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 220 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 1997-1998 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 1997-1998 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 Associate Provost Barbara Reeves.

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. Faculty and clinical staff members continued active participation 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. The B.S. and M.A. program goals were established by the SHSS Curriculum Committee and further revised by the faculty during the 1994-1995 and 1995-1996 academic years. The Ph.D. program goals were developed during the 1997-1998 academic year through collaboration between the SHSS Graduate Committee and the SHSS Educational Outcomes Committee

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 students will demonstrate advanced analytical skills and knowledge needed for diagnostic, rehabilitative, and/or research endeavors.

Goal 1: Doctoral students will demonstrate proficiency and independence in research.

Goal 2: Doctoral students will demonstrate expert scholarship in a specific area related to communication sciences disorders.

Goal 3: Doctoral students will demonstrate excellence in teaching.

During the 1996-1997 academic year, 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 1997 report. The SHSS Targeted Educational Outcomes list will continue to 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 goals for the current year are listed below.

Inclusion of students’ perspectives on outcomes assessment practices

Review and expansion of doctoral program general goals

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

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 1998-1999 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 1998-1999 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. According to the Assistant Director of IR, these data have "been shown to be an important indicator of the quality of a student’s college experience." The most recent reports regarding student involvement were summarized in a May 1998 IR report, including data from the 1989 through 1994 freshman classes, which were then the 1992 through 1997 senior classes. Thirty-two HSS graduates were the respondents. The report presents 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. One hundred per cent of HSS respondents reported that they were sure that they had "made the right choice in attending Ohio University."

Ninety-four percent of freshmen respondents and 91% of senior respondents enrolled in the SHSS rated the quality of instruction as satisfactory; 47% of freshman and 88 % of seniors indicate they regularly converse with faculty members; 94% of freshman and 97% of seniors indicate that they regularly converse with academic advisors; 100 % 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, and all scores represent maintenance or improvements in comparisons to last year’s Student Involvement data. 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 (for the classes of 1992 through 1996) indicate that 96% 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 (1992 through 1996) 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 87% to 100% of respondents are satisfied with current positions, that 75% to 80% are satisfied with their SHSS major course work, and that 87% 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 (71% to 100%) 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, 16 undergraduate students have been engaged in ongoing research projects with faculty (up from 4 last year). Faculty have worked with students on 11 directed studies projects during the current academic year. One SHSS major has been involved in three quarters of research and independent study as part of the Honors Tutorial program. One undergraduate served as author on a research presentation at the state level.

This survey was designed during 1997-1998 to assess undergraduate seniors’ career and further educational plans, and perceptions of preparation for graduate school or for alternative career paths.

It was administered to approximately 50 SHSS seniors graduating in the spring of 1997, and to all seniors graduating in 1998. Results are not yet available for seniors graduating in 1998. 1997 results from 30 graduating seniors indicate that 14 were admitted to graduate school, 4 were wait-listed without admittance at the time of the survey, and 2 were not admitted. Fourteen of those applying to graduate school were applying for programs in speech-language pathology, 5 in audiology. Of those students who did not plan to continue graduate studies in communication sciences and disorders, 2 were undecided about their plans, 2 planned to work as speech aids, 1 planned to be traveling, 4 planned to pursue graduate studies in other disciplines, and 2 were to be employed in positions unrelated to their major. Ten students reported that the SHSS provided useful guidelines for future plans, while 15 said that it did not.

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, as the requirement of a grade of C or better in courses required for the major is far below the requirement for entry to graduate study in communication sciences and disorders. 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 3.19. The high rate of graduate school acceptance of SHSS graduating seniors wishing to pursue graduate study (see above), and an average GPA of 3.28 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 for 1997-1998 include results from 23 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 96% 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 683, 16 points above the national median score for the same period. 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. All 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 3.5 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 grades for clinical externship last year ranged from 3.8 to 4 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 1997-1998 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: 20 Master’s-level students have been engaged in ongoing research projects with faculty (up from 12 last year); M.A. students have successfully co-authored 18 research presentations at the state level (up from 6 last year), 8 at the national level (up from 4 last year), and 2 at the international level (up from 0 last year). Five students are currently working on M.A. theses. Four M.A. students have participated in research publication this year, 1 has a manuscript submitted for peer review. Two M.A. students were successful in obtaining John Houk Memorial research grants during the current 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 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 been administered for the first time to 1998 graduates. Results are not yet available.

