PROGRAM EVALUATOIN REPORT
Counselor Education and Supervision Doctoral Program
(Counselor Education Track)
School of Counseling
College of Health Professions
The University of Akron
Spring 2015
PROGRAM EVALUATION REPORT
2
Table of Contents
Page
Introduction…………………………………...…………………………………………….
3
Program Overview…….……………………………………………………………...…….
3
Program Evaluation….……………………………………………………………………...
3
AA.1…………………………………………………………………………………….
4
Program and Curriculum………………………………………………………….
4
Program Applicants……………………………………………………………….
4
AA.2…………………………………………………………………………………….
5
Survey of Program Graduates…………………………………………………….
5
Survey of Current Students……………………………………………………….
6
AA.3…………………………………………………………………………………….
8
Survey of Supervisors/Employers………………………………………………...
8
AA.4…………………………………………………………………………………….
9
Student Candidacy Fitness Evaluation……………………………………………
9
Annual Student Review…………………………………………………………...
10
Written Comprehensive Examination…………………………………………….
10
Program Signature Assessments………………………………………………….
11
AA.5…………………………………………………………………………………….
11
Curriculum Modifications…………………………………………………………..
11
Program Objectives Revision……………………………………………………….
12
Revision of the Written Comprehensive Examination……………………………..
13
Changes in Internship Requirements……………………………………………….
14
AA.6…………………………………………………………………………………….
14
Conclusion………………………………..…………………………………………………
14
PROGRAM EVALUATION REPORT
3
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of the program evaluation report is to describe outcomes of a 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. Within this report, a systematic program evaluation of the
Counselor Education and Supervision Program—Counselor Education Track is described. The
program faculty used data collected from 2012-2013, 2013-2014, and 2014-2015 academic
years. Outcomes include objective and well-rounded faculty reflection about program strengths
and areas for improvement, program-related transparency with stakeholders (e.g., students,
graduates, and employers), and communication about the program’s status with institutional
administrators.
PROGRAM OVERVIEW
The Counselor Education and Supervision Doctoral Program—Counselor Education Track has
been accredited by the Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational
Programs (CACREP) since 1985. The program is one of the six Counselor Education and
Supervision doctoral programs in the State of Ohio and one of the two in Northeast Ohio. The
program is housed in the School of Counseling, College of Health Professions.
Currently, there are four full-time core faculty members in the Counselor Education and
Supervision Program—Counselor Education Track: Drs. Delila Owens, Cynthia Reynolds,
Robert Schwartz, and Varunee Faii Sangganjanavanich (program and clinical coordinator). In
2014-2015 academic year, there are 25 active students enrolled in the program. The program has
produced 35 graduates since 2004.
The Counselor Education and Supervision Doctoral Program—Counselor Education Track
undergoes periodic reviews (every Spring semester) by the program faculty. These reviews are
primarily focused on program improvements related to coursework, policies, and educational
standards. As an accredited comprehensive doctoral degree program, programmatic changes are
required to comply with national accreditation standards (e.g., CACREP), State licensure
guidelines (e.g., Ohio Counselor, Social Worker, and Marriage and Family Therapist Board),
College of Health Professions, and University policies. Programmatic changes are thoroughly
reviewed by faculty members (and university administration and community professionals as
needed) before implemented.
PROGRAM EVALUATION
The program faculty utilized the program evaluation criteria outlined in the 2009 CACREP
Standards (Section I, Learning Environment: Structure and Evaluation, Evaluation, AA.1-6.) as a
guide to systematic program evaluation. The below information is provided in response to the
standards.
PROGRAM EVALUATION REPORT
4
AA. Program faculty members engage in continuous systematic program evaluation
indicating how the mission, objectives, and student learning outcomes are measured and
met.
The program faculty have engaged in continuous assessment of program strengths and areas for
improvement in order to ensure that its mission, objectives, and student outcomes are met. The
formal and informal program evaluations occur through regular faculty conversations, meetings,
conversations with students, student/graduate/supervisor/employer surveys, and feedback from
professionals in the field. The program evaluation data obtained lead to in-depth program
reflection and updates including but not limited to the following areas: content published in the
program handbook, curriculum, resources and marketing information (e.g., program brochures
and websites), and training requirements and resources (e.g., practicum and internship). The data
obtained during the most recent program evaluation process, and the program updates resulting
from program faculty reflection, are presented below.
