The School of Hearing and Speech Sciences (SHSS) at Ohio University offers bachelor’s, master’s and doctoral degrees in audiology and speech-language pathology. The SHSS represents one of the largest pre-professional and professional training programs in communication sciences and disorders in the U.S., according to the Council of Graduate Programs in Communication Sciences and Disorders. Many of our graduates serve as skilled clinicians, clinical directors, owners or directors of private practices, college professors, research scientists, department chairs, and deans. The SHSS is accredited by the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. Current enrollment is approximately 275 undergraduates, 55 Master’s students, and 5 doctoral students.

This report represents a collaborative effort by the Educational Outcomes Committee of the SHSS. During the 1996-1997 academic year, all SHSS faculty have been actively involved in providing input for this report, in planning for the implementation of further outcomes assessment activities, and in further strengthening of SHSS educational programs based on the results a wide variety of outcomes assessments.

This report addresses issues of documentation, study, strategic planning, and implementation of program improvements based on educational outcomes assessment activities throughout the 1996-1997 academic year. Information concerning the undergraduate, master’s, and doctoral programs is presented in each of six topic sections, corresponding to areas of interest communicated by the Associate Provost.

A SHSS Educational Outcomes Committee, including a Chair and 4 additional members, was appointed by the SHSS Director. Committee activities were discussed among all faculty during weekly faculty meetings, and faculty members were consulted regularly by committee members, in person as well as in writing, as outcomes assessment projects were developed. All faculty members participated actively in the process of explicitly stating SHSS targeted outcomes for the undergraduate, M.A., and Ph.D. programs.

As the master’s degree is the minimal degree requirement for professional certification in speech-language pathology and audiology, general targeted outcomes for the undergraduate program focus on solid academic foundations and preparation for further study and clinical training experience at the graduate level. Master’s-level program goals are more intensely focused on outcomes that will lead to excellence in clinical practice. Doctoral-level goals entail a greater concentration on research and scholarly development. The following are the current general educational outcomes goals for students, established by the SHSS Curriculum Committee and further revised by the faculty during the 1994-1995 and 1995-1996 academic years:

Goal 1: Students will possess basic knowledge of the physical, biological, social/emotional, developmental, and linguistic contributors to normal communication.

Goal 2: Students will appreciate the need for and substance of a professional education to deliver appropriate clinical services to clients with communication disorders.

Goal 3: Students will possess basic knowledge of communication disorders and their causes.

Goal 4: Seniors will possess the basic analytical skills to prepare them for graduate clinical and/or research experience.

Goal 1: Master’s students will acquire basic clinical information about communication disorders.

Goal 2: Master’s students will demonstrate basic skills in providing clinical services related to primary communication disorders.

Goal 3: Master’s students will be able to provide clinical services in a professional and ethical way.

Goal 4: Master’s and doctoral students will demonstrate advanced analytical skills and knowledge needed for diagnostic, rehabilitative, and/or research endeavors.

Plans for the review and expansion of program goals for the doctoral program during the 1997-1998 academic year are described in the last section of this report.

The SHSS Educational Outcomes Committee recognized a need for a more specific list of targeted educational outcomes in order to facilitate more detailed analysis of formative and summative outcomes for each of the SHSS programs. Thus, the Committee designed an instrument to elicit faculty input regarding perceptions of specific educational outcomes (Please see Appendix A.). Each faculty member then contributed input regarding targeted educational outcomes for the undergraduate, M.A., and Ph.D. programs, including program-wide targeted outcomes as well as outcomes associated with each of the courses offered in the SHSS major curricula.

Targeted outcomes generated by the entire faculty were grouped according to three outcome categories: Cognitive, Performance, and Affective. "Cognitive outcomes," were defined as those relating to intellectual mastery, or mastery of knowledge in specific topic areas (e.g., ability to describe the basic anatomy of the human hearing mechanism). "Performance outcomes," were defined as those relating to the functioning of a student, or of a program graduate, in a professional setting (e.g., ability to select appropriate formal assessment instruments for effective diagnostic problem-solving for a variety of patient/client types. "Affective outcomes," were defined as personal qualities and values that students ideally gain from their experiences during a particular educational and training program (e.g., demonstration of sensitivity to and appreciation of multicultural issues in a variety of contexts).

The list was then analyzed and edited for redundancy by the Educational Outcomes Committee. The resultant list of targeted educational outcomes complements and provides further detail to support the SHSS list of outcomes goals as listed above. The list also complements, and provides further expansion upon, each of the end-of-program objectives set forth by the SHSS Educational Outcomes Committee in its 1996 report. The new SHSS Targeted Educational Outcomes list will be used as the basis for the next phase of outcomes assessment planning activities in SHSS described in the last section of this report.

The 1996-1997 Educational Outcomes Committee expanded upon and revised goals that were set forth in the educational outcomes report for the 1995-1996 academic year. The goals for the current year are listed below.

