2013-2014 Annual Program Assessment Report
Please submit report to your department chair or program coordinator, the Associate Dean of your College, and to
[email protected], director of assessment and program review, by Tuesday, September 30, 2014. You may submit a
separate report for each program which conducted assessment activities.
College: Health and Human Development
Department: Communication Disorders and Sciences
Program: N/A
Assessment liaison: Karen Kochis Jennings
1. Overview of Annual Assessment Project(s). Provide a brief overview of this year’s assessment plan and process.
In the 2013-2014 academic year, we revised our alumni and employer surveys and uploaded our surveys to Survey Monkey. We
also assessed Comportment and Cultural Competency in our 1st, 2nd and 3rd level clinical interns by means of the College of HHD
Comportment and Cultural Competency Survey.
2. Assessment Buy-In. Describe how your chair and faculty were involved in assessment related activities. Did department
meetings include discussion of student learning assessment in a manner that included the department faculty as a whole?
Assessment is always on the agenda at faculty meetings and we have very good ‘buy in’ throughout the department. Our faculty
had the opportunity to review and comment upon the HHD Comportment and Cultural Competence Survey before finalization
by the HHD Assessment Committee and implementation. In addition, I worked with our CDS Distance Learning Program to
finalize the alumni and employer surveys.
3. Student Learning Outcome Assessment Project. Answer items a-f for each SLO assessed this year. If you assessed an additional
SLO, copy and paste items a-f below, BEFORE you answer them here, to provide additional reporting space.
1
3a. Which Student Learning Outcome was measured this year?
Graduate SLO 1. Demonstrate appropriate comportment and knowledge of professional standards:
• show professional and ethical behavior with superiors, clients and colleagues in clinical settings.
3b. Does this learning outcome align with one or more of the university’s Big 5 Competencies? (Delete any which do not apply)
Does not align.
3c. What direct and/or indirect instrument(s) were used to measure this SLO?
We utilized the Comportment Survey instrument developed by the College of Health and Human Development.
3d. Describe the assessment design methodology: For example, was this SLO assessed longitudinally (same students at different
points) or was a cross-sectional comparison used (Comparing freshmen with seniors)? If so, describe the assessment points used.
For this assessment, we sampled a cross-section of our 1st, 2nd, and 3rd level student clinicians in our clinical practicums CD 465,
CD 566, and CD 567. The total N was 55 students. The clinical supervisors completed the surveys at the end of the Spring 2014
semester. The comportment survey ranks each comportment component on a scale 1 to 5, from ‘strongly disagree’ to ‘strongly
agree.’
3e. Assessment Results & Analysis of this SLO: Provide a summary of how the results were analyzed and highlight findings from the
collected evidence.
Results from the HHD Comportment Survey were inputted to an excel file and means and standard deviations were calculated for
each individual comportment component and for each individual student. An overall mean score was also calculated from the mean
component scores across all students. Mean scores for the survey components ranged from 4.73-5. The mean component score was
4.89 with a standard deviation of .01. Individual student means ranged from 4.14-5. An overall mean group component score was
obtained by calculating the overall mean across all students and all comportment components. The overall mean group score was
4.89 with a standard deviation of .19. This data can be seen in figures 1 and 2.
2
3f. Use of Assessment Results of this SLO: Describe how assessment results were used to improve student learning. Were
assessment results from previous years or from this year used to make program changes in this reporting year? (Possible changes
include: changes to course content/topics covered, changes to course sequence, additions/deletions of courses in program, changes
in pedagogy, changes to student advisement, changes to student support services, revisions to program SLOs, new or revised
assessment instruments, other academic programmatic changes, and changes to the assessment plan.)
Student comportment in the clinical setting was previously assessed with the HHD survey instrument in the 2012-2013 academic
year. Results from the 2013-2014 academic year re-assessment are very similar to those of the previous year. Supervisors’ ratings
of student clinician comportment in the clinical setting are high. For now, we see no need to change clinical comportment
guidelines as outlined in the CDS clinical handbook or modify comportment content in our academic classes.
4. Assessment of Previous Changes: Present documentation that demonstrates how the previous changes in the program resulted in
improved student learning.
In the 2011 – 2012 academic year, the clinical handbook was revised with additional emphasis on professional comportment. It had
been noted by supervisors and faculty that appropriate student clinician comportment appeared to be waning. Although
comportment was not formally assessed at that time, supervisors and faculty alike noted at increase in inappropriate behavior and
thus the clinical handbook and clinical orientation was revised to emphasize the components of professional comportment. We feel
that the high comportment scores observed in the 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 academic years are a direct reflection of the revisions
and emphasis on professional comportment.
5. Changes to SLOs? Please attach an updated course alignment matrix if any changes were made. (Refer to the Curriculum Alignment
Matrix Template, http://www.csun.edu/assessment/forms_guides.html.)