AA.1. A review by program faculty of programs, curricular offerings, and characteristics
of program applicants.
Program and Curriculum
In addition to continuous informal reviews, the Counselor Education and Supervision Program—
Counselor Education Track faculty conduct a formal review of the program and its curriculum in
Spring semester of every academic year. The findings of the reviews inform the program
changes and improvement such as a revision of the curriculum, program objectives, and the
written comprehensive examination, and changes in internship requirements. Detailed
information regarding these changes can be found in AA.5. section in this report.
To give an example, during the 2012 formal program review, there was a concern regarding
dissertation writing and degree completion of students based on feedback from students and
graduates. As a result of the review, program faculty took steps to address the concern. First,
the program developed a new course specific to doctoral dissertation proposal (5600:726,
required for all students) in order to provide students foundational knowledge and skills for
dissertation writing. Second, students enrolled in this course are required to work closely (e.g.,
meeting regularly, submitting dissertation proposal draft) with their advisors in order to make
progress toward dissertation proposal. Lastly, the program required students to successfully
propose their dissertation proposal before entering their internship experience. Implemented in
Fall 2013, these innovative changes were intended to help students make progress toward their
dissertation writing and ultimately, their degree completion.
Program Applicants
The program offers one time admission per academic year (for Fall semester). The application
deadline is January 15 of every year. Interviews generally occur the beginning of February and
PROGRAM EVALUATION REPORT
5
applicants are notified the admission decision no later than March. The program attracts
applicants from diverse backgrounds and clinical experiences from within the State of Ohio and
across the nation.
Program applicants are evaluated in various areas including their academic aptitude for doctorallevel study, previous professional experience, fitness for the profession and the program’s
philosophy and objectives, oral and written communication skills, as well as potential for
scholarship, professional leadership, and advocacy in the profession. The program admits 4-6
doctoral students per academic year.
AA.2. Formal follow-up studies of program graduates to assess graduate perceptions and
evaluations of major aspects of the program.
The program faculty conduct formal annual surveys for current students and program graduates
to provide their feedback to the program. To ensure confidentiality, the surveys are administered
online. The surveys assess their perceptions of major aspects of the program in the areas of
training and preparation. The summary of most recent survey results are listed below:
Survey of Program Graduates
The Graduate Survey was sent to graduates from The University of Akron Counselor Education
and Supervision Program—Counselor Education Track between 2001-2013 in November 2013.
Eight graduates (6 women and 7 Caucasians), ranging from 35-49 years old, responded to the
survey. The survey comprised 16 items inquiring about the graduate’s demographics, program
effectiveness, and areas for program improvement.
The majority of the program doctoral graduates (n=5) were employed in the counseling
profession. Within that group, three graduates were currently employed as full-time counselor
educators. All, but one, graduates were licensed as Professional Counselor (LPC), Professional
Clinical Counselor with Supervisor Endorsement (LPCC-S), or School Counselor (LSC), and
half of the graduates were certified as a National Certified Counselor (NCC). In addition, all, but
one, graduates were members of the American Counseling Association and its subdivision such
as the Association for Counselor Education and Supervision (ACES).
Using a likert rating, 1 (very dissatisfied), 2 (dissatisfied), 3 (somewhat satisfied), 4 (satisfied),
and 5 (very satisfied), graduates rated the effectiveness of the doctoral program in Counselor
Education and Supervision in providing them knowledge and skills in the area of research
(M=3.50), teaching (M=3.13), Supervision (M=4.63), Counseling (M=4.63), and Leadership and
Advocacy (M=3.63). Graduates rated satisfied to very satisfied with the program’s effectiveness
in preparing them in the area of ethics (M=4.25), professional identity (M=4.38), and
professionalism (M=4.25). However, they rated somewhat satisfied to satisfied with the
program’s effectiveness in preparing them in social justice and advocacy (M=3.63).
PROGRAM EVALUATION REPORT
6
Concerning the effectiveness of program operation, graduates (N=8) rated their satisfaction as
follows:
Areas of Program Operation
Helping you make progress toward completion of your degree.
