Program: Nursing (PhD)
Degree: Doctorate
Date: Mon Aug 30, 2010 - 12:11:41 pm
1) Below are the program student learning outcomes submitted last year. Please add/delete/modify as needed.
In the tables below are the Student Learning Outcomes for the BS in Nursing, MS in Nursing, and PhD in Nursing programs. The SLO's are the basis for program evaluation.
University of Hawai`i at Mānoa
School of Nursing and Dental Hygiene
Department of Nursing
HSNC Competencies, BS, MS & PHD Program Outcomes
The competencies arise from the understanding of nursing as a theory-guided, evidenced -based discipline. Graduates from the curriculum are expected to possess distinctive values, attitudes, habits and skills in both professional behaviors and nursing care competencies that are described in this document. The professional competencies--define the values, attitudes and practices that competent nurses embody and may share with members of other professions; the nursing care competencies--define relationship capabilities that nurses need to work with clients and colleagues, the knowledge and skills of practicing nursing and competencies that encompass understanding of the broader health care system. In all cases, the client is defined as the recipient of care, is considered active participant in care, and includes the individual, family or community. Nursing care competencies recognize that a competent nurse provides safe care across the lifespan directed toward the goals of helping clients (individuals, families or communities) promote health, recover from acute illness and/or manage a chronic illness and support a peaceful and comfortable death. The following document describes the key competencies within the context of professional expectations for baccalaureate, masters and PhD prepared nurses. At the conclusion of the program each graduate from the UHM SONDH is prepared to begin practice in their respective role guided by these professional competencies and expectations.
COMPETENCIES
|
Professional actions are based on core nursing values, professional standards of practice, and the law. |
|
Develops insight through reflective practice, self-analysis, and self care |
|
Engages in ongoing self-directed learning and provides care based on evidence supported by research |
|
Demonstrates leadership in nursing and health care |
|
Collaborates as part of a health care team |
|
Practices within, utilizes, and contributes to the broader health care system |
|
Practices client-centered care |
|
Communicates effectively and uses technology |
|
Demonstrates clinical judgment/critical thinking in the delivery of care of clients while maintaining safety |
|
BACCALAUREATE NURSING |
MASTERS IN NURSING |
PHD IN NURSING |
|
1. A competent nurse’s professional actions are based on core nursing values, professional standards of practice, and the law. |
||
|
1.1 Core nursing values include social justice (from the ANA statement), caring, advocacy, respect for self and others, collegiality, and ethical behavior. 1.2 Ethical dilemmas are embedded in clinical practice; an obligation of nurses is to notice, interpret respond and reflect on these dilemmas using ethical principles and frameworks as a guideline. 1.3 It is essential for nurses to participate in discussions of ethical issues in health care as they affect communities, society, and health professions. 1.4 Professional nursing functions within legally defined standards of practice and state specific regulations. |
1.1. The Master’s prepared nurse demonstrates accountability for specialist legal scope of practice, professional standards and code of ethics. 1.2. It is a responsibility of the Master’s prepared nurse to participate in professional organizations to support nursing practice. 1.3. Ethical analysis and clinical reasoning are required for advanced nursing practice. 1.4. The Master’s prepared nurse articulates and actualizes a personal philosophy of nursing that incorporates ethics, values, and professional standards. |
1.1. It is expected that the nurse prepared at the PhD level will lead efforts in professional organizations to develop policy and standards for nursing practice. 1.2. In positions of responsibility, the PhD prepared nurse advocates for the ethical conduct of practice. |
|
2. A competent nurse develops insight through reflective practice, self-analysis, and self care through the understanding that… |
||
|
2.1. Ongoing reflection, critical examination and evaluation of one’s professional and personal life improves nursing practice. 2.2. Reflection and self-analysis encourage self-awareness and self-care. 2.3. Pursuing and advocating healthy behaviors enhance nurses’ ability to care for client. |
2.1. The Master’s prepared nurse continually engages in self reflection in order to design strategies that promote lifelong learning of self to guide advanced practice. |
2.1. The PhD nurse critically examines data-based sources and individual experiences to analyze and develop leadership strategies for dealing with social, ethical, cultural, economic and political issues related to nursing, health care, and research. |
|