Goal 1: Develop a faculty awareness of the goal of improving the focus on educational outcome within our programs, and to engage faculty in the development of comprehensive outcomes assessment practices for all SHSS programs.

Goal 2: Balance our focus on both summative and formative educational outcomes, in order to ensure the use of assessment activities that will: (1) lead to programmatic improvements that will influence the outcomes of students in the future; and (2) provide more immediate feedback to faculty and administrators concerning students’ learning such that the experiences of individual students and classes of students can be modified to enhance the learning of students currently enrolled in each program.

Goal 3: Balance our focus on educational outcomes in three domains: cognitive, performative, and affective.

Goal 4: Focus on outcomes across, as well as within, the curriculum.

Goal 5: Develop and implement an analytical system for tracking: (1) the articulation of specific targeted outcomes to students; (2) the means of assessment that are used to guide student learning, validate learning experiences, and guide program modifications; and (3) the need for the implementation of further assessment methods and instruments.

Educational outcomes indices examined for each of the SHSS programs during the current year are listed below.

Ohio University Career and further education study, Pertinent to undergraduate goal #4

Assessment of students within SHSS major courses (Pertinent to undergraduate goals #1, 2, 3, and 4)

College Outcomes Measures Program (COMP)

SHSS Graduate Student Exit Survey (Appendix I), Pertinent to graduate goals #1, 2, 3, and 4

SHSS Doctoral Graduate Employment Survey, Pertinent to all Ph.D. program goals

An array of formative assessment techniques was used within courses and clinical practica. Several recent Institutional Review (IR) reports were examined to assess student satisfaction with programs and career progress. Student performance on the National Teaching Examination in Speech-Language Pathology was compared to national median and average range scores. SHSS student surveys were used to provide quantitative and qualitative data regarding students’ perceived quality of various learning experiences, and to rate clinical extern sites. Faculty surveys were used to track student research experience at all academic levels. Results of all outcomes information collected were considered carefully in the setting of goals for further outcomes assessment activities during the 1997-1998 academic year.

New assessment instruments designed and implemented during the current year are described in Section V. Additional assessment instruments to be implemented, and others to be considered for possible revision, during the 1997-1998 academic year are described in section VI.

Student involvement data were studied in order to gain insights regarding possible areas for improvement in student-faculty contacts and students’ perception of instructional quality. The most recent IR reports regarding student involvement, including 1989 through 1993 freshman classes, and 1992 through 1996 senior classes, present evidence that undergraduate students are generally satisfied with instruction in the major, that they are in contact with faculty and advisors outside of class, and that they are regular users of the library. Eighty-nine percent of both freshmen and seniors enrolled in the SHSS rated the quality of instruction as satisfactory; 51 % of freshman and 86 % of seniors indicate they regularly converse with faculty members; 92% of freshman and 97% of seniors indicate that they regularly converse with academic advisors; 98 % of seniors and 100% of freshman reported that they regularly use the library. Inasmuch as student involvement, as indexed by these measures, enhance all of the program goals, the results are highly positive. The SHSS faculty agree that teaching evaluations (including ratings of instructor availability), regularly completed by students, offer more sensitive indices of perceptions of instructional quality, and allow for more specific program and course modifications based on student input.

The most recent IR reports of the survey of bachelor’s graduates 5 years after graduation (for the classes of 1987, 1989, and 1991) indicate that 91% to 100% of respondents are employed. Eighty-nine to 100% rate the job-related skills and knowledge gained through courses within their major and their practicum experience to be helpful in acquiring the skills and knowledge needed in their current positions. In assessing the competencies needed and actually developed while at OU, alumni rate highly (88 to 100%) the effectiveness of their training in terms of the competencies they rate highly as "needed" (i.e., analytical thinking, applying the major, written and oral communication, and evaluating and choosing between alternatives). Because the results of these measures of alumni perceptions of program effectiveness and relevance are so highly positive, they are not as useful as some of our more sensitive indices in terms of motivating specific program improvements.

The most recent IR reports of the career and further education study (1991 through 1995) indicate that 71% to 100% of SHSS bachelor’s-level graduate respondents are enrolled in graduate education, that less than 1% of are unwillingly unemployed, that 60% to 100% of respondents are satisfied with current positions, that 75% to 80% are satisfied with their SHSS major course work, and that 97% to 100% have found their undergraduate preparation to have prepared them well for graduate study. Average salary information available through IR is not indicative of true earning potential of SHSS undergraduate majors, because of the large proportion of students who pursue graduate study as part of the requirements for licensure and certification in speech-language pathology and audiology.

Survey of faculty regarding undergraduate research experiences (Pertinent to undergraduate goals #1, 3 and 4)

Results of a faculty survey for the current academic year indicate that, in addition to any research experiences involved in course work, four undergraduate students have been engaged in ongoing research projects with faculty, and one served as first author on a research presentation at the state level. Additionally, one SHSS major is involved in research and independent study as part of the Honors Tutorial program.