Facilitating your professional and personal well-being
The use of technology/instructional technology
Counselor Education faculty receiving/accepting your feedback about the program
Counselor Education faculty help and support when you have questions and/or concerns
Counselor Education faculty advising availability and effectiveness
Clear communication regarding guidelines, policies, and procedures (i.e., student handbook)
Program didactic coursework
Program clinical coursework
The program's ability to offer courses
Overall rating of the UA Counselor Education and Supervision Doctoral program (e.g., if a
prospective student asked you)
Mean
4.00
3.29
3.00
2.71
3.71
3.43
3.86
4.14
4.43
3.86
3.43
Six out of 8 graduates commented that support from the program faculty was the most positive
aspect, whereas the conflicts among department faculty were the least positive aspect about the
Counselor Education and Supervision Program—Counselor Education Track. When asked to
identify the area for improvement, graduates noted that offering more guidance during the
dissertation process and hiring faculty with strong professional counselor identity could improve
the quality of the program.
Surveys of Current Students
Current Student Survey (2013)
The Current Survey was sent to students who were actively enrolled in The University of Akron
Counselor Education and Supervision Program—Counselor Education Track in November 2013.
Twelve students, entering the program between 2009-2013, responded to the survey. The survey
comprised 7 items inquiring about the students’ perceptions and satisfaction of the program
effectiveness and areas for program improvement.
Using a likert rating, 1 (very dissatisfied), 2 (dissatisfied), 3 (somewhat satisfied), 4 (satisfied),
and 5 (very satisfied), students rated the effectiveness of the doctoral program in Counselor
Education and Supervision in providing them knowledge and skills in the area of research
(M=3.17), teaching (M=2.75), Supervision (M=3.83), Counseling (M=3.92), and Leadership and
Advocacy (M=3.67). Students rated satisfied to very satisfied on the program’s effectiveness in
preparing them in the area of ethics (M=4.33) and social justice and advocacy (M=4.17).
However, they rated somewhat satisfied to satisfied on the program’s effectiveness in preparing
them in the area of professional identity (M=3.75) and professionalism (M=3.67).
PROGRAM EVALUATION REPORT
7
Concerning the effectiveness of program operation, students (N=12) rated their satisfaction as
follows:
Areas of Program Operation
Helping you make progress toward completion of your degree.
Facilitating your professional and personal well-being
The use of technology/instructional technology
Counselor Education faculty receiving/accepting your feedback about the program
Counselor Education faculty help and support when you have questions and/or concerns
Counselor Education faculty advising availability and effectiveness
Clear communication regarding guidelines, policies, and procedures (i.e., student handbook)
Program didactic coursework
Program clinical coursework
The program's ability to offer courses
Overall rating of the UA Counselor Education and Supervision Doctoral program (e.g., if a
prospective student asked you)
Mean
4.00
3.29
3.00
2.74
3.71
3.43
3.86
4.14
4.43
2.86
3.43
Students commented that support from the program faculty/advisors, opportunities to co-present
and co-publish with faculty, and smaller cohort size were the most positive aspects of the
Counselor Education and Supervision Program—Counselor Education Track. A lack of
pedagogical opportunities (e.g., co-teaching or teaching master’s counseling courses), the
department’s inability to offer consistent coursework, and the delays in course schedule
announcement were the least positive aspects about the program. When asked to identify the
area for improvement, students noted that providing an advanced notice about course schedule
and providing more pedagogical opportunities to students through their graduate assistantship
could improve the quality of the program.
Current Student Survey (2014)
The Current Survey was sent to students who were actively enrolled in The University of Akron
Counselor Education and Supervision Program—Counselor Education Track in December 2014.
Nine students, entering the program between 2011-2013, responded to the survey. The survey
comprised 7 items inquiring about the students’ perceptions and satisfaction of the program
effectiveness and areas for program improvement.
Using a likert rating, 1 (very dissatisfied), 2 (dissatisfied), 3 (somewhat satisfied), 4 (satisfied),
and 5 (very satisfied), students rated the effectiveness of the doctoral program in Counselor
Education and Supervision in providing them knowledge and skills in the area of research
(M=3.67), teaching (M=3.22), Supervision (M=4.22), Counseling (M=4.11), and Leadership and
Advocacy (M=3.67). Students rated satisfied to very satisfied on the program’s effectiveness in
preparing them in the area of ethics (M=4.44), professional identity (M=4.22), and
professionalism (M=4.22). However, they rated somewhat satisfied to satisfied on the program’s
effectiveness in preparing them in the area of multiculturalism and social justice (M=3.44).