3. A competent nurse engages in ongoing self-directed learning and provides care based on evidence supported by research with the understanding that . . . |
||
|
3.1. Knowledge and skills are dynamic and evolving, in order to maintain competency one must continuously update their knowledge using reliable, current sources of information from the biological, social, medical, public health, and nursing sciences. 3.2. The nurse uses legitimate sources of evidence for decision-making such as research evidence, standards of care, community perspectives and practical wisdom gained from experience. 3.3. As “best practices” are continuously modified and new interventions are constant, the nurse incorporates changes into practice. |
3.1. The Master’s prepared nurse critically examines and utilizes evidence-based sources to support advanced practice. 3.2. In specialist nursing, the practitioner is able to identify problems amenable to research. 3.3. The Master’s prepared nurse participates in the process of evaluating evidence in collaboration with other members of the health care team. 3.4. The Master’s prepared nurse maintains competency through the development of a personal plan for lifelong learning and continued professional development. 3.5. Professional practice obligations dictate that one will demonstrate initiative and self-direction in seeking ways to improve health and health care. |
3.1. The PhD nurse develops and uses existing and evolving knowledge to improve nursing education and practice. 3.2. The PhD nurse conducts research to improve and maintain the health of a diverse society. 3.3. The PhD nurse employs translational models for applying research evidence to nursing practice. 3.4. The PhD nurse disseminates innovative outcomes and findings from evidence-based research improve practice and health care outcomes. |
|
4. A competent nurse demonstrates leadership in nursing and health care through the understanding that … |
||
|
4.1. An effective nurse is able to take a leadership role to meet client needs, improve the health care system, and facilitate community problem solving. 4.2. A competent nurse effectively uses management principles, strategies, and tools. 4.3 An effective nurse works with the health care team including the delegation of responsibilities and supervision. |
4.1. The Master’s prepared nurse is expected to demonstrate leadership skills and decision making in the provision of nursing care, team coordination, and accountability for care delivery at the micro-systems level. 4.2. Assuming a leadership role for patient safety and quality improvement initiatives is expected from a master’s prepared nurse. 4.3. Advanced nursing requires an understanding of how healthcare delivery systems are organized and financed and how this affects patient care. 4.4. The Master’s prepared nurse articulates to a variety of audiences the evidence base for practice decisions. 4.5. Leadership skills are required to teach, coach, and mentor other members of the healthcare team. |
4.1. The PhD nurse assumes a leadership role in the development of research and clinical practice models to improve outcomes to meet health care needs of culturally diverse populations. 4.2. The PhD nurse assumes a leadership role in conducting and using research findings and other health information to design and evaluate systems of care for culturally diverse populations. |
|
5. A competent nurse collaborates as part of a health care team. |
||
|
5.1. The client is an essential member of the healthcare team. 5.2. A collegial team is essential for success in serving clients. 5.3. Effective team members must be able to give and receive constructive feedback. 5.4. Colleagues create a positive environment for each other that values holistic client care. |
5.1. Collaborative strategies are required in the design, coordination, and evaluation of patient-centered care. 5.2. The Master’s prepared nurse understands other professions’ scope of practice, and demonstrates highly developed strategies to support communication among team members, patients, and health care professionals. 5.3. The Master’s prepared nurse demonstrates critical skills in leading inter-professional teams and partnerships. 5.4. Coordinating comprehensive care for patients within and across settings and among care providers is expected of the master’s prepared nurse. |
5.1. The PhD nurse participates in collaborative team(s) to generate empirical knowledge that improves practice, health care outcomes, and policy change. |
|
6. A competent nurse practices within, utilizes, and contributes to the broader health care system. |
||
|
6.1. All components of the healthcare system must be incorporated when providing interdisciplinary care. 6.2. The effective nurse contributes to improvements of the health care system through involvement in policy, decision-making processes, and political activities. |
