Student Learning Assessment Report (SLAR)€¦ · scene diagraming, etc. are things that would make...

Student Learning Assessment Report (SLAR)

Department: Behavioral & Social Sciences

Academic Program Evaluated: Criminal Justice

Program Review Year: 2018-2019

Year 1 Academic Year: 2017-2018


Year 3 Academic Year:


Faculty members involved in this assessment process: (List all faculty members who participated: program coordinator, reviewers, committee members, etc.)

Advisory Committee Members for 2017-2018 1. Roger Moore, Assistant Professor of Criminal Justice, Program Coordinator 2. Sheriff David Millsap, Laclede County Sheriff 3. Officer Brandon Keen, Springfield Police Dept. Recruiter 4. Tony Bowers, Director of Drury Police Academy 5. Todd Revell, Director of Public Safety Evangel

Advisory Committee Members for 2018-2019 1. Roger Moore, Assistant Professor of Criminal Justice, Program Coordinator 2. Sheriff David Millsap, Laclede County Sheriff 3. Officer Brandon Keen, Springfield Police Dept. Recruiter 4. Tony Bowers, Director of Drury Police Academy 5. Todd Revell, Director of Public Safety Evangel

Number of students in sample: (If known, supply the number of students in each class/year who were used in the assessment report.)

Total number of students: 57

Total number of students: 37

Freshmen: Sophomores: Juniors: Seniors:


Instrument(s) used in assessment: (List the exams, standardized tests,

1-CJST 423- Law Enforcement Organization and Administration Exam

1-CJST 423- Law Enforcement Organization and Administration Exam

portfolios, etc. that were used in the assessment process.)

#1- CJST #1 Outcome, History. 2-CJST 498 – Criminal Justice Practicum – Organizational Analysis PaperSP18 – CJST #4 outcome, Administration. 3- CJST 422- Criminal Investigations - Crime Scene Practical FA17- CJST #3 Outcome, Investigations. 4- CJST 241- Introduction to Criminal Justice Exam #1, FA17- CJST #2 Outcome, Criminological Theories. 5 -Advisory Committee recommendations for 2017-2018.

#1 SP19- CJST #1 Outcome, History. 2-CJST 498 – Criminal Justice Practicum – Organizational Analysis Paper SP19 – CJST #4 outcome, Administration. 3- CJST 422- Criminal Investigations - Crime Scene Practical FA18- CJST #3 Outcome, Investigations. 4- CJST 241- Introduction to Criminal Justice Exam #2, FA18- CJST #5 Outcome, Law Enforcement Ethics. 5 -Advisory Committee recommendations for 2018-2019.

Methodology: (Explain the method of data collection and the data analysis process.)

Students were assessed for PLOs & CLOs based on the rubric scores associated with specific assignments. Advisory Committee members were tasked with providing input based on past and current program goals and future trends in the Criminal Justice field.

Students were assessed for PLOs & CLOs based on the rubric scores associated with specific assignments. Advisory Committee members were tasked with providing input based on past and current program goals and future trends in the Criminal Justice field.

Results of Assessment: (List the findings in summary format as narrative.)

1. The average score for the sample group was 82% of a possible 100% for the sample group (16 students) so the goal of 70 – 89%

1. The average score for the sample group was 84% of a possible 100% so the goal of 70 – 89% average scores for this outcome was achieved.

average scores for this outcome was achieved.

2. The average score for the sample group was a score of 3.58 out of a possible four. The goal was to achieve a score of 3.0 or higher for this outcome so the goal was met in this category.

3. The average score for the sample group was a score of 92.6% out of a possible 100%. The goal was to reach a score of 85% average or more so this goal was achieved.

4. The average score for the sample group (16 students) was 75.875% out of a possible 100% the goal was mastery level of 75% or higher for this outcome so this goal was achieved.

5. Committee input was positive about the current direction of the program; the recent addition of a specific Crime Scene lab location was considered a great improvement in providing an overall better learning experience for students in the Criminal

2. The average score for the sample group was a score of 3 out of a possible 4. The goal was to achieve a score of 3.0 or higher for this outcome so the goal was met in this category.

3. The average score for the sample group was a score of 3.5 out of a possible 4. The goal was to reach a score of 85% average or more so this goal was achieved.