PROGRAM EVALUATION REPORT
8
Concerning the effectiveness of program operation, students (N=9) rated their satisfaction as
follows:
Areas of Program Operation
Helping you make progress toward completion of your degree.
Facilitating your professional and personal well-being
The use of technology/instructional technology
Counselor Education faculty receiving/accepting your feedback about the program
Counselor Education faculty help and support when you have questions and/or concerns
Counselor Education faculty advising availability and effectiveness
Clear communication regarding guidelines, policies, and procedures (i.e., student handbook)
Program didactic coursework
Program clinical coursework
The program's ability to offer courses
Overall rating of the UA Counselor Education and Supervision Doctoral program (e.g., if a
prospective student asked you)
Mean
3.89
3.22
3.67
3.44
4.00
3.89
3.78
3.78
3.78
2.89
3.78
Students commented that support from the program faculty/advisors, opportunities to co-present
and co-publish with faculty, well-preparation in clinical counseling and supervision, and smaller
cohort size were the most positive aspects of the Counselor Education and Supervision
Program—Counselor Education Track. A lack of pedagogical opportunities (e.g., co-teaching or
teaching master’s counseling courses), comprehensive examinations, the department’s inability
to offer consistent coursework, and the delays in course schedule announcement were the least
positive aspects about the program. When asked to identify the area for improvement, students
noted that reconsidering the comprehensive examinations, providing an advanced notice about
course schedule, and providing more pedagogical opportunities to students through their
graduate assistantship could improve the quality of the program.
AA.3. Formal studies of site supervisors and program graduate employers that assess their
perceptions and evaluations of major aspects of the program.
The program faculty conducted a formal annual survey for site supervisor of current students and
employers of graduates to provide their feedback to the program. To ensure confidentiality, the
survey was administered online. The survey assessed their perceptions of major aspects of the
program in the areas of training and preparation.
Survey of Supervisors/Employers
In February 2015, the Supervisor/Employer Survey was sent to internship site supervisors of
interns and employers of graduates from The University of Akron Counselor Education and
Supervision Program—Counselor Education Track. Ten supervisors/employers responded to the
survey. The survey comprised 6 questions inquiring about their perceptions and satisfaction of
the program students and/or graduates as well as areas for program improvement.
PROGRAM EVALUATION REPORT
9
Using a likert rating, 1 (very dissatisfied), 2 (dissatisfied), 3 (somewhat satisfied), 4 (satisfied),
and 5 (very satisfied), supervisors/employers rated the knowledge and skill level of the
interns/graduate in Counselor Education and Supervision in the area of research, teaching
supervision, counseling, leadership, ethics, professional identity, social justice and advocacy, and
professionalism. The results indicated that supervisors/employers (N=10) were satisfied to very
satisfied with the knowledge and skill level of the program interns/graduates (see below).
Areas of Program Operation
Research
Teaching
Supervision
Counseling
Leadership
Ethics
Professional Identity
Social Justice and Advocacy
Professionalism
Mean
4.10
4.80
5.00
5.00
4.80
5.00
4.89
4.78
5.00
When asked about their perceptions of overall quality the program interns/graduates using a
likert rating, 1 (poor), 2 (developing), 3 (competent), 4 (excellent), and 5 (extraordinary),
supervisors/employers rated excellent (n=6) and extraordinary (n=3).
Supervisors/employers indicated that the program interns/graduates were well-prepared in
teaching, research, supervision, clinical counseling, and professional identity; had strong
professionalism; demonstrated real world experience; and were excellent candidates of choice
for positions in their counselor education programs. When asked to identify the area for
improvement, one supervisor/employers noted that the program should continue to increase
diversity among students and faculty as well as provide an interprofessional experience to
students.
AA.4. Assessment of student learning and performance on professional identity,
professional practice, and program area standards.
The Counselor Education and Supervision Program—Counselor Education Track faculty
assessed student learning and performance on professional identity and practice based on various
assessment methods including candidacy fitness evaluation, annual student review,
comprehensive examinations, and program signature assessments to ensure that the training
produces desirables student learning outcomes required by the 2009 CACREP Standards.