This survey was designed during the current year to assess undergraduate seniors’ career and further educational plans, and perceptions of preparation for graduate school or for alternative career paths.

It was recently administered to approximately 50 SHSS seniors graduating in the spring of 1997. Results are not yet available. According to informal reports by faculty members having regular contact with these students, many of the graduating seniors were accepted for graduate study programs in communication sciences and disorders, and some in related areas such as deaf education and rehabilitation counseling. Of those students not enrolling in graduate studies next year, plans for some include employment as speech-language pathology aides or assistants. Others are seeking employment in unrelated areas, and some do not have specific plans at this time. The inability of some students to gain entrance to graduate school because of non-competitive GPAs continues to be a major concern of the SHSS faculty, and we plan to continue our recent efforts to enhance career development assistance for such students (Please see accomplishments under Goal 4, in section V of this report).

Faculty members indicate that a broad array of assessment techniques and instruments are used within the SHSS major courses, addressing each of the four undergraduate outcomes goals. Formative assessments, identifying strength and weaknesses, and allowing opportunities for students to engage actively in improving performance according to course objectives, are used in all SHSS courses. Means of assessment of student progress within courses include: essay, multiple choice, and short-answer examinations; rating forms for oral presentations, class demonstrations, written reports, and interactive computer-based research projects; and competency checklists. Majors are required to maintain an average of 2.0, and to earn a grade of C (2.0) or better in all required courses, but are consistently encouraged by faculty advisors to achieve a GPA of 3.5 or better in order to remain competitive in application to graduate schools. The current average GPA of undergraduate SHSS majors is 3.18. The high rate of graduate school acceptance of SHSS graduating seniors wishing to pursue graduate study (see above), and an average GPA of 3.27 among seniors this year, indicates that these students are excelling in academic course work addressing goals 1 through 4.

College Outcomes Measures Program (COMP)

Results of the College Outcomes Measures Program (COMP) for SHSS majors are intentionally excluded from this report, primarily because of validity problems due to insufficient sampling of SHSS majors (five SHSS majors total sampled over the past six years of COMP administration, according to IR). SHSS Educational Outcomes Committee members concur that ongoing and improved assessment of cognitive, affective, and performance outcomes of students in all SHSS programs, through multiple types of assessments as described in this report, will lead to improved fostering of students’ general knowledge and skills such as those that the COMP is purported to assess.

Scores from the National Teaching Examination (NTE) in Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology are used by many training programs across the country as indicators of educational program effectiveness in terms of leading graduate students toward mastery of the major academic content areas in our disciplines. In our program, we consider the passing of the NTE to be a comprehensive academic capstone experience for the M.A. program. The most current NTE data available this year, obtained from October, 1995 through September 1996, include results from 21 Master’s-level students in speech-language pathology at O.U. (Data for audiology students are unavailable from NTE due to the small number enrollees.). Our students demonstrated an impressive 100% pass rate according to the criterion set by the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association for clinical certification in speech-language pathology and audiology. Our graduate students obtained a median score of 690, 20 points above the national median score for the same period. The lower boundary of the average range of our graduate students’ scores (650 to 710) was also 30 points above the national average range. NTE scores indicate excellent achievement in terms of graduate goals #1 and 4.

Students engaged in ongoing clinical activities at the Ohio University Speech and Hearing Clinic and at all off-campus clinical sites receive regular evaluations of their clinical knowledge and skills, as well as their professional and ethical conduct. These evaluations are used formatively by clinical supervisors to encourage students to improve in areas of weakness while they are still enrolled in clinical practicum activities. When any student earns a practicum grade of B- or lower, he or she is counseled by the Clinic Director and by a clinical supervisor regarding areas of weakness, and the possibility of reassignment of clinical supervisors for that student is considered. During the current year, only one graduate student received an evaluation corresponding to a grade of B- or lower, and she has demonstrated significant improvements in clinical performance, according the Clinic Director. All other students engaged in clinical practica on campus this year have exceeded a GPA of 3.4 for clinical practica, suggesting that achievement according to goals 2, 3 and 4 is excellent, and that the means of using ongoing clinical practicum evaluations to improve performance throughout the clinical training program is effective.

Students engaged in ongoing clinical activities at all off-campus clinical contract sites are regularly evaluated by means of an assessment process similar to the one described above for on-campus practicum performance. When any student earns a grade of B- or lower, he or she is counseled by the Clinic Director and by a clinical supervisor regarding areas of weakness, and the possibilities of reassignment of clinical supervisors and relocation to alternative clinical sites are considered. All students engaged in clinical practicum off campus this year have exceeded a GPA of 3.4 for clinical practica, further supporting that achievement according to goals 2, 3 and 4 is excellent, and that the means of using ongoing clinical practicum evaluations to improve performance throughout the clinical training program is effective.