4. The average score for the sample group was 79% out of a possible 100% the goal was mastery level of 75% or higher for this outcome so this goal was achieved.

5. Committee input was again positive about the current direction of the program; the addition of a specific Crime Scene lab location is considered a great improvement in providing an overall better learning experience for students in the Criminal Investigations course.

Because of a grant, we were able to acquire two SLR digital crime scene

Investigations course. Upgraded crime scene

cameras based on a grant was also seen as a very positive development. One concern was the lack of diversity in the program as related to instructors.

Currently, there is only

one fulltime and one part time adjunct instructor for the Criminal Justice program. This limits the amount and variety of experience and expertise the students are exposed to in the program.

cameras. The concern over the lack of diversity in the program as related to instructors continues to be an area for future improvement.

Budget limitations do not allow for the addition of adjunct or full time faculty at this time. One way we have mitigated this issue is to expand the number of subject matter experts and stakeholders who we host as quest speakers. We only have one fulltime and one part time adjunct instructors for the Criminal Justice program. This limits the amount and variety of experience and expertise the students are exposed to in the program.

Strengths: (From the findings, list the strengths that currently exist in the academic program.)

Based on the measurement instruments utilized the program continues to move in a positive direction, as each of the goals for this reporting period were met. Committee input indicates we are offering a good educational experience that helps the candidates to be prepared to enter

Analysis of the measurement instruments the program continues to move in a positive direction, each of the program goals assessed for this reporting period were met. Committee input indicates we continue to offer a good educational experience that helps the candidates be prepared to enter the

the Criminal Justice field. It was the feeling of the members that the recent additions of a crime scene lab and possible camera equipment upgrades are positive steps to better prepare students with the knowledge and skills need to succeed in the field. Recently added Law Enforcement & Security Handgun course has been a great success with very positive feedback from the participants. Several graduates of the most recent class went on to be successful graduates of the Springfield Police Academy passing the firearms training portion and later becoming sworn police officers.

Criminal Justice field. It was the feeling of the members that the recent additions of a crime scene lab and camera equipment upgrades are positive steps to better prepare students with the knowledge and skills need to succeed in the field.

Areas in need of improvement: (From the findings, list the areas of weakness that currently exist in the academic program.)

We continue to lag behind our competitors in the area of investigative equipment and resources dedicated to the program. Items such as alternative light sources for crime scene searches, computer scene diagraming, etc. are things that would make the skills more useable.

As noted last year we continue to lag behind our competitors in the area of investigative equipment and resources dedicated to the program. Items such as alternative light sources for crime scene searches, computer scene diagraming, etc. are things that would make the skills more useable. We have made improvements with the addition of the digital

crime scene cameras purchased in early 2019 and will be implemented in the Criminal Investigations class FA19. The advisory committee suggested some basic training in the area of cyber investigations and computer forensics as program improvements. At this time due to budget limitation, we are not able to bring this expertise into the program. Program Coordinator is researching cost neutral options to bring some information on this topic into the criminal investigations course.

Year 1: Plans for improvement:

Plan for Improvement Timeline Responsible Person Acquire two DSLR Cameras 2018-2019 Roger Moore Acquire alternative light source 2018-2019 (pending

funding) Roger Moore- pending budget approval

Diversify instruction by utilizing guest speakers when possible with no budget impact.

2018-2019 Roger Moore

Year 1: Improvements made:

Improvement Plan Implementation Date Crime Scene dedicated lab Fall 2018


Plan for Improvement Timeline Responsible Person Add an introduction to computer forensic investigation to the criminal investigations course

2020-2021 (pending budget approval)

Roger Moore

Acquire alternative light source 2019-2020 (pending budget approval)

Roger Moore

Diversify instruction by utilizing guest speakers when possible with no budget impact.

On going Roger Moore


Improvement Plan Implementation Date Crime Scene dedicated lab FA2018

Two DSLR Cameras and support items. SP2019

Criminal Investigations course hosted five subject matter experts as guest speakers to share their varied knowledge.

