NOTES for the Peer Review of the Program Assessment Summary for Nursing

03/22/14

Elements of the report:

  1. Summary
  • Overall, the Program Assessment Summary for Nursing (v. 2010/2011) describes derivation and alignment of programmatic goals and objectives from Trinity Washington’s mission, goals, and objectives; Nursing objectives as described in the AACN Essentials of Baccalaureate Education (2008), American Nurses Association Code of Ethics for Nurses, and District of Columbia Municipal Regulations for Nursing
  • The goals identified as central do not appear to be fully defined within the program. Courses in the Literature and Poetry of Nursing, Contemporary Art and Bioethics might provide insight into a possible correlation between a foundation in the liberal arts and a strong performance in the nursing program. The foundational Liberal Arts integration should not focus solely on the math deficits that are still found within the program. Data from the MATH 108 course could be added to the analysis.
  1. Appendix A: University Mission and Goals and The Nursing Program
  • The Appendix appears to be misnamed as there is no student outcomes data cited.
  • In the Goals section of the table, the report identifies 4 University Goals and 7 Nursing Program Goals. It would be useful to explicitly connect each of the program goals to one or more of the University goals.
  • In the Philosophy section of the table, the program uses language that appears to come from external sources? If so, should the language include citation or documentation? Can or should this section be paraphrased in original language? Some of the language (e.g., the definition of person) is contested language. It may be useful to italicize terms of art to indicate the use of the terms within the program.
  • In the Curricular Threads section of the table, the definition or usage of ‘curricular threads’ should appear under the heading, since it seems to be a category particular to the program. Are the emphasized threads numbered in order of importance? Are they all of equal importance?
  1. Appendix B: Expected Learning Outcomes of Nursing Students
  • The table identifies the University’s expectations and the Hallmark of a Trinity Washington University Education but does not align these with the program objectives
  • The column titled “Expected Student Outcomes” identifies the 15 program objectives for its students rather than specific outcomes. Perhaps it should be re-named.
  1. Appendix C: Exemplars of Congruence between Baccalaureate Expected Learning Outcomes, Pre-Licensure BSN courses, Course Objectives, Performance Indicators, Assessment Results, and Use of Assessment Data
  2. The title complicates the reading of the data. An exemplar is something or someone that is worth copying or imitating; an archetype or ideal model. Do you mean to use the word “example” here? The use that the document is making of the term is unclear.
  3. The first column [Expected Learning Outcomes] repeats the Learning Objectives of the previous appendix.
  4. The second column [Exemplars of Pre-Licensure BSN courses] indicates the courses that address the Program Objectives; are these courses identical with those courses in the Baccalaureate program [is this the RN to BSN program]?
  5. The third column [Exemplars of Course Objectives] appears to identify actual student learning outcomes [the student will be able to discuss pathophysiological changes in body systems and connect these changes to the symptoms developed by the patient].
  6. The fourth column [Performance Indicators (Measure/ criterion)] appears to identify the Assessment Instruments used by the program
  7. The fifth column [Assessment Results and Findings] identifies the testing resultsand the sixth column [Use of Assessment Data to Improve Student Learning] indicates the responsive steps taken as a result of the analysis of the data in column five (please proofread this column). This column might be presented separately; it represents both the flexibility and responsiveness of the program. It also impressively demonstrates the insights that the faculty have drawn from the data.
  8. Appendix D: Exemplars of Congruence Between Selected Baccalaureate Expected Learning Outcomes, RN →BSN courses, Course Objectives, Performance Indicators, Assessment Results, and Use of Assessment Data
  9. The same observations that apply to Appendix C also apply to Appendix D.
  10. It is interesting to note that the Benchmarks were often met by those students already certified as RNs
  11. The areas in which these students did not quite meet the Benchmark may indicate the possibility of having these students take courses in the Liberal Arts that might improve their performance and entice them to become lifelong learners.

Other Observations and suggestions

  • There is clear anticipation of ongoing modifications to the program. Data reflects a limited number of participants. In preparing the next report, it would be useful to address:
  • What subsequent program modifications have taken place?
  • What are the updated data collected on all candidates?
  • What are the resulting historical analysis, trends, projected changes, etc.?
  • There appear to be multiple measures of student achievement, both internal and nationally derived/normed.
  • The demographic is described as high in English Language Learners.

Is this still an accurate description?

  • Could the School of Nursing look at the validity of using each assessment instrument and what program objective or SLO the instrument may be used to assess? (There appear to be some mismatches.)
  • Could the School of Nursing look at all rubrics to ensure that there are actual rubrics for all major assessments, based on criteria aligned with SLOs?
  • The demographic is described as high in English Language Learners.

Is this still an accurate description?

  • In the existing rubrics, there appears to be an emphasis on format and writing. This emphasis is extremely appropriate, for both ELL and all professionals. Could the required nursing content also be specified and detailed? (This comment also links with the recommendation for increased alignment of SLOs, assessment instruments, and rubrics.)
  • There is a detailed emphasis on using student data (including student input) to make continuous improvement: in program, courses, pedagogy.
  • How has this continued over subsequent years (2011-2014)?

With what results?

  • Would it help the document presentation to follow the line of each continuous improvement theme, ex. Mathematics, writing, group skills, etc.?
  • There appears an underlying distinction between “professional practice grounded in caring” and (“autonomous professional practice”?)
  • Could this professional distinction be identified (perhaps using italics, quotation marks, etc. to note that these are phrases carrying specific professional meaning? (This recommendation also links with the recommendation to cite and/or use original language.)
  • Is this still an accurate description? How is “caring” taught? Assessed? What are the relationships between caring and achieving the other SLOs? How are they complementary (vs. subordinated to one another)?
  • Professional practice and several assignments require successful team (vs. just “group”) work.
  • Where and how is “team building” taught?
  • How is it assessed in ways that distinguish individual effort and achievement from team effort and achievement?