6.1. The Master’s prepared nurse is charged with bringing the nursing perspective to policy development by advocating for policies that improve the health of the public and the profession of nursing. 6.2. Practice guidelines to improve practice and the care environment are developed by the Master’s prepared nurse. 6.3. The Masters’ prepared nurse is expected to analyze how policies influence the structure and financing of health care practice, and health outcomes on an institutional, local, and state level. 6.5. Examining the effect of legal and regulatory processes on nursing practice, healthcare delivery, and outcomes is the responsibility of the Master’s prepared nurse. 6.6. The Master’s prepared nurse advances equitable and efficient prevention services through population based health promotion and disease prevention services. |
6.1. The PhD nurse assumes a leadership role in the political process to improve the quality and safety of health care and advance nursing education. 6.2. The PhD nurse develops educational programs that are accountable to the community of interest in preparation of professional nurses. |
|
7. A competent nurse practices client-centered care. |
||
|
7.1. Effective care is centered around a respectful relationship with the client that is based on empathy, caring, mutual trust, and advocacy. 7.2. Nursing practice should reflect the attitudes, beliefs and values of clients. 7.3. An understanding of the culture and history of the community is fundamental in the practice of nursing. |
7.1. Advanced nursing includes advocating for patients, families, caregivers, and members of the healthcare team. 7.2. Preparing clinical practice guidelines appropriate for diverse cultures is expected of the advanced practice nurse. 7.3. Advanced knowledge of the effects of bio/psycho/social determinants of health is required to design, evaluate, and implement patient care. |
7.1 The PhD nurse generates nursing knowledge about health care systems and care models. |
|
8. A competent nurse communicates and uses technology effectively through the understanding that … |
||
|
8.1. Effective use of communication is an essential part of all interventions to establish caring and therapeutic relationships to educate and advocate for clients. 8.2. When working with colleagues or clients, it is important to ensure that accurate, timely and complete communication has occurred. 8.3. Successful communication requires attention to elements of cultural influences, variations in the use of language and a participatory approach. 8.4. Information and communication technologies provide essential information for delivery of effective nursing care. |
8.1. The Master’s prepared nurse demonstrates effective communication across and within all professional spheres including the interdisciplinary team, peers, clients and the community. 8.2. The Master’s prepared nurse uses information technology and research methods appropriately to identify gaps in evidence for practice and collect appropriate and accurate data to generate evidence for nursing practice. 8.3. The Master’s prepared nurse analyzes current and emerging technologies to optimize patient safety, cost effectiveness, and outcomes of care. 8.4. The Master’s prepared nurse in a leadership position implements the use of information technologies to coordinate and integrate patient care and transitions of care across settings and among healthcare providers. 8.5. The Master’s prepared nurse holds the responsibility of ensuring the use of ethical principles and legal policies in the integration and use of patient care and information technologies into care delivery. |
8.1. The PhD nurse participates in collaborative team(s) to generate empirical knowledge that improves practice, health care outcomes, and policy change. |
|
9. A competent nurse demonstrates clinical judgment/critical thinking in the delivery of care of clients while maintaining safety through… |
||
|
9.1. Analysis and integration of available data. 9.2. Implementation of prioritized care based on evaluation of data. 9.3. Evaluation and analysis of the nurse’s personal clinical performance 9.4. A competent nurse engages in risk reduction activities, recognizes, communicates and intervenes to promote client safety. |
9.1. The Master’s prepared nurse must critically analyze the best evidence to determine practice implications. 9.2. The delivery of advanced nursing care to diverse populations requires an integration of knowledge of nursing and related sciences. 9.3. The Master’s prepared nurse is equipped to design care for a clinical or community-based population. 9.4. The Master’s prepared nurse uses quality improvement practices to ensure patient safety and the highest quality nursing care. 9.5. A professional environment with high level communication skills is required for peer review, advocacy for patients and families, reporting of errors, and professional writing. 9.6. The Master’s prepared nurse is expected to identify factors to mitigate risks in the practice setting. 9.7. The Master’s prepared nurse uses epidemiological, social, and environmental data for drawing inferences regarding the health status of patient populations and interventions to promote and preserve health and healthy lifestyles. |
9.1. The PhD nurse systematically investigates a clinically focused area of nursing to advance health care in culturally diverse populations. |
8/30/10
2) As of last year, your program's SLOs were published as follows. Please update as needed.