All SHSS M.A. students engage in a clinical externship during the last quarter of their second year of graduate study. Results of clinical externship evaluations for the current year are not yet available. Those obtained for the previous year indicate that externship supervisors are generally highly satisfied with the preparation of advanced graduate students. The average grade for clinical externship last year was above 3.2 on a 4-point scale, suggesting that graduate students are well prepared for this final component of their training continuum, and that any weaknesses identified in students during their externship experiences (e.g., lack of knowledge in a specific content area, or problems with effective interpersonal communication in a professional context) are being addressed throughout those experiences. The improvement of individual student outcomes during externship experiences is fostered primarily through the use of regular formative assessments during supervisors’ observations of students, provision of immediate feedback to students, and frequent student- supervisor meetings throughout externship experiences.

Graduate students are asked to complete evaluations of the training, supervision, and overall clinical experience they receive during clinical externships. These evaluations are then used by the Clinic Director in considering externship placements and supervisory arrangements in the future. Evaluations for the 1995-1996 academic year were consistently positive, suggesting that students perceive their externships to be conducive to reaching their clinical training goals.

All master’s students are required to pass a course entailing the study, implementation, and evaluation of research methods (HSS 601, Introduction to Graduate Study). Other course work entails the reading, evaluation and application of research findings. No research experience is required of M.A. students outside of their regular course work. However, results of a faculty survey for the current academic year indicate that, in addition to any research experiences involved in course work: 12 Master’s-level students have been engaged in ongoing research projects with faculty; six M.A. students have successfully co-authored research presentations at the state level, four at the national level; Two have participated in the writing of proposals for international research presentations (pending); seven M.A. students have participated in research publication this year. The level of research productivity exhibited in these survey results is impressive, and suggests that many of our M.A. students are not only learning to be better consumers of research, but are learning to apply their research skills effectively.

Faculty members indicate that a broad array of formative assessment techniques and instruments are used within the SHSS graduate courses, addressing each of the four graduate outcomes goals. Examples of types of formative assessments used to identify strengths and weaknesses, and to provide feedback designed to foster performance according to course objectives, are described above in the section presenting data regarding the "assessment of students within SHSS major courses." M. A. students are required to maintain a GPA of 3.0 to remain enrolled in the graduate program and to maintain graduate stipends and assistantships. The current average GPA of SHSS Master’s students is 3.61. All current M.A. students have maintained GPAs that exceed probationary status of any kind, indicating that they are meeting course requirements addressing graduate outcomes goals #1, 2, 3, and 4.

Graduate Student Exit Survey

This instrument was designed to assess master’s and doctoral students’ employment plans, and perceptions of career preparation and value of educational and training experiences in the SHSS, with the intent of gathering more specific summative information than is currently available to foster further program improvements. This survey has not yet been administered. Plans for any revisions and for implementation of this survey will be established by the Educational outcomes Committee early in the 1997-1998 academic year.

Ph.D. students are required to maintain a GPA of 3.0 to remain enrolled in the doctoral program and to maintain graduate stipends and assistantships. The current average GPA of SHSS doctoral students is 3.87. All current Ph.D. students have maintained GPAs that exceed probationary status of any kind, indicating that they are meeting course requirements addressing the doctoral program outcome goals, as assessed by a diverse array of formative outcomes assessment instruments and techniques used by the SHSS faculty.

Results of a faculty survey for the current academic year indicate that, in addition to any research experiences involved in course work, all five of the current Ph.D. candidates have been engaged in ongoing research projects. One of these Ph.D. students has successfully co-authored research presentations at the state level, one at the national level, and all five have participated in the writing of additional proposals for state and national research presentations (pending). Additionally, one doctoral student has participated in the writing of two federal research grant applications this year, one of which was awarded. Two have participated in the writing of internal research grant applications, one of which is pending, and the other of which was awarded. Three of the Ph.D. students have participated in research publications during the current academic year; one has a publication submitted for publication, and the other (a first-year student) is engaged in research for publication at this time. One doctoral student has successfully defended her doctoral dissertation this year, and another has submitted his first dissertation draft. In sum, the doctoral program has strong evidence of fostering advanced analytical skill and knowledge needed for research endeavors.

Four of the five Ph.D. students currently enrolled completed the requirements for supervised clinical practice prior to enrollment in doctoral studies. Two hold the Certificate of Clinical Competence (CCC) as well as Ohio licensure in speech-language pathology, and one of those also holds the CCC and state licensure in audiology. One Ph.D. candidate is involved in clinical practicum. She has achieved excellent clinical evaluation ratings and has a 4.0 average for practicum performance this year. One Ph.D. candidate is currently engaged in a paid clinical fellowship to meet the requirements for the CCC.

Doctoral Graduate Employment Survey

The doctoral student who graduated from the SHSS during the current year, and another who recently defended his doctoral dissertation, have been successful in obtaining tenure-track faculty positions in reputable programs in communication sciences and disorders.

Discussions with faculty regarding outcomes assessment activities were focused especially on

motivating faculty involvement, through consideration of potential real impacts on our programs and on individual students. The SHSS faculty agree that it is not sensible to engage in outcomes activities solely for the sake of meeting of administrative requirements, and that all of our outcomes-focused activities should have some real implications for the quality of experiences that our students have while enrolled at O.U.