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. All but one current Ph.D. student 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. One student who is on probation from the doctoral program will be excluded from the program in June, 1998.

Results of a faculty survey for the current academic year indicate that, in addition to any research experiences involved in course work, all three of the current Ph.D. candidates (excluding the one who will not continue as of June 1998) have been engaged in ongoing research projects. Two of these Ph.D. students have successfully co-authored 3 research presentations at the state level, one at the national level, and all have participated in the writing of additional proposals for state and national research presentations. One has participated in the writing of internal research grant applications, both of which were awarded. Two have a total of 3 manuscripts currently under review for publication. An additional doctoral student successfully defended his doctoral dissertation this year. In sum, the doctoral program has strong evidence of fostering advanced analytical skill and knowledge needed for research endeavors.

One of the three Ph.D. students currently enrolled completed the requirements for supervised clinical practice prior to enrollment in doctoral studies. One holds the Certificate of Clinical Competence (CCC) as well as Ohio licensure in speech-language pathology. Another 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 was successful in obtaining tenure-track faculty position in a reputable program in communication sciences and disorders, as was our 1997 doctoral graduate.

Trisolini Fellowship

In June 1998, one SHSS doctoral student received the Trisolini fellowship, one of five prestigious graduate fellowships at Ohio University, entailing a $10,000 award and tuition for one year.

Efforts to improve faculty motivation for engagement in outcomes assessment activities and to address concerns regarding administrative load, as described for the current year, were continued through faculty meeting discussions, contacts between Educational Outcomes Committee members and individual faculty members, circulation of ongoing outcomes documentation, and inclusion of our outcomes-based activities in the writing of our goals and objectives for the upcoming academic year. Additionally, a one-hour outcomes assessment workshop was offered to all faculty and staff members by the Educational Outcomes Committee chair during the 1998 winter quarter. Issues of faculty motivation were addressed directly, and all faculty members present indicated a willingness to support more concerted efforts in our assessment practices, as well as in our use of assessment results to guide program modifications.

Discussions with faculty regarding outcomes assessment projects early in the this academic year were focused 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.

Inclusion of students’ perspectives on outcomes assessment practices

An undergraduate and a graduate student representative were included as members of the Educational Outcomes Committee. In previous years, no students had been included in the Committee.

Findings from the administration of SHSS Targeted Educational Outcomes instrument during 1997-1998 were summarized. The resulting new database of targeted educational outcomes was expanded by including input from a clinical supervisor who joined our staff in the fall of 1998, and by interviewing faculty who had not previously provided comprehensive targeted outcomes lists for their specific assigned courses and/or for overall programs.

Review and expansion of doctoral program general goals

As it was noted during the 1996-1997 academic year, there was only one general program goal stated by the SHSS specifically for doctoral students. This year, members of the Graduate Committee collaborated with members of the Educational Outcomes Committee to develop a more expansive set of general program goals for doctoral students (See page 2.). This will allow for a more explicit analysis of doctoral educational outcomes and subsequent program modifications based on outcomes information obtained. Additionally, the Graduate Coordinator directed a one-hour faculty workshop with the faculty specifically for the purpose of discussing doctoral program enhancement ideas.

SHSS established 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 was facilitated by involvement in educational outcomes assessment activities coordinated through the Council of Graduate Programs in Communication Sciences and Disorders (CGPCSD). The chair of the SHSS Educational Outcomes Committee is currently serving as chair of the Working Group on Educational Outcomes of the CGPCSD, which has afforded us numerous opportunities to collect diverse assessment instruments and outcomes literature, now on file in our School.