Department Website URL: 
Student Handbook. URL, if available online: NA Information Sheet, Flyer, or Brochure URL, if available online: UHM Catalog. Page Number: Course Syllabi. URL, if available online: NA Other: Accreditation Materials Other: 3) Below is the link to your program's curriculum map (if submitted in 2009). If it has changed or if we do not have your program's curriculum map, please upload it as a PDF.
4) The percentage of courses in 2009 that had course SLOs explicitly stated on the syllabus, a website, or other publicly available document is indicated below. Please update as needed.
0% 1-50% 51-80% 81-99%
100%5) State the assessment question(s) and/or goals of the assessment activity. Include the SLOs that were targeted, if applicable.
In the School’s Strategic Plan 2010-2012, the DON identified a strategic imperative for Educational Effectiveness to support progression and successful graduation of all students, including those from underrepresented groups (i.e., Native Hawaiians and Pacific Islanders). The DON Logic Model provides a pictorial view of the resources, activities, outputs, outcomes and impact for the educational programs. The ADAA and the Department/Graduate Chairs are responsible to ensure confidential and consistent data collection; timely analysis and dissemination to stakeholders; and to assure program response to outcome analyses. Curriculum and Evaluation Committees are charged to act on outcomes that fail to meet benchmarks. The School’s quality management effort is designed to assure that CCNE and UHM standards are met or exceeded.
The DON Evaluation Matrix outlines the type of evaluation, purpose, point person, frequency of administration, and the review process for quantitative data collection, as well as providing established benchmarks aligned with CCNE standards (Question 6). Processes are in place for the regular collection of aggregate student outcome data. All information is confidential and individual student identifiers are not traceable. As we expand use of electronic tools for data collection, we are continually reviewing data sources and improving processes to increase response rates. The DON administration, ADAA, and Dean, meet regularly with students for informal “talk story” sessions. The Student Nurses Organization provides valuable input to administration. The DON Bylaws include student representatives on student affairs and the curriculum and evaluation committees.
6) State the type(s) of evidence gathered.
Table 1. DON Evaluation Matrix: BS, MEPN, MS & PhD Programs including Data Sources, Purpose,
Point Person, Data Collection, Review Process, and Benchmarks
|
Data Sources |
Purpose |
Point Person |
Frequency of Collection |
Frequency of Review |
Results Reviewed by |
|
Student Experience Survey |
Formative evaluation of experiences as a DON BS, MEPN, MS, Post-MS, and PhD student |
ADAA |
Annual, spring semester |
Annual |
Academic Team*, Director Office of Student Services, Director of IT, Directors for the Graduate Programs, including MEPN (graduate responses only), PhD Director (PhD responses only), Student Nurses Organization (summary) |
|
Process: Electronic distribution of online survey tool to all levels of students by the Evaluation Specialist (ES) in March with a 4-week response rate time and 3 email reminders. The ES creates reports with data summarized by total responses and program (BS, MEPN, MS, Post-MS, and PhD). Reports distributed to appropriate units in May to be reviewed and discussed, with action plan due to the ADAA by July. ADAA monitors to ensure revision, as appropriate, and compiles trend data to assure maintenance of improvement. Expected Outcome Benchmark: ≥ 90% of the student responses to the satisfaction questions meet minimum expectations (at least 3.5 on a 5-point Likert scale for all items and total mean scores). |
|||||
|
Course Evaluation: Students |
Summative evaluation of students reported perception of success in meeting course objectives that map to program outcomes |
ADAA |
Every semester |
Fall and spring semesters |
DON Chair, Graduate Chair, Course Coordinator, Faculty Member, Undergraduate (UG) and Master’s Program Curriculum & Evaluation Committees |