FA 2018


Department: Behavioral and Social Sciences

Academic Program Evaluated: Government






Faculty members involved in this assessment process:

R. Bartels R. Bartels


Freshmen: 27 Core; 5 major Sophomores: 14 Core; 6 major Juniors: 7 core; 6 major Seniors: 10; 2 major

GOVT Major students Freshmen: 2 Sophomores: 5 Juniors: 7 Seniors: 8



Instrument(s) used in assessment: (List the exams, standardized tests, portfolios, etc. that were used in the assessment process.)

GOVT Core Curriculum: writing assignment

GOVT Core Curriculum - writing assignment Major Curriculum - research and writing assignment


GOVT Core Curriculum: An EU 20 objective (E3B) was utilized in the scoring of the assignment. A rating of 0-4 was applied to the total score of the submission.

- Students who scored 0-5, received a rating of 0.




- Students who scored 21-25,

Kept Core EU 20 objectives and ratings. Major Curriculum PLO: GOV3: Students will demonstrate

the ability to treat government as a

discipline and a science utilizing

research and writing methods

utilized in government research

and reports. Assignments cover

public opinion, policy papers,

political systems and analysis.

- Students who did not turn in work, received a rating of 0.

https://courses.evangel.edu/courses/24027/outcomes/52597

received a rating of 4. The definitions for each rating are:

- 4: the student describes the historical response to the issue using specific and accurate details.

- 3: the student describes the historical response to the issue in general but accurate terms.

- 2: the student describes the historical response to the issue vaguely and/or inaccurately.

- 1: the student describes the historical response to the issue insufficiently and/or inaccurately.

- 0: the student did not attempt the assignment.

- Students who scored 1-59%, received a rating of 1.

- Students who scored 60-73% , received a rating of 2.



The definitions for each rating are:

- 4: the student thoroughly researched and wrote a complete analysis for the topic using specific and accurate details.

- 3: the student researched and wrote an analysis for the topic in general but accurate terms.

- 2: the student researched and wrote an analysis for the topic vaguely and/or inaccurately.

- 1: the student researched and wrote an analysis for the topic insufficiently and/or inaccurately.



GOVT Core Curriculum: The average score for all 58 students, regardless of class rank, was 3.31. On average, students in this course were able to describe the historical value of the issue accurately, but in general terms. 72.4% of all the students in this course were ranked as a “4”, and thus able to describe accurately and specifically the historical value of the issue assigned in the assignment. Additionally, students who either scored a “4” or a “3” were 87.9% of the total number of students in the course. There were no students who scored a “2” or a “1”, however, 7 students (12% of the

GOVT Core Curriculum: The average score for all 121 students over the FA and SP terms, regardless of class rank, was 3.38. GOVT Major Curriculum: utilized GOVT 370 research and writing assignment. Out of a class size of 14, the average score for GOVT students was 3.5.

total number) did not attempt the assignment at all.

Strengths: (From the findings, list the areas of strengths that currently exist in the academic program.)

GOVT Core Curriculum: The data demonstrates that overwhelmingly students understand the assignment and are able to draw information from the course to successfully complete the task.

GOVT Core Curriculum: The data demonstrates a consistency for the students’ learning and successful application to the assigned task. GOVT Major Curriculum: Students performed at a high level of competency for this assignment.

Areas in need of improvement: (From the findings, list the areas of weakness(s) that currently exist in the academic program.)

GOVT Core Curriculum: The obvious area for improvement is to decrease the number of students who did not attempt the assignment. This is a freshman level course and of the students who did not make an effort on this assignment, 85.7% were freshman.

GOVT Core Curriculum: Continue to find ways to show value for all students to complete the assignment. GOVT Major Curriculum: Only one assignment from one course was tracked; other courses taught by adjuncts were not accessed. More courses, including those taught by adjuncts, need included with multiple assignments.


Plan for Improvement Timeline Responsible Person Collect grade averages from core content courses

FA 18 through SP 19 R Bartels

Collect student assessments of the core content courses


Collect scores from student work throughout the major during the capstone course

SP 19 R Bartels


Improvement Plan Implementation Date NA


Plan for Improvement Timeline Responsible Person Continue to capture data for all courses, and develop stronger PLOs



Improvement Plan Implementation Date Expanded data capture for upper level course

SP 19



Academic Program Evaluated: History Concentration







R. Bartels


Freshmen: 1 Sophomores: 1 Juniors: 0 Seniors: 0





HIST Curriculum: writing assignments


Major Curriculum PLO:

HIST1: Students will be able to define essential issues in human history, identify ways others have addressed those issues, and explore the applicability of those approaches to other intellectual, political, social, and spiritual contexts.