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. A new Graduate Student Exit Survey (Appendix I) was designed to assess master’s 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.

Other SHSS outcomes assessment instruments modified during this academic year in order to better complement current outcomes foci include and the undergraduate, Master’s and doctoral program research experience surveys (Appendices B, H, and J, respectively.).

The first results from the new Undergraduate Exit Survey (Appendix C) developed in 1996-1997 were analyzed and yielded more specific data pertaining to undergraduate seniors’ career and further educational plans, and perceptions of preparation for graduate school or for alternative career paths. Particularly informative were responses from exiting seniors who were not successful in gaining admission for graduate studies in speech-language pathology or audiology, who indicated that a shortcoming of their training was in their preparation for alternative career and/or training possibilities. Efforts to address this concern were already enhanced this year, as described elsewhere, but will be continued and perhaps intensified next year.

The faculty discussed the possibility of developing a format for the evaluation of outcomes by undergraduate SHSS majors enrolled in the Honors Tutorial College (HTC). However, we decided not to prioritize that project because of the very low enrollment of HTC students in the School

(maximum of 1 per year) and the number of more pressing outcomes assessment projects we are addressing.

During the spring 1998 quarter the faculty approved the first of two sections of the new Graduate Committee Guidelines for the Ph.D. degree. Outcomes foci highlighted in this section include a reinstitution of preliminary examinations "to determine the student’s master of knowledge in the proposed area of study and to develop a course of action to deal with any deficiencies that may be found." Preliminary examinations will be presented to all doctoral students during the first term of doctoral study, and will consist of two parts, academic proficiency, and writing proficiency, to be administered over two days, three hours per day. Results will allow each student’s doctoral program committee to prepare a list of specific recommendations for the student and doctoral advisor to consider when preparing the doctoral plan of study. The new policy states that "any weaknesses or deficiencies... must be resolved within one calendar year."

Further doctoral assessment activities are planned for the 1998-1999 academic year, and will be highlighted in the second section of the new Graduate Committee Guidelines for the Ph.D. degree.

The faculty were 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.

Some specific efforts to enrich the integration of clinical with academic experiences are listed below:

• Selection of a new Clinic Director (to begin this summer) who demonstrates a solid commitment to clinical-academic integration
• Inclusion of 3 academic faculty (who do not have clinical assignments) in on-campus clinical diagnosis, treatment and consultation with patients/clients exhibiting problems within the realm of their specialties;
• Offering of a team-taught graduate seminar by one of our faculty members and a psychology professor;
• Participation of SHSS faculty in presentations and discussions at weekly meetings of the OU chapter of the National Student Speech-Language-Hearing Association;
• Encouragement of students and faculty to attend an interdisciplinary conference on Accent Modification offered at OU this spring;
• Encouragement of student and faculty engagement in activities of the interdisciplinary Institute for the Empirical Study of Language;
• Offering of a special seminar to provide career development assistance to undergraduate majors who might not go to graduate school in communication sciences and disorders;
• Offering of a special seminar to provide graduate school application counseling to undergraduate majors wishing to apply to graduate schools;
• Frequent inclusion of guest speakers from diverse disciplines and employment contexts in courses and SHSS brown-bag seminars;
• Support by the College for two graduate students to attend the annual convention of the National Black Student Speech-Language-Hearing Association;
• Continued engagement of all SHSS faculty members in continuing education programs relevant to current professional practice issues, with all who have state licensure as well as national certification in speech-language pathology and audiology maintaining licensure and certification.

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

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; one participated in CTE Book Group meetings and presentations geared toward teaching and assessment issues; one received a CTE teaching award; one received a certificate of appreciation from the Center for Community Service for service-learning contributions at OU; one was appointed as a member of the CTE Advisory Board; four participated in other continuing education activities regarding teaching and assessment; one represented the SHSS in a state-wide distance learning network; two made state and national presentations regarding innovation in teaching and assessment; one published articles 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. 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.).

