Evaluation

To view as PDF, please click on summary tab on the left side.

I.AA:Program faculty members engage in continuous systematic program evaluation indicating how the mission, objectives, and student learning outcomes are measures and met. The plan includes:

1.A review by program faculty of programs, curricular offerings, and characteristics of program applicants.

Response:A complete review of programs, curriculum, and student admissions and monitoring was conducted in Spring 2011 in the process of writing the re-accreditation self study. The department conducted weekly afternoon meetings to accomplish the re-accreditation work (See Department Minutes).

The programs and curriculum were reviewed and revised through the process of: a) developing the Comprehensive Assessment  Plan  and Comprehensive Assessment  Plan Report; b) developing  the Standards Matrix; c) conducting the Peer Evaluation of Syllabi; d) incorporating feedback from the Stakeholder Surveys;  and e) Counselor Preparation Comprehensive Exam (CPCE) Analysis of Results.

The student admissions and monitoring process was thoroughly reviewed and revised through the process of: a) reactivation of a Department Admissions Committee; b) revising Admission Lettersand Schooland Mental HealthPlanned Programs; c) developing advising documents (Advising Letter, Steps for Admission, Steps for Practicum/Internship, Steps for Graduation, Steps for Certification/Licensure); d) adoption of the Professional Counselor Performance Evaluation (PCPE) for student monitoring; e) revision of admission requirements which included dropping the written response to Three Diversity Vignettes on Race, Gender and Sexual Orientation and the Effective Counselor Characteristics Self Review and developing the Counselor Characteristics/Cultural WritingSample to gain insight into applicant writing abilities, cultural backgrounds, and reflection of personal characteristics as a fit for a counseling program; f) adopting a Program Transfer Policyto assist with monitoring students who want to transfer from one counseling program to another; g)incorporating feedback from an Open Student Forum and Survey Results  held in March 2011 to improve advising and to re-evaluate which counseling classes are better served on campus v. online v. combination of on campus and online.

A major change in the department programs occurred in February 2011 when the Departments of Counseling and Educational Psychology (CEP) and Educational Leadership and Policy Study (ELPS) proposed to move the Human Services-Student Personnel Services in Higher Education (HS) degree from CEP to ELPS. The rationale for the proposed move was a better fit for the HS students. The HS program did not focus on professional counseling and was not accredited by CACREP. The primary focus of CEP department is on their two accredited counseling programs (SC & MHC) and related issues of certification and licensure for counselors. This proposed change is currently going through the university approval process and final approval is expected in 2011-2012 academic year. (See HS Advising Letter)

2.Formal follow-up studies of program graduates to assess graduate perceptions and evaluations of major aspects of the program.

Response:In Spring 2011, a Graduate Survey for Program Evaluationwas developed and all graduates from 2005 through 2010 (N=182) were sent a letter requesting feedback on our programs that was provided through Survey Monkey. The survey remains open but only had three responses at the time of this report. This sample size is too small to generalize data. However, two of the three responses positively endorsed the program by choosing the Agree or Strongly Agree response for all 10 items, and the third respondent choose Disagree or Not sure on 9 of the 10 items. The department confirmed that their current surveys and survey methods are not gaining the valid information needed for program modifications. The
Dean’s office has agreed to extend the contract services for the department with a firm that the College employs to conduct surveys for accreditation decisions effective Fall 2011.

3.Formal studies of site supervisors and program graduate employers that assess their perceptions and evaluations of major aspects of the program.

Response:In Spring 2011, a Site Supervisor Survey for Program Evaluationwas developed and sent to a sample of 19 site supervisors of practicum and internship from the 2010-2011 academic years. The response rate was 63% (12 out of 19, representing 10 site supervisors for school counselors(SC) and 2 site supervisors for mental health counselors(MHC)). The department recognizes that this is a small sample from which to draw conclusions, but it did provide the faculty with some useful information to consider.

The Site Supervisor Survey Resultsindicated that: a) some of the survey questions are confusing and may not be providing the information that is needed or intended for program evaluation.  There were some criticisms of two particular items on the survey relative to “applying the DSM” and being a “more congruent person”. Specifically, that school counselors did not tend to use the DSM as the item implies and that the definition of congruent is vague. Two school counselor site supervisors had comments about updating the SC program to meet current practices, functions, and roles of counselors in that setting. Faculty had a lengthy discussion of this feedback and it was noted that the comments made were about preparing school counselors to do duties and tasks that were not part of the ASCA National Model. Although the review of the SC program was placed on a future department agenda, it was noted that when this review occurs, we will have it in the context of the ASCA National Model.

The department confirmed that their current surveys and survey methods are not gaining the valid information needed for program modifications. The Dean’s office has agreed to extend the contract services for the department with a firm that the College employs to conduct surveys for accreditation decisions effective Fall 2011.

4.Assessment of student learning and performance on professional identity, professional practice, and program area standards.

Response:Assessment of student learning was given a great deal of review as part of the Comprehensive Assessment  Plan  and Comprehensive Assessment  Plan Report; b) developing  the Standards Matrix; c) conducting the Peer Evaluation of Syllabi. All courses were reviewed and evaluated on how they integrated into the total program, what standards were covered, and how these standards were assessed. Faculty were able to provide more emphasis or less emphasis on content in various classes to better meet the needs of the whole SC or MHC programs. In addition, some courses or sections of courses are often taught by affiliate and adjunct faculty in the College of Education and the syllabi; therefore,  Department Syllabiwere created and must be used by all affiliate and adjunct faculty to ensure that student receive the content mandated by the 2009 Standards.

5.Evidence of the use of findings to inform program modifications.

Response:The department has conducted a thorough review of all aspects of their counseling programs and made over 20 program modifications from the feedback received from all stakeholders (Program Modifications section of the Comprehensive Assessment  Plan Report).

6.Distribution of an official report that documents outcomes of the systematic program evaluation, with descriptions of any program modifications, to students currently in the program, program faculty, institutional administrators, personnel in cooperating agencies (e.g. employers, site supervisors), and the public.

Response:The department developed a CACREP Information sectionon the Department Website and included a copy of the Comprehensive Assessment  Plan Reportand Program Modifications, a link to the re-accreditation self-study, program modifications resulting from systematic program evaluation, and a Stakeholder Letter indicating how to access the program evaluation report.

BB.Students have regular and systematic opportunities to formally evaluate faculty who provide curricular experiences and supervisors of clinical experiences.

Response:Students have an opportunity to formally evaluate faculty each semester through a nationally standardized instrument, the Individual Development and Educational Assessment (IDEA). Students evaluate site supervisors each semester in the COU 880 Practicum and COU 881 Internship classes using the Post Internship Report.

CC. Annual results of student course evaluations are provided to faculty.

Response: The IDEA results are sent to the Department Chair at the beginning of the following semester after the evaluation. The Department Chair shares this information with faculty and a copy is placed in their personnel file to be used for promotion, tenure, merit pay, and post-tenure reviews.

DD.Written faculty evaluation procedures are presented to program faculty and supervisors at the beginning of each evaluation period and whenever changes are made in the procedures.

Response:The department follows the University Policies on Promotion and Tenureand on Annual Evaluationof faculty.  It also follows the College Policies on Promotion and Tenureof faculty.  These are hyperlinked here for your review.