|
Process: Electronic distribution of online survey tool to students enrolled in each course 1 week before the end of the semester and 3 email reminders for all courses except those that require a HESITM/KaplanTM. For these courses, evaluations are done online prior to the testing. The ES creates reports and distributes for review. DON and Graduate Chairs are responsible to follow up on recommendations to ensure revision, when appropriate. Expected Outcome Benchmark: ≥ 90% of the student responses to the end of course evaluation questions meet minimum expectations (at least 3.5 on a 5-point Likert scale for all items and total mean scores). |
|||||
|
Clinical Site 3600 Evaluation: Student |
Summative evaluation of student experiences at clinical agencies |
ADAA |
Annual, spring semester |
Annual |
UG: Academic Team*, Course Coordinators (Course specific data only), & Clinical Agencies (Agency specific data only) Graduate: Program Directors & Graduate Chair |
|
Process: Electronic distribution of online survey tool to students in clinical courses through Banner and 3 email reminders. The ES creates reports and distributes for review/action to UG: Academic Team*, Course Coordinators (course specific data only), Program Directors & Clinical Agencies (agency specific data only); Graduate: Academic Team*, Course Coordinators. DON and Graduate Chairs responsible to follow up on recommendations to ensure action, when appropriate. Expected Outcome Benchmark: ≥ 90% of the student responses to the clinical site evaluation questions meet minimum expectations (at least 3.5 on a 5-point Likert scale for all items and total mean scores). |
|||||
|
Clinical Site 3600 Evaluation: Clinical Agencies |
Summative evaluation of clinical agencies experiences with students and faculty |
ADAA & Course Coordinators |
Annual, spring semester |
Annual |
UG Academic Team*, Course Coordinators (Course specific data only), & Clinical Agencies (Agency specific data only) Graduate: Program Directors & Graduate Chair |
|
Process: ES contacts the course coordinators during the spring semester for names and emails of the clinical unit managers/ lead contact at healthcare agencies. The ES sends the online survey to the agency contact person with 3 email reminders. Reports are distributed for review. Department Chair responsible to follow up on recommendations to ensure action, when appropriate. Expected Outcome Benchmark: ≥ 90% of the clinical agencies responses to the clinical site questions meet minimum expectations (at least 3.5 on a 5-point Likert scale for all items and total mean scores). |
|||||
|
Clinical Site 3600 Evaluation: Faculty |
Summative evaluation of individual faculty experiences at each clinical agency |
ADAA & Course coordinators |
Annual, spring semester |
Annual |
UG Academic Team*, Course Coordinators (Course specific data only) & Clinical Agencies (Agency specific data only) Graduate: Program Directors & Graduate Chair |
|
Process: Evaluation Specialist (ES) contacts the course coordinators during the spring semester for names and emails of the faculty teaching each section of clinical rotations. The ES sends the online survey to the faculty member with 3 email reminders. Reports are distributed for review. Department Chair responsible to follow up with course coordinators on recommendations to ensure action, when appropriate. Expected Outcome Benchmark: ≥ 90% of the faculty member responses to the clinical site questions meet minimum expectations (at least 3.5 on a 5-point Likert scale for all items and total mean scores). |
|||||
|
End of Program Evaluation for Baccalaureate and Master’s programs Educational Bench-marking, Inc (EBI) Survey |
Summative evaluation of student’s overall experiences as a DON student |
ADAA |
Final semester for graduating students |
Annually, spring semester |
Curriculum & Evaluation Committees, DON Chair and Graduate Chair |
|