During initial discussions with the faculty this year regarding outcomes activities, the Educational Outcomes Committee received complaints that outcomes assessment activities, if taken seriously, increase the administrative and administrative burden on all faculty. Committee members thus worked to make outcomes activities systematic and efficient, such that faculty’s focus remains on implementation of meaningful modifications, not on the administrative aspects of tracking outcomes. Committee work was carried out through regular meetings of members engaged in various outcomes projects, and through written notices and surveys, such that all members did not have to be present for frequent time-consuming Committee meetings.

The Committee also initiated the development of a faculty resource base, including literature on educational outcomes, teaching methodologies, and assessment practices, to be used by faculty members wishing to develop or implement additional teaching practices and assessment techniques. This resource base will be made available to all faculty members, and will be continuously expanded upon.

The large battery of assessment instruments and data sources used for our assessment activities in the current year includes an appropriate mixture of these two forms of outcomes measures.

As there are few summative measures concerning our graduate students available through IR, the development and revision of such measures was a particular area of focus in our goals for this year. New assessment instruments were developed to aid in the collection of pertinent summative outcomes, as described below.

• An Undergraduate Exit Survey (Appendix C) was designed to assess undergraduate seniors’ career and further educational plans, and perceptions of preparation for graduate school or for alternative career paths. The primary motivation for the design of this survey was that some exiting seniors in previous years, who were not successful in gaining admission for graduate studies in speech-language pathology or audiology, have indicated that a shortcoming of their training was in their preparation for alternative career and/or training possibilities. SHSS faculty members reason that students’ responses to this survey will aid in planning for the provision of opportunities to undergraduate majors who may not be likely candidates for highly competitive graduate school requirements characteristic of institutions across the country.

• A modified form for the Evaluation of Graduate Students’ Off-Campus Practicum Performance (Appendix E) includes quantitative as well as qualitative assessments from off-site clinical supervisors of M.A.-level student clinicians. The previous version had elicited only qualitative comments. Results from this evaluation will provide more specific and quantifiable means of both formative and summative outcomes, and will aid in the evaluation of students’ integration of academic training outcomes with clinical experiences.

• A new Graduate Student Exit Survey (Appendix I) was designed to assess master’s and doctoral students’ employment plans, and perceptions of career preparation and value of educational and training experiences in the SHSS. The results of this survey will provide more specific summative information than is currently available, and will aid in fostering further program improvements.

As most of the assessment data available for program outcome evaluation indicate such a high rate of program effectiveness, few improvements can be based solely on those measures. More detailed analyses of specific outcomes are needed.

• The Targeted Educational Outcomes Instrument, as described above and shown in Appendix A, was developed and implemented this year in order to enhance formative assessment practices with the SHSS. It was used this year to elicit faculty input according to targeted outcomes in each of three outcomes areas, and will serve next year as the basis for examining current assessment practice and for planning improved teaching and assessment techniques within courses and throughout training experiences for the undergraduate, M.A. and Ph.D. programs.

• The computer proficiency evaluation form (Appendix K) was developed during the current year to asses the computer skills of undergraduate students who wish to be declared exempt from the requirement to enroll in a course on computer use. To date, this instrument has not been implemented, as no students have requested an exemption.

• Surveys of faculty regarding student research experiences for the undergraduate, M.A., and Ph.D. programs (Appendices B, H, and J, respectively) were developed and implemented this year. Data collected with these instruments have both formative and summative implications.

This goal was addressed primarily through our work on tapping all faculty members’ input regarding targeted outcomes in each of these domains for each of our programs, as described above.

As outcomes work was focused primarily within specific curricular areas during the previous year, resulting in several curricular modifications, this year the faculty were engaged in clearly articulating targeted outcomes for students across the curriculum, in addition to outcomes within courses.

Enriched integration of clinical with academic experiences

Evidence of an enhanced focus on integrating targeted outcomes across the curricula included several steps taken by the faculty as a whole to improve the integration of clinical with academic experiences, and to increase the exposure of students to real-world professional practice issues. Such steps included the continuing development a larger reservoir of audio and video training tapes, and interactive training software. Nineteen guest speakers have visited SHSS courses to enrich students’ exposure to real-world issues in the hearing and speech sciences during the current year. A special workshop on managed care issues in communication disorders was offered. The SHSS sponsored the Mayo Clinic Video-conference in Audiology, which was attended by students, faculty, and local audiologists and physicians. Twenty-one clinical contracts with external clinical sites have been established or renewed to enrich graduate students’ experiences with a wider range of patient/client types, service delivery contexts, treatment models, and clinical professionals. Two new clinical supervisors have been added to the SHSS staff; these individuals travel to externship sites and are actively engaged in clinical service delivery along with our students. All SHSS faculty members have engaged in continuing education programs relevant to current professional practice issues, and all who have state licensure as well as national certification in speech-language pathology and audiology have maintained licensure and certification.

