Degree Program Assessment Reports : View Reports

Unit: Communication Sciences & Disorders
Program: Communication Sciences & Disorders (MS)
Degree: Master's
Date: Tue Nov 20, 2018 - 12:28:57 pm

1) Program Student Learning Outcomes (SLOs) and Institutional Learning Objectives (ILOs)

1. 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)

2. Students will be able to describe different types of communication and swallowing disorders and differences across the lifespan and apply that knowledge in clinical practice. (IV-C, V-B)

3. 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)

(1. Demonstrate comprehensive knowledge in one or more general subject areas related to, but not confined to, a specific area of interest., 4. Critically analyze, synthesize, and utilize information and data related to one’s field of study., 5. Proficiently communicate and disseminate information in a manner relevant to the field and intended audience.)

4. Students will be able to conduct themselves in accordance with professional ethics, including the current ASHA Code of Ethics. (IV-E)

(6. Conduct research or projects as a responsible and ethical professional, including consideration of and respect for other cultural perspectives., 7. Interact professionally with others.)

5. Students will understand evidence-based practice: locate credible and reliable research, critically evaluate research, and relate research findings to clinical practice. (IV-F)

(2. Demonstrate understanding of research methodology and techniques specific to one’s field of study., 3. Apply research methodology and/or scholarly inquiry techniques specific to one’s field of study., 4. Critically analyze, synthesize, and utilize information and data related to one’s field of study.)

6. Students will be able to describe contemporary professional issues. (IV-G)

(1. Demonstrate comprehensive knowledge in one or more general subject areas related to, but not confined to, a specific area of interest.)

7. Students will be able to explain major policies and procedures relevant to professional practice, including certifications, licensure, and regulations. (IV-H)

(1. Demonstrate comprehensive knowledge in one or more general subject areas related to, but not confined to, a specific area of interest., 5. Proficiently communicate and disseminate information in a manner relevant to the field and intended audience., 7. Interact professionally with others.)

8. Students will be able to effectively interact and communicate, including written and oral or other forms. (V-A)

(5. Proficiently communicate and disseminate information in a manner relevant to the field and intended audience., 7. Interact professionally with others.)

9. Students will be able to evaluate and diagnose, select and implement appropriate interventions, professionally and 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 asneeded.

Department Website URL:

Student Handbook. URL, if available online: n/a

Information Sheet, Flyer, or Brochure URL, if available online:

UHM Catalog. Page Number:

Course Syllabi. URL, if available online: n/a

Other:

3) Please review, add, replace, or delete the existing curriculum map.

Curriculum Map File(s) from 2018:

File (03/16/2020)

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.

1-50%

51-80%

81-99%

100%

5) Does the program have learning achievement results for its program SLOs? (Example of achievement results: "80% of students met expectations on SLO 1.")(check one):

Yes, on some(1-50%) of the program SLOs

Yes, on most(51-99%) of the program SLOs

Yes, on all(100%) of the program SLOs

6) Did your program engage in any program learning assessment activities between June 1, 2015 and October 31, 2018?

Yes

No (skip to question 17)

7) What best describes the program-level learning assessment activities that took place for the period June 1, 2015 to October 31, 2018? (Check all that apply.)

Create/modify/discuss program learning assessment procedures (e.g., SLOs, curriculum map, mechanism to collect student work, rubric, survey)

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)

No (skip to question 17)

Investigate other pressing issue related to student learning achievement for the program (explain in question 7)

Other:

8) Briefly explain the assessment activities that took place.

Create/Modify/Discuss Program Learning Assessment Procedures: Academic and clinical education issues were discussed in weekly faculty meetings. Course and curriculum reviews were conducted at the annual faculty strategic planning meetings in December to assess achievement of program goals and SLOs. In 2016, Dr. Yao Hill presented information on curriculum and program assessment. In 2017, she mentored faculty in developing interview questions for applicants to the CSD program. The questions were used to interview and select students for the CSD 2018-2020 cohort.

Collect/Evaluate Student Performance to Determine SLO Achievement: In 2017, rubrics were developed to evaluate student performance in fulfilling Plan B research requirements (oral presentation and written manuscript). The department instituted two Student Review Meetings (midterm, final) each semester to monitor and track student progress towards SLO achievement and program completion using a Student Performance Review checklist. Student performance was reviewed across semesters by faculty, including: 1) course instructors, 2) clinical educators, and 3) the academic advisor. Clinical performance was tracked by clinical instructors with the online CALIPSO software to document students' progress towards achieving clinical competencies. Externship supervisors evaluated students' application of theoretical knowledge to clinical practice in educational, medical, and early intervention settings in our community.

