinical practice. (IV-F)
- Students will be able to describe contemporary professional issues. (IV-G)
- Students will be able to explain major policies and procedures relevant to professional practice, including certifications, licensure, and regulations. (IV-H)
- Students will be able to effectively communicate, including written and oral or other forms. (V-A)
- Students will be able to evaluate and diagnose, select and implement appropriate interventions, effectively interact with clients/patients and relevant others, and provide counseling and education in regards to communication and swallowing disorders and differences. (V-B)
2) Your program's SLOs are published as follows. Please update as needed.
Student Handbook. URL, if available online: http://blog.hawaii.edu/csd/files/2011/08/Student-Handbook-9-21-15.docs_.pdf
Information Sheet, Flyer, or Brochure URL, if available online:
UHM Catalog. Page Number: 260
Course Syllabi. URL, if available online: NA
3) Please review, add, replace, or delete the existing curriculum map.
4) For your program, the percentage of courses that have course SLOs explicitly stated on the syllabus, a website, or other publicly available document is as follows. Please update as needed.
5) Did your program engage in any program learning assessment activities between June 1, 2014 and September 30, 2015?
No (skip to question 16)
6) What best describes the program-level learning assessment activities that took place for the period June 1, 2014 to September 30, 2015? (Check all that apply.)
Collect/evaluate student work/performance to determine SLO achievement
Collect/analyze student self-reports of SLO achievement via surveys, interviews, or focus groups
Use assessment results to make programmatic decisions (e.g., change course content or pedagogy, design new course, hiring)
Investigate curriculum coherence. This includes investigating how well courses address the SLOs, course sequencing and adequacy, the effect of pre-requisites on learning achievement.
Investigate other pressing issue related to student learning achievement for the program (explain in question 7)
7) Briefly explain the assessment activities that took place in the last 18 months.
Program learning assessment procedures + Programmatic Decisions:
Assessment results, such as student and instructor feedback, were applied to programmatic decisions, such as flow of programs structure. The Program of Study was reviewed internally for flow.
Determining Student SLO achievement:
The Department reviewed Praxis results of graduating students, and course passing rate of the students to determine student achievement of SLOs
Student Self-reports of SLO achievement:
Students provided feedback of academic learning (i.e. eCAFE survey for each course), clinical experience (i.e. CALIPSO self-evaluations, externship surveys), and graduate program experience (i.e. graduate exit survey). The information from these surveys was analyzed for program development.
External Review Committee:
The Department convened a curriculum advisory board which consists of local and non-local speech-language pathologists and audiologists to investigate curriculum coherence. Committee discussions included adherence to the SLOs, and adequacy of material coverage in light of developing research. The department modified the curriculum based on departmental curriculum review and recommendations from the curriculum advisory board and departmental curriculum meeting.
8) What types of evidence did the program use as part of the assessment activities checked in question 6? (Check all that apply.)
Direct evidence of student learning (student work products)
Assignment/exam/paper completed as part of regular coursework and used for program-level assessment
Capstone work product (e.g., written project or non-thesis paper)
Exam created by an external organization (e.g., professional association for licensure)
Exit exam created by the program
IRB approval of research
Oral performance (oral defense, oral presentation, conference presentation)
Portfolio of student work
Publication or grant proposal
Qualifying exam or comprehensive exam for program-level assessment in addition to individual student evaluation (graduate level only)
Supervisor or employer evaluation of student performance outside the classroom (internship, clinical, practicum)
Thesis or dissertation used for program-level assessment in addition to individual student evaluation
Indirect evidence of student learning
Alumni survey that contains self-reports of SLO achievement
Employer meetings/discussions/survey/interview of student SLO achievement
Interviews or focus groups that contain self-reports of SLO achievement
Student reflective writing assignment (essay, journal entry, self-assessment) on their SLO achievement.
Student surveys that contain self-reports of SLO achievement
Program evidence related to learning and assessment
(more applicable when the program focused on the use of results or assessment procedure/tools in this reporting period instead of data collection)
Assessment-related such as assessment plan, SLOs, curriculum map, etc.
Program or course materials (syllabi, assignments, requirements, etc.)
Other 1: CALIPSO
9) State the number of students (or persons) who submitted evidence that was evaluated. If applicable, please include the sampling technique used.
Direct evidence of student learning (student work projects)
Assignment/exam/paper completed as part of regular coursework and used for program-level assessment – All course syllabi address program SLOs and achievement is determined via examinations and class projects/presentations. Ten students from the 2013-2015 cohort met SLOs and have graduated. The program completion rate was within 2yrs for 83% (10/12 students) of the 2013-2015 cohort. The other 17% discontinued the program for personal reasons not related to the program. The 2014-2016 cohort (14 students) are all meeting SLOs as determined by course assignments, exams, and papers.