During the current year the following activities have enhanced students’ cross-curricular learning opportunities related to the use of technology:

• Internet connections have been established in SHSS classrooms and in the computer laboratory;
• A computer projection system has been purchased;
• Additional facilities for student access to computers and internet resources have been established;
• The use of listservers, e-mail, and other internet resources has been integrated into course requirements for graduate and undergraduate courses;
• The use of multimedia hardware and software has been integrated into course requirements for some graduate courses;
• All graduating seniors have been required to demonstrate computer proficiency though course work or a computer proficiency examination;
• 100% of first-year Master’s-level students have enrolled in a course on computer applications;
• Four faculty members have taken training courses in the development and use of computerized presentations; and
• One faculty member serves actively on the Ohio University Technical Support Group, using progress made in the use of technology in SHSS courses to complement programs throughout the university.

SHSS faculty have been actively engaged in training to enhance teaching/learning and assessment methods. During the current academic year: two faculty members regularly attended meetings of the Faculty Service-Learning Network; two regularly attended meetings of the Faculty Cooperative Learning Network; four participated regularly in teaching workshops and discussions offered by the Center for Teaching Excellence; two participated in campus-wide meetings regarding the internationalizing of the curriculum; three participated in Book Group meetings and presentations (sponsored by the Center for Teaching Excellence) geared toward teaching and assessment issues; five have participated in continuing education activities regarding teaching and assessment; one has represented the SHSS in a state-wide distance learning network; three have made state and national presentations regarding innovation in teaching and assessment; one has published three articles/chapters that address issues of innovation in teaching and assessment pertinent to training in hearing and speech sciences. All SHSS faculty members indicate that they have implemented changes in their courses in response to teaching evaluations. One faculty member received an Outstanding Teaching Award from the College of Health and Human Services; one participated in the Teaching Scholars program through the OU Center for Teaching Excellence; one received $500 in grant funding for teaching enhancement following participation in the Teaching Scholars program during the previous year. In addition to enhancing teaching/learning and assessment methods within current courses offered, involvement in these faculty development activities has enriched our ongoing discussions regarding curricular modifications (See below.).

Improvements in career development assistance

A weakness identified through previous assessments of undergraduates’ perceptions of their academic training was that there was not sufficient counseling of undergraduates who do not intend to pursue graduate study in speech-language pathology or audiology regarding career alternatives. This year, one faculty member collected input from the faculty to prepare and offer a special workshop for undergraduate students regarding alternatives to the pursuit of graduate education in speech-language pathology and audiology. The content of that workshop has also been integrated into the sophomore practicum course. A workshop on graduate school application strategies for those students considering graduate study was offered by another faculty member.

In addition to ongoing modifications of content, learning activities and teaching methods within courses, some important curricular modifications have been implemented. The SHSS curriculum committee has worked extensively on recommendations for undergraduate curricular improvements generated by the faculty. Modifications of undergraduate SHSS major requirements concerning courses offered outside of SHSS were approved by the faculty, and will be in effect for the 1997-1998 academic year. These modifications are intended to improve basic education in physical science, foreign language, and cultural diversity issues. The M.A. audiology curriculum has been revised to include seven new or modified courses, in response to recent trends in the practice of audiology, and to enhance training in diagnostics and in hearing aid selection and evaluation. A new service-learning focus has been developed for a course on geriatric communication issues (HSS 600), which is being offered this summer at the graduate level, with the goal of enhancing efforts to enrich graduate students’ understanding of communication issues in elderly patients.

Goal 5: Develop and implement an analytical system for tracking: (1) the articulation of specific targeted outcomes to students; (2) the means of assessment that are used to guide student learning, validate learning experiences, and guide program modifications; and (3) the need for the implementation of further assessment methods and instruments.

Part 1 of this goal has been met this year, through the development of the first phase of the SHSS Targeted Educational Outcomes list, described in Section I. Accomplishments toward part 2 of this goal include the use of the numerous types of assessment data discussed earlier in this report. Further developments on parts 2 and 3 will be achieved through a methodical analysis of current and recommended assessment practices within and across all SHSS courses as part of next year’s SHSS educational outcomes activities.

The following goals and have been adopted for SHSS outcomes activities during the 1997-1998 academic year. The SHSS Educational Outcomes Committee will meet regularly and oversee progress in each of the goal areas. All faculty will continue to be actively engaged in the collection and study of pertinent educational outcomes indices, and in strategic panning for and implementation of program modifications based on the results of our ongoing assessment practices.

Efforts to improve faculty motivation for engagement in outcomes assessment activities and to address concerns regarding administrative load, as described for the current year, will be continued.

Discussions with faculty regarding outcomes assessment projects early in the next academic year will focus on the notion that clearly articulating outcomes to our students necessitates the explicit assessment of those outcomes, as students’ learning strategies are influenced by the way in which they are assessed. Preliminary analyses based on discussions with the faculty suggest that there is a current bias for SHSS faculty to assess cognitive outcomes far more than performance or affective outcomes within academic courses in all SHSS programs.