Student Candidacy Fitness Evaluation
Each student in the Counselor Education and Supervision Program is reviewed annually using
the Student Candidacy Fitness Evaluation form. This form is intended to provide feedback to
program faculty and students regarding performance in key areas related to specific courses
PROGRAM EVALUATION REPORT
10
(5600:710 – Theories of Counseling, 5600:702 – Advanced Practicum, and 5600:738 – Clinical
Supervision II) deemed as program signature assessment points. The purpose is to track student
development and performance as well as to offer remediation when needed throughout the
program’s curriculum. The Student Candidacy Fitness Evaluation assesses student development
and performance in the areas of professionalism, maturity, ethics, and academic performance.
Annual Student Review
The program faculty conduct the annual student review in Spring semester of every academic
year. The annual student review is intended to be informative to students and faculty in regards
to the student progress and performance in the program and the profession. Students first
complete their professional and academic information through a secured web-based system and
are later invited to an in person meeting with the program faculty to discuss their progress and
how program faculty can help facilitate their professional development.
The program faculty also review data from multiple sources include:
a. Review of active students’ individual course grades
b. Review of active students’ overall grade point averages
c. Review of Student Candidacy Fitness Evaluations (completed by each faculty advisor in
consultation with other program faculty).
d. Review of clinical supervisor Practicum and Internship evaluation/feedback. These
sources of evaluation/feedback were chosen to ensure summative assessment of clinical
competence before graduation: 5600:702 – Advanced Practicum and 5600:785 –
Doctoral Internship.
e. Review of School of Counseling statement of expectations
f. Review of individual written and oral comprehensive examination scores and pass rates
In this review, students and faculty have an opportunity to review their academic progress (e.g.,
GPA, clinical and classroom performance), scholarship (e.g., presentation and publication
records) and leadership (e.g., participation in professional organizations). Students also have an
opportunity to ask questions and share concerns regarding their academic progress and
professional accomplishments. Program faculty offer their feedback, suggestions, and/or
assistance in order to help students meet their academic and professional goals.
Written Comprehensive Examination
The comprehensive examinations comprise the written and verbal portions. The students are
required to successfully pass the written portion prior to the verbal portion of the exam. The
purpose of the exams is to assess student’s knowledge in the areas of counseling, supervision,
assessment, ethics, and professional identity. See more information regarding the exam in
section AA.5.
PROGRAM EVALUATION REPORT
11
Program Signature Assessments
In addition to aforementioned assessment methods, to ensure ongoing formative evaluation of
the 2009 CACREP standards, every Spring semester, the program faculty review and evaluate
student learning outcomes through the use of program signature assessments including:
1. Student Candidacy Fitness Evaluation
b. 5600:710 – Theories of Counseling (first year of program study)
c. 5600:702 – Advanced Practicum (second year of program study)
d. 5600:738 – Clinical Supervision II (third year of program study)
2. Comprehensive Examinations (Spring semester of the third year of program study)
a. Written examination
b. Oral examination
3. Dissertation Proposal (before entering Internship I)
AA.5. Evidence of the use of findings to inform program modifications.
Based on the findings from the program reviews (including program assessment by faculty and
evaluative feedback from current students, graduates, and supervisors/employers), the Counselor
Education and Supervision Program—Counselor Education Track has made the following
changes:
Curriculum Modifications
Effective in Fall 2013, the program has utilized a new Program Course Distribution (PCD) which
serves as a program plan for students. The new PCD reduces the number of semester credit
hours (from 120 to 100 credit hours), removes irrelevant courses that do not pertain to counselor
education and supervision, and adds new courses that correspond to the training standards of
counselor educators and supervisors. The rationale for adding, removing, and/or replacing the
following courses is to better fulfill the Doctoral Standards section in the 2009 CACREP
Standards and to further equip students with cutting edge knowledge and skills required by the
profession. The curriculum changes are listed below:
Advanced Diversity in Counselor Education (5600: 728, three credits) has been added to
the curriculum to replace Social-Philosophical Foundations of Education (5100: 705,
three credits) to address diversity and multicultural issues that are specific to counselor
education and supervision.