Process: ES orders tool from EBI and obtains the list of graduating students (names and emails) from the OSS 2 months prior to graduation. For undergraduate students and pre-licensure MEPN completers, the ES coordinates with the faculty teaching the final course to schedule a time for all students to take the EBI end of program survey (paper). For graduate students, the survey is done online; the ES emails the graduate students with 3 follow up reminders, 1-2 weeks prior to graduation. In the spring semester, the ES obtains the reports from the EBI website and distributes for review. The Curriculum & Evaluation Committees provides recommendations for action to the Department/Graduate Chairs. Expected Outcome Benchmark: ≥ 90% of the students’ responses to the end of program questions meet minimum expectations (at least 4.0 on a 7-point Likert scale for all items and total mean scores). |
|||||
|
Under-graduate & Graduate Alumni Survey Educational Bench-marking, Inc (EBI) Survey |
Summative evaluation of perceived preparation for nursing roles by graduates at 1 and 3 years post-graduation |
ADAA |
Annually, 1 & 3 years post graduation |
Annually, fall semester |
Academic Team* |
|
Process: ES orders tool from EBI and obtains the names and emails of graduates from the previous 1 and 3 years from the OSS. ES forwards list to EBI for email distribution of the alumni surveys with automated reminders; the survey remains open for 4 weeks. Once complete, the ES obtains the report online from EBI and distributes for review to the Academic Team* and action, if appropriate. Expected Outcome Benchmark: ≥ 90% of the alumni responses to the end of program questions meet minimum expectations (at least 4.0 on a 7-point Likert scale for all items and total mean scores). |
|||||
|
Under-graduate & Graduate Employers Survey Educational Bench-marking, Inc (EBI) Survey |
Summative evaluation of perceived preparation for nursing roles by employers of DON alumni at 1 and 3 years post-graduation |
ADAA |
Annually, 1 & 3 years post graduation |
Annually, fall semester |
Academic Team* |
|
Process: This survey is linked to the initial EBI alumni survey. Once a person completes the alumni survey, they are asked to provide the name and email of their employer. EBI sends out the survey to the employer. The ES obtains the report online from EBI and distributes for review to the Academic Team* for action, if appropriate. Expected Outcome Benchmark: ≥ 90% of the employers’ responses to the end of program questions meet minimum expectations (at least 4.0 on a 7-point Likert scale for all items and total mean scores). |
|||||
*Academic Team = Dean, Associate Dean for Academic Affairs, Associate Dean for Research, Director of OREP, Department Chair for Nursing and Graduate Chair, Director PhD Program, and President DON Faculty Senate.
7) Who interpreted or analyzed the evidence that was collected?
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: 8) How did they evaluate, analyze, or interpret the evidence?
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: 9) State how many persons submitted evidence that was evaluated.
If applicable, please include the sampling technique used.
The process for data collection for each assessment is described in Question 6. All students were sent electronic surveys, via emails. Other data was obtained from official reporting mechanisms.
10) Summarize the actual results.
In 2009-2010, all courses were evaluated at the end of each semester. 15 out of 15 courses met or exceeded scores of 3.5 to meet learning objectives. Students enrolled in N798 Grant Writing & Grant Management elective have shown enhanced progression to proposal defense. This trend stimulated faculty discussions over the past year and current work is in progress to develop an online proposal development course. In Spring 2010, students were surveyed to solicit interest in the course. Students were highly in favor of the course and its learning objectives. Some students referenced N798 Grant Writing & Grant Management course and how it better prepared them for writing their dissertation proposal. Students were divided though as to when and how the course should be offered. 50% of students favor a standard 16 week course and the remaining a seminar or intensive. Further faculty discussions will take place in Fall 2010 to finalize the course objectives and configuration.