Capstone work product – All students complete research projects as part of their graduation requirements. Ten students from the 2013-2015 cohort completed research projects in spring and summer semesters of 2015. The 2014-2016 cohort (14 students) are in process and either has IRB approval or expecting to obtain approval for data collection. Data collection is the expectation for the fall semester of the 2nd year of the program.
Exam created by an external organization – Students in our program must pass the Praxis for graduation and to become fully certified as speech-language pathologists. Our department has held a 100% pass rate for more than three years and this include the 2013-2015 cohort (10 students)
IRB Approval of research – Eleven students from the cohort 2013-2015 received IRB approval for their research projects. Within the 2014-2016 cohort, 13 out of 14 students have obtained approval thus far. The remaining student is expected to receive approval this semester, which is the expectation for the 2nd semester of CSD: 695.
Oral performance – Ten students from the 2013-2015 cohort performed oral defenses of their research projects and passed.
Supervisor evaluation – Ten on-site clinical supervisors and 16 externship practicum supervisors evaluated student clinical performance via CALIPSO.
Indirect evidence of student learning
Focus group: Internal curriculum reviews were performed by all five faculty members and external reviews were conducted by six local and nonlocal speech-language pathologists and two audiologists.
Student reflective writing assignment – The 2013-2015 cohort completed the Graduate Student Exit survey and the Externship Supervisor Survey (10 students).
CALIPSO – CALIPSO is an online program that allows for tracking of student clinic hours, performance, and achievement of SLOs. Clinic supervisors evaluate student performance on clinical activities at midterm and finals. Students perform self-evaluations of their skills. All 24 students participated in CALIPSO, as well as 10 on-site clinic practicum supervisors and 16 externship clinic supervisors to rate student performance.
eCAFE – Seven instructors analyzed their individual reports from eCAFE to assess teaching styles, success, and student’s perceptions of courses.
10) Who interpreted or analyzed the evidence that was collected? (Check all that apply.)
Ad hoc faculty group
Persons or organization outside the university
Advisors (in student support services)
Students (graduate or undergraduate)
11) How did they evaluate, analyze, or interpret the evidence? (Check all that apply.)
Used professional judgment (no rubric or scoring guide used)
Compiled survey results
Used qualitative methods on interview, focus group, open-ended response data
External organization/person analyzed data (e.g., external organization administered and scored the nursing licensing exam)
12) Summarize the results of the assessment activities checked in question 6. For example, report the percent of students who achieved each SLO.
The accreditation status of the department is maintained through the year 2020 due to the efforts of all assessment activities. Our department is fully accredited with no areas of non-compliance.
Program learning assessment procedures + Programmatic Decision:
One permanent course schedule change was implemented based on student and instructor feedback, and Program of Study review. CSD 709: Dysphagia was moved from first-year summer term to first year spring term in order to give students more time to focus on the topic and to balance student workload during a heavy summer term. CSD 702: Disorders of Fluency was moved from first year spring term to the first year summer term in order to accommodate moving CSD 709: Dysphagia to first year spring term.
During the 2014-2015 academic year, four faculty members joined our program to increase the availability of clinical staff and breadth of expertise. Mohsin Ahmed Shaikh, Ph.D (0.75 FTE) joined us as an assistant professor in audiology. Three instructors and clinical supervisors joined the faculty: Ms. Linna Jin, MScA, CCC-SLP (1.0 FTE), Ms. Barbara Ward, MS, CCC-SLP (0.49 FTE) and Ms. Verna Chinen, MS, CCC-SLP (0.25 FTE).
Determining Student SLO achievement:
All 10 students who graduated August 2015 passed the PRAXIS exam with an average score of 181, and passed all graduate course work with an average GPA of 3.89.
Both PRAXIS examination pass rate (100%) and employment rate (90%) met the 80% three-year average threshold. Please note that employment rate is based on the graduating class from August 2015.
Student Self-reports of SLO achievement:
eCafe evaluation by the students are used by the department chair to evaluate instructors for performance and reappointment to best suit the student’s learning needs and emphasis of instructor expertise.
Graduate Exit Survey responses of the 2015 graduating cohort revealed 3 main responses. Their responses and our actions are summarized below:
Students commented that the program of study did not reflect the program expectations.
The program and curriculum map have been revised for the 2015-2017 cohort to reflect the expectations of the program. Course hours for clinical practicum were adjusted to reflect the amount of direct client contact for students. For example, the first semester of clinical practicum is 3 hours to reflect a low caseload. Once students are in externship, their credit hours will increase to 9 hours to reflect a full-time clinical experience.
Students commented that the high faculty turnover rate resulted in new instructors who did not have time to make the students a priority.