The SHSS resource base including literature on pedagogical methods to enhance SHSS outcomes foci has been expanded and is available to all faculty members. Continuous faculty development related to outcomes foci have fortified efforts to improve students’ cognitive, performative, and affective outcomes in each of the SHSS programs.

One graduate student received support from the Center for Community Service to attend a professional conference on service-learning, and she shared her experiences and materials with the SHSS faculty.

A new committee (The Undergraduate Field Service Committee) was formed by the Director, with the charge of developing a new course sequence that would: (1) enhance students’ self-evaluation of their professional development and commitment to the discipline of communication sciences and disorders; (2) contribute to students’ citizenship roles through meaningful service; (3) enhance the integration of content from diverse courses and the appreciation for merging academic training with practical application; and (4) promote writing and oral communication skills through extensive writing and presentation assignments. That committee’s accomplishments this year included assurance of the feasibility of adding a sophomore-junior-senior service-learning sequence. Further, the committee developed: a rationale for the sequence, including its relationship to missions of the School, the College, and the University; an explanation for how it complements our heightened focus on improved educational outcomes; and an action plan for developing specific guidelines for the logistical aspects of teaching, collaboration with outside clinical sites, and student and course evaluation. The course sequence is to be team-taught by academic faculty and clinical supervisors. It is our hope that plans and documentation for the establishment of this course sequence will be completed in time to have the sequence approved to appear in the 1999-2000 course catalogue.

Additionally, new purchases of software and hardware for teaching purposes this year have facilitated our improved use of technology in the classroom.

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

use of the Targeted Educational Outcomes Instrument.

Targeted Educational Outcomes Instrument results 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 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.

The following will be considered by the SHSS faculty:

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;

The specific means of evaluation of doctoral students’ oral defense of the dissertation.

The undergraduate exit survey will be revised to allow for more specific assessment of students’ perceptions of outcomes for the undergraduate program. They will be asked to respond to items directly pertaining to the outcomes targeted by the SHSS faculty.

A new M.A. graduate exit survey will be designed specifically for audiology students.

The Undergraduate Field Experience Committee will prepare recommendations for a 3-course sequence as described above, and will consult with the Curriculum Committee regarding possible application for approval from the University Curriculum Council for the sequence. Additionally, curricular modifications to accommodate the sequence will be considered, and implemented if appropriate.

A SHSS Targeted Educational Outcomes Instrument........................................................... 18

B SHSS Survey of faculty regarding undergraduate research experiences........................... 30

C SHSS Undergraduate Student Exit Survey........................................................................ 31

D SHSS evaluation of graduate students’ on-campus practicum performance..................... 34

E SHSS evaluation of graduate students’ off-campus practicum performance..................... 38

F SHSS evaluation of student preparation for clinical externship........................................ 40

G SHSS student evaluation of supervision and clinical site for externship experiences....... 41

H SHSS survey of faculty regarding M.A. student research experiences.............................. 43

I SHSS Graduate Student Exit Survey................................................................................. 44

J SHSS survey of faculty regarding doctoral student research experiences......................... 50

K SHSS computer proficiency evaluation form.................................................................... 51

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

Clinician______________________________________Quarter___________Year___________

Supervisor____________________________________Site_____________ Ages____________

Experience_____________________________________________________________________

Date of midterm_________________________Date of final_____________________________

Level of performance_____________________Level of performance______________________

Midterm grade____________Final grade_____________Overall grade_____________________

Grade scale: 0 = Unsatisfactory 1 = Fair 2 = Average

3 = Good 4 = Excellent NA = Not applicable

Letter grade conversion:

3.83-4.0 A 2.843-3.168 B 1.865-2.190 C .997-1.212 D

3.495-3.82 A- 2.517-2.842 B- 1.539-1.864 C- .561-.886 D-

3.169-3.494 B+ 2.191-2.516 C+ 1.213-1.538 D+ below .56 F

Midterm Signatures Final Signatures

Supervisor______________Date___________Supervisor________________Date___________

Clinician_______________Date____________Clinician_________________Date___________

Strengths and Weaknesses Strengths and Weaknesses

Midterm Final

ADM/108/W revised 05-05-97

Attention to clinical procedures (promptness, meetings, ________ ________

reports, dress, scheduling, cancellations, ending

sessions, lesson plans, etc.).