HIST: A rating of 0-4 was applied to the total score of the submission.

- Students who scored 0-5,


received a rating of 0.













HIST Core Curriculum: utilized HIST 112 The average score for all 41 students in the SP term, regardless of class rank, was 2.75.


While the overall score was 2.75; 53 % of the students scored 3 or 4 on the assessment for this course.


Only one course was utilized for this assessment. Capturing EU20 and PLO data from adjunct taught HIST courses will help to provide thorough and more

accurate analysis for the History program.







Department: Behavioral & Social Sciences

Academic Program Evaluated: Psychology







1. Jean Orr, Associate

Professor, Program

Coordinator

2. Heather Kelly, Professor,

Department Chair

3. Grant Jones, Professor

4. Debbie Johnson,

Professor

5. Debbie Bicket, Assistant

Professor

1. Jean Orr, Associate

Professor, Program

Coordinator

2. Heather Kelly, Professor,

Department Chair

3. Grant Jones, Professor

4. Debbie Johnson,

Professor

5. Debbie Bicket, Assistant

Professor


Total

Freshmen: 27

Sophomores: 30

Juniors: 30

Seniors: 25

Total: 112

Fall Spring

Freshmen: 22 15

Soph: 21 21

Juniors: 19 24

Seniors: 33 39

Total: 95 99

Freshmen:

Sophomores:

Juniors:

Seniors:

Freshmen:

Sophomores:

Juniors:

Seniors:


1b. Course Assignment:

(PSYC 433) Personality

Project



Project

1c. Course Exam: (PSYC

433) Cumulative Score of All

Exams


433) Cumulative Score of

All Exams


(PSYC 345) Research

Proposal


(PSYC 345) Research

Proposal

2c. Course Assignment:

(PSYC 223) Research Paper




(PSYC 237) Final Virtual Life

Paper


(PSYC 237) Final Virtual Life

Paper


223) Final Exam


223) Final Exam

4a. Course Assignment:


Assessment Paper



Project






(PSYC 380) Oral

Presentation


(PSYC 380) Oral

Presentation

5aa. Course Assignment:

(PSYC 433) Final Personality

Assessment

5aa. Course Assignment:


Project

5ab. Course Assignment:

(PSYC 449) Autobiography

(Spiritual)

5ab. Course Assignment:


(Spiritual)

5ac. Course Assignment:

(PSYC 223) Compassion Day

Project

5ac. Course Assignment:

(PSYC 223) Compassion

Day Project

5ba. Course Assignment:

(PSYC 380) Final Research

Paper

5ba. Course Assignment:

(PSYC 380) Final Research

Paper

5bb. Course Assignment:

(PSYC 380) Research

Presentation

5bb. Course Assignment:

(PSYC 380) Research

Presentation

5bc. Course Assignment:


(Psychological)

5bc. Course Assignment:


(Psychological)


(PSYC 449) Integration

Paper


(PSYC 449) Integration

Paper


(PSYC 449) Research Project


(PSYC 449) Research

Project


449) Final Exam


449) Final Exam


(PSYC 296) Resume

n/a


(PSYC 433) Career

Assignment


(PSYC 433) Career

Assignment






Faculty manually extracted

data from Course

Commons

Faculty manually extracted

data from Course

Commons


1b. 86% of students earned

80% or higher


80% or higher (29/32)

1c. No data 1c. 68% of students earned

80% or higher (22/32)


80% or higher (27/31)


80% or higher (34/36)

2c. 100% of students earned

80% or higher (12/12)


80% or higher (Fall 18/18,

Spring 16/17, Total 34/35)




3b. 100% of students

earned 80% or higher (Fall

8/8, Spring 1/1, Total 9/9)

3c. No data 3c. 86% of students earned



4a. 86% of students earned

80% or higher


80% or higher (29/32)


80% or higher (22/22)


80% or higher (29/30)


80% or higher (23/25)

4c. 100% of students

earned 80% or higher

(37/37)

5aa. No data 5aa. 90% of students


(29/32)

5ab. 100% of students


(22/22)

