Academic Affairs:AssessmentJuly 2010
CENTRAL WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY
2008-2009 Assessment of Student Learning Report
Feedback for the Department of Psychology
Degree Award: M.S. Mental Health Counseling Program: Mental Health Counseling
- What student learning outcomes were assessed this year, and why?
Guidelines for Assessing a Program’s Reporting of Student Learning Outcomes (Target = 2)
Program
Score / Value / Demonstrated Characteristics
4 / 4 / Outcomes are written in clear, measurable terms and include knowledge, skills, and attitudes. All outcomes are linked to department, college and university mission and goals.
3 / Outcomes are written in clear, measurable terms and include knowledge, skills, and attitudes. Some outcomes are linked to department, college and university mission and goals.
2 / Outcomes are written in clear, measurable terms and include knowledge, skills, or attitudes. Outcomes may be linked to department, college and university mission and goals.
1 / Some outcomes may be written as general, broad, or abstract statements. Outcomes include knowledge, skills, orattitudes. Outcomes may be linked to department, college and university mission and goals.
0 / Outcomes are not identified.
Comments:
The department evaluated three student learning outcomes at the graduate level for the MS Mental Health Counseling program. The outcomes are clearly written with measureable standards. The outcomes address the areas of knowledge, skills, and attitudes. These learning outcomes are all linked to specific department, college and university goals. Previous reviews have indicated that the program has made great strides in this area and should be encouraged to continue in future reviews.
- How were they assessed?
- What methods were used?
- Who was assessed?
- When was it assessed?
Guidelines for Assessing a Program's Reporting of Assessment Methods (Target = 2)
Program Score / Value / Demonstrated Characteristics
4 / 4 / A variety of methods, both direct and indirect are used for assessing each outcome. Reporting of assessment method includes population assessed, number assessed, and when applicable, survey response rate. Each method has a clear standard of mastery (criterion) against which results will be assessed
3 / Some outcomes may be assessed using a single method, which may be either direct or indirect. All assessment methods are described in terms of population assessed, number assessed, and when applicable, survey response rate. Each method has a clear standard of mastery (criterion) against which results will be assessed.
2 / Some outcomes may be assessed using a single method, which may be either direct or indirect. All assessment methods are described in terms of population assessed, number assessed, and when applicable, survey response rate. Some methods mayhave a clear standard of mastery (criterion) against which results will be assessed.
1 / Each outcome is assessed using a single method, which may be either direct or indirect. Some assessment methods may be described in terms of population assessed, number assessed, and when applicable, survey response rate. Some methodsmayhave a clear standard of mastery (criterion) against which results will be assessed.
0 / Assessment methods are nonexistent, not reported, or include grades, student/faculty ratios, program evaluations, or other “non-measures” of actual student performance or satisfaction.
Comments:
The review notes a number of direct measures (e.g., Candidate Progress Forms, Faculty/Onsite practicum supervisor observations, the national CACREP standards with 118 measures) are used. While the program uses course grades as a mastery of Criterion, there is some discussion of indirect measures such as overall standardized test achievement.
The review notes detailed discussion regarding the numbers and populations measured along with the time frame of their evaluation as well as the expected standards of mastery.
The framework used to assess program effectiveness is becoming more fully developed.
The discussion of employer and alumni surveys are very positive steps and will be helpful in subsequent reviews.
The program should be recognized for its creation and continued use of a local comprehensive exam.
- What was learned (assessment results)?
Guidelines for Assessing a Program’s Reporting of Assessment Results (Target = 2)
Program Score / Value / Demonstrated Characteristics
4 / 4 / Results are presented in specific quantitative and/or qualitative terms. Results are explicitly linked to outcomes and compared to the established standard of mastery. Reporting of results includes interpretation and conclusions about the results.
3 / Results are presented in specific quantitative and/or qualitative terms and are explicitly linked to outcomes and compared to the established standard of mastery.
2 / Results are presented in specific quantitative and/or qualitative terms, although they may not all be explicitly linked to outcomes and compared to the established standard of mastery.
1 / Results are presented in general statements.
0 / Results are not reported.
Comments:
The program reports results in specific quantitative and qualitative terms. The results are discussed in a variety of areas in the report. Overall, they provide a satisfactory interpretation and conclusion regarding the attainment of established levels of mastery.
The report also includes graphs on key benchmarks and performance relative to criteria of mastery.
The results were linked to program outcomes.
The program is encouraged to broaden the discussion regarding the interpretation the results.
- What will the department or program do as a result of that information (feedback/program improvement)?
Guidelines for Assessing a Program’s Reporting of Planned Program Improvements (Target = 2)
Program Score / Value / Demonstrated Characteristics
2 / 2 / Program improvement is related to pedagogical or curricular decisions described in specific terms congruent with assessment results. The department reports the results and changes to internal and/or external constituents.
1 / Program improvement is related to pedagogical or curricular decisions described only in global or ambiguous terms, or plans for improvement do not match assessment results.The department may report the results and changes to internal or external constituents.
NA / Program improvement is not indicated by assessment results.
0 / Program improvement is not addressed.
Comments:
The review notes new steps in the assessment process as in the case of the CACREP standards which are designed to measure students in each course. The new surveys (employer and alumni) are very interesting and should lead to further discussion and interpretation. Overall, these are positive and innovative steps for implementing data in curricular decisions.
Discussion and data are scheduled to be posted on the department website.
- How did the department or program make use of the feedback from last year’s assessment?
Guidelines for Assessing a Program’s Reporting of Previous Feedback (Target = 2)
Program
Score / Value / Demonstrated Characteristics
2 / 2 / Discussion of feedback indicates that assessment results and feedback from previous assessment reports are being used for long-term curricular and pedagogical decisions.
1 / Discussion of feedback indicates that assessment results and feedback from previous assessment reports are acknowledged.
NA / This is a first year report.
0 / There is no discussion of assessment results or feedback from previous assessment reports.
Comments:
The review notes steps taken to incorporate feedback from previous reports. This includes reducing and highlighting the number of areas assessed, formalizing the reviewing candidates’ pratica, thereby reducing perceived subjectivity and placing these practica and assessments online.
The program should be commended for the improvements made to its program and commitment by faculty toward incorporating new measures and standards in the drive to more effective program development.
Overall, the program has demonstrated its commitment to closing the assessment loop and creating an atmosphere of continuous improvement. The foundation laid in the previous year is being built upon, and that is positive.
Please feel free to contact either of us if you have any questions about your score or comments supplied in this feedback report, or ifany additional assistance is needed with to support your ongoing assessment efforts.
Dr. TracyPellett and Dr. Ian Quitadamo, Academic Assessment Committee Co-chairs
1