Collect/Analyze Student Self-Reports of SLO Achievement: Students completed self-assessments of their SLOs for clinical practicum using the online CALIPSCO software. Upon graduation, students participated in exit interviews and completed exit surveys to provide feedback on their program of study and achievement of their learning outcomes including their preparation to enter the professional workforce.

Use of Assessment Results to Make Programmatic Decisions: Internal curriculum reviews were conducted on a regular basis to guide programmatic decision-making. For example, in meetings convened in Spring 2017 and Fall 2017, the faculty discussed and unanimously recommended consolidation and integration of CSD622 (Aphasia & the Dementias) and CSD708 (Seminar in Right Hemisphere Brain Damage and Traumatic Brain Injury) into one course on Adult Neurogenic Language and Cognitive-Communication Disorders. This modification was approved by UH Mānoa and will be effective in Spring 2019 to provide a more coherent curriculum by assimilating, synthesizing, and generalizing evidence-based intervention strategies across neurogenic communication disorders. For additional examples, refer to Question #15 below.

Faculty Training in Program and Student Assessment: Between 2016-2018, five CSD faculty participated in the Mānoa Assessment Leadership Institute to learn about the process of improving student learning through academic program assessment. Participants mentored other CSD faculty on establishing appropriate standards for student performance and developing rubrics and assessment tools to measure the achievement of these standards. Assessment Leadership Institute projects for CSD faculty included revising the CSD curriculum map, developing a list of indicators to assess professionalism, and modifying program admissions criteria and interview questions to align with CSD core values. Three faculty attended the Annual Conference of the Council on Academic Programs in Communication Sciences and Disorders (CAPCSD) in 2016, three faculty attended in 2017, and one faculty attended in 2018. The mission of CAPCSD is to advance the highest standards in pedagogy, clinical education, and research.

9) What types of evidence did the program use as part of the assessment activities checked in question 7? (Check all that apply.)

Artistic exhibition/performance

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

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

Assessment-related such as assessment plan, SLOs, curriculum map, etc.

Program or course materials (syllabi, assignments, requirements, etc.)

Other 1:

Other 2:

10) State the number of students (or persons) who submitted evidence that was evaluated. If applicable, please include the sampling technique used.

Evidence was collected from 85 students who were enrolled across this time frame, between June 1, 2015 through October 31, 2018. All student samples were considered when assessing the program (no sampling technique was employed).

Exit survey were conducted for MS Communication Sciences and Disorders majors with a 100% return rate for 2015 (n=10), 2016 (n=13), 2017 (n=12) and 2018 (n=14).

11) Who interpreted or analyzed the evidence that was collected? (Check all that apply.)

Course instructor(s)

Faculty committee

Ad hoc faculty group

Department chairperson

Persons or organization outside the university

Faculty advisor

Advisors (in student support services)

Students (graduate or undergraduate)

Dean/Director

Other:

12) How did they evaluate, analyze, or interpret the evidence? (Check all that apply.)

Used a rubric or scoring guide

Scored exams/tests/quizzes

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)

Other:

13) Summarize the results of the assessment activities checked in question 7. For example, report the percentage of students who achieved each SLO.

Student Achievement of SLOs: Between June 1, 2015 through October 31, 2018, 49 students completed graduation requirements for their MS in Communication Sciences and Disorders. These students demonstrated achievement of SLOs through passing grade requirement of B- or better, and demonstration of SLOs through clinical practicum courses. The department has a 3-year average program completion rate of 100%.

Program and Curriculum Assessment Meetings: Outcomes have included modifications of the Plan B research requirement, SLOs and curriculum map, and Program of Study (course deletions and modifications); development of rubrics for written and oral communication, development of departmental core values; and program admissions procedures.

Assessment of Student Performance: Faculty applied student feedback from Graduate Exit Surveys and Externship Supervisor Feedback to direct program improvements. Advising procedures were modified and the Student Handbook and Clinic Manual were updated to ensure consistent messaging across students. Faculty instituted bi-semester student performance review meetings (midterm and final), to assist with early identification of students in need of remediation, as well as to support student success. In the event that a student is not progressing as expected (i.e., not meeting program requirements as outlined in the Student Handbook, Clinic Manual, and reinforced in advising meetings), timely action will be taken including the development and implementation of a performance improvement plan (PIP).

14) What best describes how the program used the results? (Check all that apply.)

Assessment procedure changes (SLOs, curriculum map, rubrics, evidence collected, sampling, communications with faculty, etc.)