5ab. 93% of students


(28/30)

5ac. 83% of students earned

80% or higher (10/12)

5ac. 97% of students

earned 80% or higher (Fall

18/18, Spring 16/17, Total

34/35)

5ba. 88% of students


(22/25)

5ba. 78% of students


(29/37)

5bb. 92% of students


(23/25)

5bb. 100% of students


(37/37)

5bc. 100% of students


(22/22)

5bc. 93% of students


(28/30)


80% or higher (19/22)


80% or higher (28/30)


80% or higher (22/22)


80% or higher (29/30)


80% or higher (20/22)


80% or higher (24/30)

7a. No data

n/a


80% or higher

7b. 100% of students


(32/32)


80% or higher ( 22/25)


80% or higher (29/37)


1. Overall, based on the

data obtained, students are

meeting the goals set for

the psychology program.

2. Most courses are taught

by dedicated, full-time

faculty, who work well

together as a team.

3. We require a research

1. Overall, based on the

data obtained, students

are meeting the goals set

for the psychology

program.

2. Most courses are taught

by dedicated, full-time

faculty, who work well

together as a team.

sequence including a

research course with an

experimental course.

Students professionally

present their research in a

poster session in an

interdisciplinary research

symposium. Some students

even present in regional

psychology conferences.

4. We place an emphasis

on the integration of faith

and the specific subject

matter of psychology in our

courses.

3. We require a research

sequence including a

research course with an

experimental course.

Students professionally

present their research in a

poster session in an

interdisciplinary research

symposium. Some students

even present in regional

psychology conferences.

4. We place an emphasis

on the integration of faith

and the specific subject

matter of psychology in our

courses.

5. We added a

practicum/research

internship course to our

requirements.

6. We made PSYC 237,

Lifespan, a required

course.

7. We added a lab

component to an elective

course, PSYC 333, Helping

Relationship


1. We need to evaluate

how we grade assignments

and evaluate if there is

grade inflation present.

2. We need to evaluate the

measure sources for goal 3.


how we are addressing

culture and diversity in our

psychology courses.

1. We need to review how

we grade assignments,

review students’ final

grades, and evaluate if

there is grade inflation

present, particularly for

upper division courses.


the required course, PSYC

296, Sophomore Seminar,

and consider

improvement/redesign.


Plan for Improvement Timeline Responsible Person

1. Evaluate grading pattern across courses for Spring and

Fall 2018.

Spring 2019 Jean Orr

2. Reconsider how to measure goal 3. December 2018 Jean Orr

3. Evaluate culture and diversity in our curriculum. December 2018 Jean Orr


Improvement Plan Implementation Date

1. Evaluate grading pattern across courses for Spring and

Fall 2018.

Will continue to evaluate with focus on Fall 2018 and

Spring 2019.

2. Reconsider how to measure goal 3. 9/17/19

3. Evaluate culture and diversity in our curriculum. 9/17/19


Plan for Improvement Timeline Responsible Person

1. Review grading pattern across select courses for Fall

2018 and Spring 2019. Need to make sure upper division

courses demand more rigor than lower division courses.

Evaluate whether grade inflation may be occurring.

May 2020 Jean Orr

2. Evaluate the course, PSYC 296, Sophomore Seminar,

and consider improvement/redesign.

May 2020 Jean Orr





Academic Program Evaluated: Social Science Education







R. Bartels







GOVT / HIST / SSCI Curriculum: GOVT / HIST writing assignments and SSCI final exam scores


Used Core EU 20 objectives and ratings. E3B: Identification of Approaches Identifies ways others have addressed essential issues in human history. Identification: Identify the manner in which the issue was addressed. Historical response: the manner in which the issue was addressed at a given time and place. Major Curriculum PLO:


GOV3: Students will demonstrate the ability to treat government as a discipline and a science utilizing research and writing methods utilized in government research and reports. Assignments cover public opinion, policy papers, political systems and analysis.


SSCI4: Demonstrate analytical reading skills and engage various primary and secondary source materials.

HIST / SSCI Curriculum: A rating of 0-4 was applied to the total score of the submission.







GOVT Major Curriculum:


- Students who scored 60-73% , received a rating of 2.