Pedagogy in Counselor Education and Supervision: Theory and Practice (5600: 724,
three credits) has been added to the curriculum to replace Emerging Technologies for
Instruction (5100: 635, three credits) to provide doctoral students the pedagogical
training that is specific to counselor preparation.
PROGRAM EVALUATION REPORT
12
Doctoral Research Proposal in Counselor Education (5600: 726, three credits) has been
added in order to assist doctoral students in preparing for their dissertation research
proposal and grant writing.
Qualitative Research I (5100: 744, three credits) has been made a required core course to
replace Research Design II (5100: 716, three credits) in order to better provide training in
qualitative research designs and methods.
Program Objectives Revision
Based on the review of the program objectives, the Counselor Education and Supervision
Doctoral Program—Counselor Education Track faculty believed an update was needed in order
to better align with the CACREP standards and the current practice of the profession. The
revised program objectives are included in the current program handbook and are listed below:
The purpose of the Counselor Education and Supervision Doctoral Program—Counselor
Education Track is to facilitate the professional leadership roles of counselor education,
supervision, counseling practice, and research competencies of students to advance the
counseling profession. Aligned with the current standards of the Council for
Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs (CACREP), doctoral
students are expected to develop the identity of a professional counselor, clinical
supervisor, counselor educator, and researcher. This identity is intended to promote
competence and professionalism as students begin careers in public and private sectors in
the counseling and counselor education profession.
Upon completion of the program, students will be able to:
1. Demonstrate a clear and strong professional counselor identity, evidenced by
professional leadership roles of counselor education, supervision, counseling practice,
and research competencies expected of doctoral graduates;
2. Demonstrate knowledge, skills, and practices beyond the entry-level program
requirements in all of the following: counseling, counselor education, clinical
supervision, pedagogy, and leadership; and
3. Promote diversity through culturally relevant counseling, supervision, teaching,
research, and professional service.
During the program, students will be able to:
1. Gain foundational knowledge in professional counseling, counselor education,
clinical supervision, pedagogy, and leadership;
2. Engage in advanced training in clinical counseling and supervision;
3. Develop scholarship, research, and writing skills through didactic coursework and
doctoral dissertation;
4. Promote counselor professional identity, leadership, and advocacy skills; and
5. Develop professional competencies in clinical counseling, supervision, teaching,
research, and/or leadership through Internship.
PROGRAM EVALUATION REPORT
13
Revision of the Written Comprehensive Examination
The feedback from students regarding the written comprehensive examination warranted the
program attention in terms of the structure, format, and evaluative process. Therefore, since
2013, a semester prior to the exam, the students taking the written comprehensive examination
are required to attend a meeting with the program coordinator to discuss the structure, format,
and evaluative process of the exam. In this meeting, students also have an opportunity to ask
questions or clarify information regarding the exam. Unlike a previous format of the written
examination, students receive all questions at least 60 days in advance in order to have an
opportunity to develop their answers to the questions. Then, students are required to complete
their answers in person and in a time-limited environment in all exam areas. Concerning the
evaluation of the written examination, in addition to using a blind review system, the faculty
developed a grading rubric for each area of the exam in order to better inform students about the
evaluation criteria and to objectively and thoroughly evaluate the students’ responses.
Changes in Internship Requirements
There are two changes made regarding the internship requirements of the program. First,
students are now required to complete the written comprehensive examination prior to entering
their internship experience in order to promote their likelihood in dissertation and degree
completion. Second, as mentioned earlier in this report, the program requires students to
successfully propose their dissertation proposal prior to entering their internship experience.
Implemented in Fall 2013, these innovative changes are intended to help students make progress
toward their dissertation writing and ultimately, their degree completion.
AA.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.
In February 2015, the report was published on the program website and disseminated to
parties involved including program faculty, current students, graduates, and
supervisors/employers.
CONCLUSION
The Counselor Education and Supervision Doctoral Program—Counselor Education Track has
made significant improvements over the past few years in order to achieve training excellence
for its students and to promote the quality of its graduates. The overall findings from the
systematic evaluation of the program were positive and led faculty to make informed decisions
about the program. Based on the findings, the program has made major program changes
including the training curriculum, program objectives, written comprehensive examination, and
PROGRAM EVALUATION REPORT
internship requirements. To monitor the quality of the program, informal and formal ongoing
evaluations from stakeholders continue to be a part of program development.
14