Inclusion of students’ perspectives on outcomes assessment practices

An undergraduate and a graduate student representative will be included as members of the Educational Outcomes Committee.

All faculty members will participate in a detailed, systematic examination of current formative assessment practices corresponding to each of the detailed targeted outcomes established through the SHSS Targeted Educational Outcomes instrument. Following that phase, the Outcomes Committee will analyze outcome areas in which assessment practices appear to be lacking, and make recommendations to the faculty regarding additional assessment needs to enhance student learning in each of the targeted outcome areas. The faculty will then have opportunities to engage in planning for the use of additional assessment methods and instruments.

Review and expansion of doctoral program general goals

All faculty members will participate in the establishment of a more expansive set of general program goals for doctoral students. This will allow for a more explicit analysis of doctoral educational outcomes and subsequent program modifications based on outcomes information obtained.

SHSS will establish a collection of assessment instruments for use by our faculty, including instruments already being used within some SHSS courses, and instruments used within other programs in communication sciences and disorders. The process of sharing such instruments at the national level will be facilitated by involvement with the Working Group on Educational Outcomes to be established during the coming year by the Council of Graduate Programs in Communication Sciences and Disorders.

Current SHSS outcomes assessment instruments to be modified during the upcoming year in order to better complement current outcomes foci are:

• the Graduate Student Exit Survey (M.A. and Ph.D.); and the
• Undergraduate Student Exit Survey.

The various assessment instruments used for the evaluation of clinical practicum performance on campus, in off-campus clinical contract sites, and in clinical externship settings will be reviewed for consideration of possible modifications to enhance current outcomes foci.

Additionally, the following will be considered by the SHSS faculty:

• The possibility of developing a format for the evaluation of outcomes by undergraduate SHSS majors enrolled in the Honors Tutorial College;
• The possibility of developing a capstone assessment instrument for M.A. students, similar to the NTE, but enabling an analysis of specific outcomes in the cognitive, performance, and affective domains, will be discussed with the faculty; and
• The reinstitution of annual qualitative reviews of doctoral student outcomes by each doctoral student’s doctoral committee will be discussed with the faculty.

The faculty will be consulted regarding possible strategies to improve assessment of student learning in areas that are not course-specific, such as problem solving, research skills, oral and written communication, and affective outcomes associated with increased multicultural sensitivity. Efforts to enrich the integration of clinical with academic experiences will be continued, as will efforts to support faculty development to enrich SHSS outcomes foci, to revise the current academic curriculum at the M.A. level, and to provide career development assistance to undergraduate majors.

Goal 5: Stimulate use of effective pedagogical methods to enhance targeted outcomes

Faculty meetings will regularly include concise discussions of means of improving current pedagogical methods and of implementing new methods designed to enhance achievement of particular SHSS targeted outcomes. The resource base including literature on pedagogical methods to enhance SHSS outcomes foci will be expanded and made available to all faculty members. Continuous faculty development related to outcomes foci will fortify all efforts to improve students’ cognitive, performative, and affective outcomes in each of the SHSS programs.

A SHSS Targeted Educational Outcomes Instrument.............................................................. 16

B SHSS Survey of faculty regarding undergraduate research experiences.............................. 27

C SHSS Undergraduate Student Exit Survey........................................................................... 29

D SHSS evaluation of graduate students’ on-campus practicum performance........................ 32

E SHSS evaluation of graduate students’ off-campus practicum performance....................... 35

F SHSS evaluation of student preparation for clinical externship........................................... 38

G SHSS student evaluation of supervision and clinical site for externship experiences......... 39

H SHSS survey of faculty regarding M.A. student research experiences................................. 41

I SHSS Graduate Student Exit Survey.................................................................................... 45

J SHSS survey of faculty regarding doctoral student research experiences............................ 47

K SHSS computer proficiency evaluation form....................................................................... 48

ITS INTENT IS TO HELP FACULTY COUNSEL STUDENTS WITH THEIR PLANS FOR THE FUTURE. PLEASE ANSWER ALL THESE QUESTIONS AS HONESTLY AS POSSIBLE WITH THE INFORMATION YOU HAVE AVAILABLE NOW. THIS SHOULD TAKE ABOUT FIVE MINUTES TO COMPLETE. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME, AND WE WISH YOU THE BEST OF LUCK FOR THE FUTURE.

1.) Are you applying to graduate schools?

Yes in SLP AUD other (specify)-skip to #4

No

2.) If you are not planning to go to graduate school, what are your plans:

undecided travel

Peace Corps unrelated work

speech aid other (specify)

teach English

grad school in other field (specify)

3.) If you are not planning to go to grad school at this time, do you plan to apply in the near future?

Yes in SLP AUD Other No

A=Admitted Financial

N=Not Admitted Assistance

Name of Schools W=Waiting List Offered?