N/A
6. Assessment Plan: Evaluate the effectiveness of your 5 year assessment plan. How well did it inform and guide your assessment
work this academic year? What process is used to develop/update the 5 year assessment plan? Please attach an updated 5 year
3
assessment plan for 2013-2018. (Refer to Five Year Planning Template, plan B or C,
http://www.csun.edu/assessment/forms_guides.html.)
We have made no changes to our assessment plan. We are on an 8 year assessment plan per our accrediting body, the American
Speech and Language Association (ASHA).
7. Has someone in your program completed, submitted or published a manuscript which uses or describes assessment activities in your
program? Please provide citation or discuss.
N/A
8. Other information, assessment or reflective activities or processes not captured above.
N/A
3a. Which Student Learning Outcome was measured this year?
Graduate SLO 2. Demonstrate cultural sensitivity and knowledge of the effects of cultural difference on communication.
3b. Does this learning outcome align with one or more of the university’s Big 5 Competencies? (Delete any which do not apply)
Does not align.
3c. What direct and/or indirect instrument(s) were used to measure this SLO?
We utilized the Cultural Sensitivity Survey instrument developed by the College of Health and Human Development.
3d. Describe the assessment design methodology: For example, was this SLO assessed longitudinally (same students at different
points) or was a cross-sectional comparison used (Comparing freshmen with seniors)? If so, describe the assessment points used.
4
For this assessment, we sampled a cross-section of our 1st, 2nd, and 3rd level student clinicians in our clinical practicums CD 465, CD
566, and CD 567. The total N was 55 students. The clinical supervisors completed the surveys at the end of the Spring 2014
semester. The cultural sensitivity survey ranks each component on a scale 1 to 5, from ‘strongly disagree’ to ‘strongly agree.’
3e. Assessment Results & Analysis of this SLO: Provide a summary of how the results were analyzed and highlight findings from the
collected evidence.
Results from the HHD Cultural Sensitivity Survey were inputted to an excel file and means and standard deviations were calculated
for each individual cultural component and for each individual student. An overall mean score was also calculated from the mean
component scores across all students. Mean scores for the survey components ranged from 4.93-5. The mean component score was
4.97 with a standard deviation of .02. Individual student means ranged from 4.5-5. An overall mean group component score was
obtained by calculating the overall mean across all students and all cultural components. The overall mean group score was 4.97
with a standard deviation of .08. This data can be seen in figures 3 and 4.
3f. Use of Assessment Results of this SLO: Describe how assessment results were used to improve student learning. Were
assessment results from previous years or from this year used to make program changes in this reporting year? (Possible changes
include: changes to course content/topics covered, changes to course sequence, additions/deletions of courses in program, changes
in pedagogy, changes to student advisement, changes to student support services, revisions to program SLOs, new or revised
assessment instruments, other academic programmatic changes, and changes to the assessment plan.)
Results from the survey of cultural sensitivity were very positive. No changes to clinical or academic curriculum are planned at this
time regarding cultural sensitivity.
4. Assessment of Previous Changes: Present documentation that demonstrates how the previous changes in the program resulted in
improved student learning.
N/A
5. Changes to SLOs? Please attach an updated course alignment matrix if any changes were made. (Refer to the Curriculum Alignment
Matrix Template, http://www.csun.edu/assessment/forms_guides.html.)
5
N/A
6. Assessment Plan: Evaluate the effectiveness of your 5 year assessment plan. How well did it inform and guide your assessment
work this academic year? What process is used to develop/update the 5 year assessment plan? Please attach an updated 5 year
assessment plan for 2013-2018. (Refer to Five Year Planning Template, plan B or C,
http://www.csun.edu/assessment/forms_guides.html.)
We have made no changes to our assessment plan. We are on an 8 year assessment plan per our accrediting body, the American
Speech and Language Association (ASHA).
7. Has someone in your program completed, submitted or published a manuscript which uses or describes assessment activities in your
program? Please provide citation or discuss.
N/A
8. Other information, assessment or reflective activities or processes not captured above.
In the 2013-2014 academic year, we revised our alumni and employer surveys and moved them from paper surveys to an electronic medium,
Survey Monkey. ASHA, our accrediting body, requires that we regularly survey our alumni and employers regarding the effectiveness of our
clinical and academic curriculum. In the past, employer responses have been rather low and we have not had an effective way to determine
exactly who employs our students during their clinical fellowship year after graduation. The new alumni survey now includes a section
requesting supervisor information (name, email and phone number). Alumni are assured that anonymity will be preserved. We hope that this
change will generate a bank of clinical fellowship employers that we may survey and a higher supervisor response rate. Data collection is
scheduled to commence in Fall 2014.
6
Figure 1. Mean Comportment Components Ratings Scores
7
Figure 2. Mean Student Comportment Ratings Scores
Figure 3. Mean Cultural Sensitivity Components Ratings
8
Figure 4. Mean Student Cultural Sensitivity Ratings