HIST Core Curriculum: utilized HIST 112 The average score for all 41 students in the SP term, regardless of class rank, was 2.75. GOVT / HIST Major Curriculum: utilized GOVT / HIST 370 Critical Thinking assignment. Out of a class size of 14, the average score for GOVT students was 3.5 and HIST was 2.90. SSCI Major Curriculum: utilized SSCI 213 research and writing assignment. Out of a class size of 28, the average score for GOVT students was 3.10.


Students did better with the GOVT and SSCI courses with scores between 3.1 and 3.6.


Students performance was weaker with the HIST courses with scores ranging between 2.75 and 2.9.








Academic Program Evaluated: Social Science







R. Bartels







HIST Curriculum: writing assignments


Major Curriculum PLO:


HIST: A rating of 0-4 was applied to the total score of the submission.















HIST Core Curriculum: utilized HIST 112 The average score for all 41 students in the SP term, regardless of class rank, was 2.75.


While the overall score was 2.75; 53 % of the students scored 3 or 4 on the assessment for this course.


Only one course was utilized for this assessment. Identifying courses that are taken by a majority of SSCI students will help the assessment.








Academic Program Evaluated: Social Work







Lacey Nunnally MSW, LCSW Dr. Lisa Street

Lacey Nunnally MSW, LCSW Dr. Lisa Street

Number of students in sample:






Practicum tool – Learning Contract

ACAT Annual SWK Program

evaluation

Practicum tool – Learning Contract

ACAT Annual SWK Program

evaluation


No room to explain

1. Final evaluation of Learning Contract used in practicum. Benchmark: 80% of students required to meet a 5+ (Likert 1-7)

2. ACAT results. Benchmark: 70% of students meet a required score of 500+

1. Final evaluation of Learning Contract used in practicum. Benchmark: 80% of students required to meet a 5+ (Likert 1-7)

2. ACAT results. Benchmark: 70% of students meet a required score of 500+

3. Evaluation of CSWE Competencies 1-10. Benchmark: 80% of students in class will achieve competency assessed at 80%.

3. Evaluation of CSWE Competencies 1-10. Benchmark: 80% of students in class will achieve competency assessed at 80%.


1. Learning Contract - Met benchmark: 87%-100% (80% of students required to meet a 5+)

2. ACAT – Met Benchmark: 100% of students scored a 500+ standard score (535)

3. CSWE Competencies – Met benchmark: 85%-100% of students in class achieved competency of 80%

1. Learning Contract - Met benchmark: 92%-100% (80% of students required to meet a 5+)

2. ACAT – Met Benchmark: 100% of students scored a 500+ standard score

3. CSWE Competencies – Met benchmark: 94%-100% of students in class achieved competency of 80%


All 10 CSWE competencies met benchmark standards using our practicum evaluation tool (Learning Contract) & Annual Program review.

All ACAT scores met benchmark in 7/8 areas.

See end of form for additional strengths.

All 10 CSWE competencies met benchmark standards using our practicum evaluation tool (Learning Contract) & Annual Program review.

All ACAT scores met benchmark in all 8 areas.

See end of form for additional strengths.


One specific area of improvement is required – ACAT subtest PopAtRisk.

No specific area of improvement required. Continue to meet benchmarks.


Provide extra lecture, class exercises, related to Populations-at-Risk, per ACAT results.

Fall 2018 – Spring 2019 Lacey Nunnally Dr. Lisa Street


Improvement Plan Implementation Date Used a different diversity assignment (Integrative Seminar SWK 499) resulting in higher ACAT score in area r/t PAR

Spring 2019

Provided extra lecture, class exercises r/t PAR resulting in higher ACAT score in area r/t PAR

Fall 2018 & Spring 2019

Year 2:

Plan for Improvement Timeline Responsible Person Continue to monitor: Final evaluation of Learning Contract used in practicum. Benchmark: 80% of students required to meet a 5+

Fall 2019 - Spring 2020

Lacey Nunnally Lisa Street

Continue to monitor: ACAT results Benchmark: 70% of students met required score of 500+



Continue to Monitor: Evaluation of CSWE Competencies 1-10 Benchmark: 80% of students in class will achieve competency assessed at 80%.