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)

Other:

15) Please briefly describe how the program used the results.

Course and Curriculum Changes:

CSD695 Research Requirement: Plan-B (non-thesis) research requirement was modified from a research project (which included IRB approval, data collection and analysis, oral defense, and manuscript), to an Individualized Directed Research (IDR) (which includes a focused scientific literature review on a clinical question or topic, oral presentation, and manuscript). The change from research project to IDR was implemented to emphasize the process of evidence-based practice. The credit requirement for CSD695 was changed from 3 credit hours (1 credit taken over 3 semesters) to 2 credit hours (1 credit taken over 2 semesters).

CSD724 Practicum: Off-campus practicum courses in the Plans of Study were changed from a variable "6 or 9 credits" to a uniform "9 credits", to ensure a full-time clinical education experience for registered students and to more accurately account for their time and effort at off- campus practicum sites. Practicum courses were enhanced with a series of colloquium sessions which highlighted inter-professional practice and multicultural diversity.

CSD622 Modification and CSD708 Deletion: CSD622 (Aphasia and the Dementias) and CSD708 (Seminar in Right Hemisphere Brain Damage and Traumatic Brain Injury) were consolidated into one course (CSD622: Adult Neurogenic Language and Cognitive-Communication Disorders) because of overlapping course content and SLOs.

CSD617 Deletion: CSD617 (Audiology Practicum for Speech-Language Pathology) was deleted from the Programs of Study, because of overlapping content in CSD 603 (Audiological Foundation for Speech-Language Pathology) and CSDCSD 723 (Seminar in Audiology - Rehabilitative Procedures).

Program Improvements:

Professionalism: The focus for the faculty over the past year has been on defining "professionalism" in order to develop and assess qualities and skills to prepare students for professional practice. The faculty collaborated with the UH Mānoa Assessment Office to develop a list of indicators to assess professionalism.

Admissions: The professionalism rubric was refined and applied to formulating questions for applicant interviews to guide decision making in the 2018 admissions process. Evaluation of rubric is in process.

Student Advising: Effective Fall 2017, a full-time permanent faculty was designated as the Department's Academic Advisor, with support from the entire faculty. The majority of advising was conducted in regularly scheduled group meetings three times per semester (according to first-year cohorts and second-year cohorts) to ensure that the same information on program requirements was conveyed at the same time to each cohort. Individual advising meetings were scheduled with students as needed and/or as requested throughout the semester. A review of implemented changes between Fall 2017 to Summer 2018 indicated significant improvement with the advising process as indicated by increased adherence with curriculum requirements, course registration deadlines, UH CSD policies and procedures, and documentation guidelines in student advising folders.

16) 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.

Faculty participation in the Assessment Leadership Institute established a shared knowledge base for discussions and program enhancement. At the 2017 Assessment for Curricular Improvement Poster Exhibit, the departmental poster, Use of a Weighted Curriculum Map for Programmatic Improvements in Communication Sciences and Disorders was awarded Best Faculty Engagement.

In preparation for the 2017-2018 academic year, the faculty and staff engaged in self-study to identify strategies for advancing the mission of the UH CSD department. The vision of the department was revised and a "Pathway to Excellence" was developed to reflect core values of the program. The pillars of responsibility, respect, dedication, integrity and competence are intended to set clear expectations for students and identify faculty/staff as role models. The UH CSD department's Vision, Mission, Core Values, and Strategic Plan align with that of the UH John A. Burns School of Medicine and the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA). Students are informed of the vision and core values in their Student Handbook and Clinic Manual, during orientation and advising, and through modeling by faculty.

In February 2018, UH CSD was granted ASHA Approved CE Providership which allows the department to provide continuing education activities for faculty (to support continuing competence), off-site clinical educators (to support professional development and provide an incentive for their voluntary service), and students (to provide a collaborative learning opportunity).

Students were recognized with Volunteer Services Records for their participation in community and service events, including the Memory Project at St. Francis Healthcare System.

Next Steps of Assessment: The process of completing the Assessment Report provided opportunity to reflect on the progress of the department and to identify areas in need of continued improvement. Next steps in the assessment process include: 1) identify sampling processes to assess student achievement; 2) revise Graduate Exit Surveys to include targeted questions for evaluating SLOs; 3) develop Employer Surveys to assess graduates' preparedness and readiness to enter the professional workforce, and 4) explore approaches to better quantify assessment results.

17) If the program did not engage in assessment activities, please justify.

Not applicable. Program engaged in assessment activites as previously described.