Professional manner (attitude, interest, tact, etc.). ________ ________

Acceptance of suggestions (acceptance, incorporation, ________ ________

generalization, etc.).

Willingness to seek guidance (research, questions, etc.). ________ ________

Awareness of client needs (relationship, insight, ________ ________

sensitivity, etc.).

Initiative. ________ ________

Knowledge (information, application). ________ ________

Self evaluation. ________ ________

Averages ________ ________

Midterm Comments Final Comments

Selection of appropriate target behavior within a session. ________ ________

Selection and use of appropriate materials and ________ ________

activities, diagnostic tools (consistent with goals, age,

interest, etc.).

Selection and use of appropriate stimuli, cues, models ________ ________

(modality, level, etc.).

Determination of response adequacy. ________ ________

Selection and use of appropriate feedback and ________ ________

reinforcement (reinforcer, schedule, meaningful, etc.).

Attention to carryover into daily activities. ________ ________

Involvement of significant other(s) in evaluation and ________ ________

treatment process.

Providing and modifying structure. ________ ________

Management of client behavior. ________ ________

Management of time. ________ ________

Averages ________ ________

Midterm Comments Final Comments

Organization. ________ ________

Formulation of appropriate goals/objectives (evaluation, ________ ________

goals, session objectives, restructuring, etc.).

Utilization of tests and data to aid planning. ________ ________

Understanding of rationales for therapy and diagnostic ________ ________

procedures.

Subsequent evaluation of session. ________ ________

Planning for significant other(s). ________ ________

Documentation (content and format of notes, SOAPs, ________ ________

etc.).

Report writing (diagnostic, goals, reports). ________ ________

Averages ________ ________

Midterm Comments Final Comments

The HSS faculty would greatly appreciate your taking a moment to fill out this survey. This survey is completely anonymous. Its purpose is to evaluate our graduate education and training program, not you as a student. Please return your completed survey as soon as possible to Dr. Hallowell’s or Kelly Ferguson’s mailbox. Thank you very much for your participation!

For each item, please circle:

SA for strongly agree

A for agree

N for neutral

D for disagree

SA for strongly disagree

The HSS graduate core courses contributed to my professional preparation.

SA A N D SA

The special topic/ elective courses offered through HSS contributed to my professional preparation.

SA A N D SA

Overall, my graduate practicum experiences contributed to my professional preparation.

SA A N D SA

The graduate practicum experiences at the OU Speech and Hearing Clinic contributed to my professional preparation.

SA A N D SA

The graduate practicum experiences at off-campus OU-affiliated site(s) contributed to my professional preparation.

SA A N D SA

My clinical externship experiences contributed to my professional preparation.

SA A N D SA

There were sufficient research experiences available to me.

SA A N D SA

Overall, through my graduate training, I developed valuable interpersonal communication skills.

SA A N D SA

Overall, through my graduate training, I developed valuable writing skills.

SA A N D SA

Overall, through my graduate training, I developed valuable critical thinking skills.

SA A N D SA

Overall, through my graduate training, I developed valuable ethical decision-making principles.

SA A N D SA

Overall, through my graduate training, I developed a valuable multicultural perspective.

SA A N D SA

Overall, my graduate training fostered my commitment to life-long learning.

SA A N D SA

Overall, I felt a strong sense of community with my graduate student peers.

SA A N D SA

Interaction between HSS faculty members and students outside of the classroom contributed to my professional preparation.

SA A N D SA

Academic course work in microcomputer applications contributed to my professional preparation.