Spring 2010, consultant led group sessions with faculty and students revealed distance students finishing coursework are at risk of feeling isolated. Thus, the program must continue to make faculty aware of the critical need of timely responses and communication with students transitioning into their dissertation. Recommendations included: Continue to make faculty aware of the critical need of timely responses to students – particularly those who are done with coursework and have a more isolated feeling of the trajectory they hope to achieve and when they might get feedback. Consider instituting a timeline such as found in the literature between faculty and students as a sort of contract for their working together; Slow down the process for adoption of the proposal development course to allow for additional faculty and student input as to the need for the course, the course content, and assurance that requiring such a course will not slow student progression for those students ready to move ahead. Assure that Chairs of the student dissertation will have adequate ongoing input as to feel comfortable and that the course is actually serving to alleviate the problem that initiated the need for such course development; Start to follow-up with graduates of the online program to gather their perceptions of the program strengths and weaknesses after they have graduated and are pursuing their careers for a year; Look to the future for sustainability and new innovations that can continue to increase the feeling of community of learners and the interactivity among learners and with faculty. The PhD Guide was updated and disseminated to faculty and students in Spring 2010.
Over the past year, improvements to the template continue from the past two academic school years. Improved graphics on the home page communicating how to seek assistance in both Elluminate and Laulima were added. Also added was the move from Impatica to iSpring software. This software converted narrated power point presentations into a more universally recognized web video file format. This change was better suited to online students as the video was converted to a flash file format rather than Impatica’s jar file and provided greater usability in playing back power point slides. Streaming video through iTunes University was also used for the first time this year. This technology enabled instructors to share educational videos through a protected interface to only students in their courses.
Annual progression reports from students and graduate faculty reveal the majority of students have met expected progression timelines. Issues to be addressed include timeliness of advisor/course instructor feedback and communication with students. In Fall 2010, the program will institute an annual student-advisor partnership agreement to clarify expectations and set goals within the relationship. Students and Advisors will reach agreement, sign and date the agreement with the expectation to review annually and modify as necessary.
In March 2009, Graduate Curriculum & Evaluation Committee approved pathway changes that became effective Fall 2010. The new pathway will require incoming online PhD students to register for N751 Concept Development & Analysis in Fall 2010 and N739 Advanced Nursing Science in Spring 2011.
During 2009-10, extensive discussions occurred concerning growth of the PhD program and inefficiencies in the process of decision making procedures at the graduate committee meetings. In Spring 2010, a proposal to establish an autonomous PhD Committee and amend the Department of Nursing bylaws was supported by the majority of department faculty. Changes to Department of Nursing bylaws took effect in Fall 2010. The new PhD Committee is established to maintain oversight and direction of the PhD program.
11) How did your program use the results? --or-- Explain planned use of results.
Please be specific.
|
PhD’s Program Improvement Examples |
||
|
Data Source |
Evaluation |
Actions |
|
Course evaluations/ informal student feedback sessions |
Core courses N739 and N751 out of sequence; students having difficulties with course objectives |
Recommendation to Graduate Curriculum and Evaluation Committee to change course pathway and offer N751 followed by N739. GCEC approved in Spring 2009 and new course pathway went into effect Fall 2010. Outcomes of change to be evaluated. |
|
Consultant feedback; Student Experience Survey |
Students report issues with timeliness of communication and feedback from course instructors and advisors. |
Report findings to course instructors and discuss in Graduate faculty meetings to resolve communication issues; introduce a student-advisor agreement to address expectations of partnership. Continue to evaluate communications. |
12) Beyond the results, were there additional conclusions or discoveries? This can include insights about assessment procedures, teaching and learning, program aspects and so on.
Generic assessments tools are used in the program. Some items found on some of the assessment tools are not applicable to the PhD program. The indices require review and modifications to better address the needs of online PhD students.
13) Other important information:
The PhD program conducts three annual summer intensives (newly admitted cohort, year2 cohort, year3 cohort). Each summer intensive session is evaluated for participant satisfaction and effectiveness. Participant feedback is used to modify and improve future intensive sessions.