_____ likelihood of admission _____ recommendation from current or former students

_____ interview at school _____ reputation of program

_____ geographic region _____ quality of faculty

_____ tuition cost _____ clinical opportunities

_____ ability to live at home _____ departmental strengths in my area of _____ size of class interest

_____ scholarship/assistantship _____ rural environment

_____ accompanying friend/beau _____ urban environment

_____ personal attention of school _____ other (specify)__________________

6.) If you are not accepted to graduate school, what are your plans? (Check all that apply)

reapply in 1 year job in health care area

take classes part-time undecided

work as SLP aide other (specify)

grad school in another discipline

GENERAL INFORMATION

1.) GPA: Overall_______ Major_______

2.) GRE Scores First Second

Verbal________ Verbal_______

Quant________ Quant________

Analy________ Analy________

3.) Leadership Activities:

_____5 or more _____3-4 _____2-3 ____1 ____none

_____5 or more _____3-4 _____2-3 ____1 ____none

____frequent ____a few ____not often ____never

(e.g. PACE position)? _____yes_____no

7.) How many letters of recommendation were written by:

____HSS faculty ____Employer

____Other Department Faculty (e.g. Psychology Faculty) ____Other (please specify)____________________________________________ specify

ADM/108/W revised 05-05-97

ITS INTENT IS TO HELP FACULTY COUNSEL UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS WITH THEIR PLANS FOR THE FUTURE. PLEASE ANSWER ALL THESE QUESTIONS AS HONESTLY AS POSSIBLE WITH THE INFORMATION YOU HAVE AVAILABLE NOW. THIS SHOULD TAKE ABOUT FIVE MINUTES TO COMPLETE. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.

GENERAL INFORMATION

1.) GPA(undergrad): Overall_______ Major_______

2.) GRE Scores First Second

Verbal________ Verbal_______

Quant________ Quant________

Analy________ Analy________

3.) Leadership Activities:

_____5 or more _____3-4 _____2-3 ____1 ____none

_____5 or more _____3-4 _____2-3 ____1 ____none

____frequent ____a few ____not often ____never

(e.g. PACE position)? _____yes_____no

7.) How many letters of recommendation for graduate school were from:

_____SLP/AUD faculty ____Employer

_____Other Department Faculty (e.g. Psychology Faculty)

_____Other (please specify)_______________________________________

_____ likelihood of admission _____ recommendation from current or former students

_____ interview at school _____ reputation of program

_____ geographic region _____ quality of faculty

_____ tuition cost _____ clinical opportunities

_____ ability to live at home _____ departmental strengths in my area of _____ size of class interest

_____ scholarship/assistantship _____ rural environment

_____ accompanying friend/beau _____ urban environment

_____ personal attention of school _____ other (specify)__________________

Name:______________________

These tasks are provided for those who have had previous training and/or extensive experience with computers and think that they have acquired computer skills with word processing, database creation, spreadsheet use, and telecomputing that are redundant with the requirements for CS120, HS 309, or MIS 100. Completing the following sequence of tasks successfully will demonstrate adequate computer literacy and lead to the waiver of the Computer requirements in the Hearing and Speech Sciences major requirements.

1. Word Processing Proficiency

a. Create a single file in which you explain the four or more steps required to:

accomplish some procedure. In the file please do the following:

1) Show two different fonts

2) Use center justify for a portion of the explanation and left justify for the

remainder.

3) Use two different sizes of text.

4) Change the left margin at least once.

b. Save this file under the name - WP[your_Lastname]

2. Spreadsheet Proficiency

a. Create a gradebook spreadsheet after the following model. Use formulas for the following: AVG/GD, AVG/GD+Bonus, Avg1, Avg2 , Avg3 , OAll Avg , AvgBns, Avg Class

Avg1 Avg2 Avg3 OAll Avg AvgBns Avg Class Grade

b. Save file under name SS[your_Lastname]

3. Database Proficiency

a. Create a database according to the following model. Add two more fields of

your choice.

b. Enter fictitious data for 6 books and save under the name DB[your_Lastname]

4. Telecomputing Proficiency

a. Send a brief note to Professor

b. Use a World Wide Web browser to go to each address [URL] listed. When

you contact each address explore to answer the question listed for that

address:

URL gopher://ftp.dartmouth.edu

You will encounter a variety of menus. Menu 1: select-"Career Services", Menu 2 - select "Chronicle of Higher Education Job Listings", Menu 3 - select "ACADEME THIS WEEK’s main menu", Menu 4 - select "1995 Facts & Figures on U.S. Higher Education", Menu 5 - select "Faculty Members"

Question: 1 - What has the highest average salary listed for 1995?______

Question: 2 - Look under the information on students: What percentage of students were women? ____ How many MAs were awarded? ____

URL http://www.ohsu.edu/

Question: 1 - What organization is described at this home page?

URL http://asa.ugl.lib.umich.edu/chdocs/support/emotion.html

Question: What information is located at this URL? [It is described in the first page.]