SA A N D SA

Academic course work in research/introduction to graduate study contributed to my professional preparation.

SA A N D SA

Academic course work in child language contributed to my professional preparation.

SA A N D SA

My graduate clinical experiences (practicum, student teaching, and/or externship, combined) in child language disorders contributed to my professional preparation.

SA A N D SA

Academic course work in adult language disorders contributed to my professional preparation.

SA A N D SA

My graduate clinical experiences (practicum, student teaching, and/or externship, combined) in adult language disorders contributed to my professional preparation.

SA A N D SA

Academic course work in neuromotor disorders of speech contributed to my professional preparation.

SA A N D SA

My graduate clinical experiences (practicum, student teaching, and/or externship, combined) in neuromotor disorders of speech contributed to my professional preparation.

SA A N D SA

Academic course work in diagnostics contributed to my professional preparation.

SA A N D SA

My graduate clinical experiences (practicum, student teaching, and/or externship, combined) in diagnostics contributed to my professional preparation.

SA A N D SA

Academic course work in neurophysiology of communication contributed to my professional preparation.

SA A N D SA

My graduate clinical experiences (practicum, student teaching, and/or externship, combined) in neurophysiology of communication contributed to my professional preparation.

SA A N D SA

Academic course work in phonology contributed to my professional preparation.

SA A N D SA

My graduate clinical experiences (practicum, student teaching, and/or externship, combined) in phonology contributed to my professional preparation.

SA A N D SA

Academic course work in fluency contributed to my professional preparation.

SA A N D SA

My graduate clinical experiences (practicum, student teaching, and/or externship, combined) in fluency contributed to my professional preparation.

SA A N D SA

Academic course work in voice disorders contributed to my professional preparation.

SA A N D SA

My graduate clinical experiences (practicum, student teaching, and/or externship, combined) in voice disorders contributed to my professional preparation.

SA A N D SA

Academic course work in dysphagia contributed to my professional preparation.

SA A N D SA

My graduate clinical experiences (practicum, student teaching, and/or externship, combined) in dysphagia contributed to my professional preparation.

SA A N D SA

Academic course work in orofacial disorders contributed to my professional preparation.

SA A N D SA

My graduate clinical experiences (practicum, student teaching, and/or externship, combined) in orofacial disorders contributed to my professional preparation.

SA A N D SA

Academic course work in public school administration contributed to my professional preparation.

SA A N D SA

My graduate clinical experiences (practicum, student teaching, and/or externship, combined) in public school practice contributed to my professional preparation.

SA A N D SA

Academic course work in audiology contributed to my professional preparation.

SA A N D SA

My graduate clinical experiences (practicum, student teaching, and/or externship, combined) in audiology contributed to my professional preparation.

SA A N D SA

Academic course work in multicultural issues contributed to my professional preparation.

SA A N D SA

My graduate clinical experiences (practicum, student teaching, and/or externship, combined) involving multicultural issues contributed to my professional preparation.

SA A N D SA

Academic course work in augmentative communication contributed to my professional preparation.

SA A N D SA

My graduate clinical experiences (practicum, student teaching, and/or externship, combined) in augmentative communication contributed to my professional preparation.

SA A N D SA

Academic course work in aural rehabilitation contributed to my professional preparation.

SA A N D SA

My graduate clinical experiences (practicum, student teaching, and/or externship, combined) in aural rehabilitation contributed to my professional preparation.

SA A N D SA

Academic course work in communication and aging contributed to my professional preparation.

SA A N D SA

My graduate clinical experiences (practicum, student teaching, and/or externship, combined) in communication and aging contributed to my professional preparation.

SA A N D SA

Academic advising was adequate to meet my needs.

SA A N D SA

On-campus clinical materials were adequate to meet my needs.

SA A N D SA

HSS computer facilities were adequate to meet my needs.

SA A N D SA

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

Bill

Sue

Henry

Buff

Kim

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 Richard Dean at deanr@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu

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.]

Back to Assessments