Year 2: Improvements made during 2017-2018 – Year 1

Improvement Plan for 2017-18 Year 1 Implementation Date Used a different diversity assignment (Integrative Seminar SWK 499 Spring 2018 Emphasize assessment process using class exercises (Practice I – SWK 343) Spring 2018

Further explain the use of research in determining interventions (Practice I – SWK 343)

Spring 2018

Provide extra lecture, class exercises r/t PAR Fall 2017 & Spring 2018

Social Work Data

ACAT Sub-Test areas

2012 (n=10)

2013 (n=9)

2014 (n=8)

2015 (n=12)

2016 (n=15)

2017 (n=10)

2018 (n=9)

2019 (n=8)

Policy 80 70 84 71 66 82 54 77

Practice 71 86 83 78 73 83 66 70

HBSE 83 78 84 74 76 74 64 71

Research 92 75 90 82 81 84 68 74

Social & Economic Justice

61 52 48 47 46 71 60 50

8 areas total 84 77 79 83 64 75

2019 Annual Evaluation 10 CSWE Competencies

1 – Ethical & Professional Practice 100% 6 - Engage with Individuals, families, groups, organ, communities

94%

2 –Engage diversity & difference in practice

100% 7 – Assess Individuals, families, groups, organ, communities

94%

3 – Human Rights & Social and Economic Justice

95% 8 – Intervene with Individuals, families, groups, organ, communities

94%

4 – Research 96% 9 – Evaluate practice Individuals, families, groups, organ, communities

100%

5 – Engage in policy practice 100% 10. Integrate a Judeo-Christian perspective….

100%



Academic Program Evaluated: Master of Science in Counseling Program

(Clinical Mental Health Counseling Specialty Track and School Counseling Specialty Track)

Program Review Year: 2018 - 2019




Arnzen, Christine – Coordinator Jones, Grant Palm, Melody Ray, Huba

Arnzen, Christine – Coordinator Jones, Grant Palm, Melody Ray, Huba


Cohort 2018: 20 Cohort 2017: 22


Summative Case Studies Summative Paper Aggregate Exam Scores Summative Project

Counselor Preparation Comprehensive Exam (standardized assessment examination) Summative Case Studies Summative Paper Aggregate Exam Scores Summative Project


Faculty utilize published rubrics and test keys to grade assignments, projects, papers and exams. Data is evaluated against predetermined benchmarks (80% of students will achieve an 80% or higher).

Students are administered the CPCE exam via the Center for Credentialing Examinations (CCE), a standardized exam in March of each year. Data evaluated against established benchmark (university mean score is within >.5 standard deviation of the national mean).

Faculty utilize published rubrics and test keys to grade assignments, projects, papers and exams. Data is evaluated against predetermined benchmarks (80% of students will achieve an 80% or higher).


Outcome 3, 11, 12 – benchmark met Outcome 2, 4-10 are tied to the CPCE exam. University mean scores exceeded the national mean scores in all outcome categories. Outcome 1, 13, 14, 15 benchmark met.


The data revealed program strengths in the following areas: 2 (Professional Orientation and Ethics), 4 (Helping Relationship), 9 (Assessment), 8 (Research) with no more than 2 students falling below the national mean


Although the university mean met established benchmarks, a closer look at the data revealed a pattern of lower scores within two specific areas: Outcome 5 (Human Growth and Development) and 7 (Career Development) with 4 or more students falling below the national mean. Additionally, those identified as falling below the national mean were mainly those in the school counseling track.


Plan for Improvement Timeline Responsible Person Outcome 5: Review and modify curriculum. Assignments need to early – late adulthood developmental theory to case studies involving school age children.

Review curriculum Sept 2019; Revise assignments April 2020 Implement changes: May/June 2020 Evaluate changes 2021 (next administration of CPCE scores)

Dr. Christine Arnzen Dr. Jean Orr

Outcome 7: Review and modify curriculum and texts. Assignments need to tie in career development in early-late adulthood to case studies involving school age children.

Review curriculum Sept – Dec 2019; Revise assignments June 2020 Implement changes: September 2020 Evaluate changes 2021 (next administration of CPCE scores)

Dr. Christine Arnzen Dr. Brian Upton Neva Atteberry



Date post:	30-Sep-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	2 times
Download:	0 times

Student Learning Assessment Report (SLAR)€¦ · scene diagraming, etc. are things that would make...

Documents