Our department now consists of four full-time faculty members and four part-time instructional and/or clinical faculty. The development of the faculty has allowed us to distribute the workload which allows for more time to focus on the students. Faculty meetings have been streamlined to specific time frames, and instructors utilize an online scheduling program to create time slots dedicated to student meeting.
Students felt that their interest in the profession has increased
We continue to provide opportunities for learning by inviting professional from the community to present to the students, engaging students in professionally related service, and accepting student input for weekly colloquiums. Weekly colloquiums consist of training in clinical procedures, ethics, and procedures.
Results of the Externship Surveys revealed that students were placed in a variety of clinical settings from pediatric to adult medical placements. The students indicated that they felt the internship at UH prepared them for their final placements. In particular, they had learned the importance of interdisciplinary work.
External Review Committee
Based on feedback from the curriculum advisory board, course material was modified to reflect growth in the field of study. All courses were generally received well with positive remarks on the design and content of the courses.
13) What best describes how the program used the results? (Check all that apply.)
Course changes (course content, pedagogy, courses offered, new course, pre-requisites, requirements)
Personnel or resource allocation changes
Program policy changes (e.g., admissions requirements, student probation policies, common course evaluation form)
Students' out-of-course experience changes (advising, co-curricular experiences, program website, program handbook, brown-bag lunches, workshops)
Celebration of student success!
Results indicated no action needed because students met expectations
Use is pending (typical reasons: insufficient number of students in population, evidence not evaluated or interpreted yet, faculty discussions continue)
14) Please briefly describe how the program used the results.
There were few changes in the course schedule and course-faculty allocation between June 1, 2014, and September 30, 2015. The Program convened a curriculum advisory board that is consists of local speech-language pathologists and audiologists. The program modified the curriculum based on departmental curriculum review and recommendations from the curriculum advisory board and departmental curriculum meeting. There were some changes in faculty and courses were reorganized based on instructor availability. The graduate students admitted to the fall semester of 2014 are following the modified curriculum map with the changes below:
1) CSD 620: Voice Disorders was temporarily moved from the second year fall term to the first year summer term to accommodate for instructor availability
2) CSD 603: Audiology Foundation for speech-language pathology was temporarily moved to the second year fall term.
3) CSD 709: Dysphagia was moved from the first year summer term to spring term to give students more time to focus on the topic and to balance student workload during a heavy summer term.
4) CSD 702: Disorders of Fluency was moved from first year spring term to the first year summer term in consideration of instructor availability.
5) CSD 617: Audiology Practicum for Speech-Language Pathology was moved from the first year summer term to the second year fall term to accommodate for instructor availability.
Courses moved temporarily will continue to follow a regular program of study. Please refer to curriculum map.
Personnel or resource allocation changes:
There were few changes in personnel or resource allocation between June 1, 2014, and September 30, 2015. During this period, four faculty members and one clinical supervisor joined the program. Dr. Mohsin Ahmed Shaikh, Ph.D. joined the program as an assistant professor in audiology. His specialty is in auditory processing disorders. Ms. Linna Jin, MScA, CCC- SLP is a full-time instructor and clinic supervisor, and her expertise are in neurogenic communication disorders. Ms. Barbara Ward, CCC-SLP is a part-time faculty, and her expertise are in the area of autism. Dr. James Hall, Ph.D. is an Instructor in audiology and Ms. Kathy Maemori, MS, CCC-SLP serves as a clinical supervisor.
There were few faculty members who left the program during this period. Dr. Chiemi Tanaka, CCC-A was a full-time assistant professor and left the program in September 2014 to be with family in Japan. Two part-time faculty members left the program. Ms. Laura Yee, MS, CCC-SLP was a part-time instructor/clinic supervisor who left the program in December 2014. Dr. Edson Hirohata, CCC-A was a part-time assistant professor who left in May
2015. Two part-time clinic supervisors left the program. Mrs. Kauinohea Prusinski, MS, CCC-SLP left in January, and Ms. Kathy Mays, MS, CCC-SLP moved to the mainland to be with family in June.
Student out of course experience changes
There were few changes in program handbook and program website between June 1, 2014, and September 30, 2015. In program handbook, course schedule, course description, academic calendar, faculty list and academic policies have been updated. The department website was regularly updated.
Celebration of student success!
The CSD program selects one graduating student as “Student of the Year” each spring. This award is presented to a student who is is excelling in academics and clinic. This student also shows excellent skills in leadership and professionalism.
15) Beyond the results, were there additional conclusions or discoveries? This can include insights about assessment procedures, teaching and learning, and great achievements regarding program assessment in this reporting period.
16) If the program did not engage in assessment activities, please explain.