1 Department of Communicative Disorders and Sciences
Connie L. Lurie College of Education
(Self-Study – 1/21/15, External Visit 12/3-12/4/15, External Report 12/24/15) Program Planning Committee Letter to the Provost
May 23, 2016
As one of the first Communicative Disorders and Sciences programs in California, the department has prepared students for careers as speech-language pathologists and
audiologists for more than 40 years. Speech-language pathologists identify, evaluate and treat children and adults with speech-language, cognitive-communicative, and/or swallowing
disorders. Audiologists diagnose and treat individuals with hearing or balance disorders. Their academic and clinical undergraduate curriculum leading to a BA in Communicative Disorders and Sciences provides the basis for further graduate study, required for a career in either field. Their MA Education with a concentration in Speech Pathology is accredited by the American Speech-Language and Hearing Association, and therefore is not reviewed in this letter.
Members of both the SJSU community and the larger community receive speech-language and hearing services at the Kay Armstead Center for Communication Disorders (Sweeney Hall 115).
Strengths
● The Kay Armstead Center for Communicative Disorders.
● Federally funded Personnel Preparation Grants from the Office of Special Education Programs.
● Donors for named scholarships.
● Very active student groups and service learning opportunities.
● Students provide hearing screenings at pre-schools, schools and senior facilities. ● Linguistic diversity assists in the effectiveness of community programs.
Challenges
● All of the faculty are either tenured or temporary. The lack of probationary faculty may create continuity problems as tenured professors approach retirement eligibility. ● As a discovery major, the standard data elements provided by IEA do not accurately
represent graduation rates.
● There appears to be a challenge in finding stable departmental leadership.
● Ideally the program would be well served with one additional T/TT faculty to provide doctoral level support for the core courses in the department.
● The department feels that they would benefit from additional project-based requirements in their foundational courses instead of relying primarily on objective tests to evaluate learning. This might require reduction in class size to ensure individualized attention. ● The faculty believes the program would be better served if the position of clinic director
were restored to a 1.0 appointment; currently it is at 0.6 appointment level.
Next Steps
The final step in the program planning process is a meeting with Provost Feinstein (or his designee), AVP of Graduate and Undergraduate Programs Anagnos, Associate Dean of Graduate Studies Bruck, Deputy Provost Kemnitz, AVP Academic Budgets & Planning Genes, Dean Chin, and Department Chair Hughes. The faculty members of the department are also invited to attend. The department should contact Nicole Loeser in the Office of Graduate and Undergraduate Programs to schedule the final meeting. An Action Plan for the department will
2 be developed and agreed upon during the final meeting. The following topics of discussion are recommended by the Program Planning Committee:
● Recruit an additional tenure track faculty member for program continuity.
● In order to increase community partnerships and create more student-led treatment and assessment opportunities, increase the appointment level of the clinic director to 1.0. ● Develop a plan for lower division courses to address:
o Project-based learning expansion.
o Increasing the number of teaching assistants to support faculty in large lecture classes.
o Exploring opportunities to reduce class size in core courses. ● Develop a clear plan to address the following assessment challenges
o Revise PLOs to reflect more specific undergraduate learning outcomes, and consider consolidating to reduce the total number of PLOs, if appropriate.
o Create clear plans for assessing each of the PLOs and defining criteria for levels of student achievement.
o Submit updated assessment schedule for 5-year period from Fall 2014-Spring 2019. o Implement a student exit survey to track student dispositions post-graduation. ● The department must create a 4-year roadmap to include GEs and the four ASHA
requirements for lower division students. The current roadmap only includes upper division.
● Work with IEA to implement a tracking system to accurately assess graduation rates. ● Identify high impact practices to support part-time and URM students to improve student
success.
Recommendation from the Program Planning Committee
The Program Planning Committee recommends acceptance of the Program Plan. The Program Plan provided a good examination of current and ongoing issues and an explanation of plans for subsequent reviewers.
SP16 PPC Members:
Brandon White (Chair), Associate Professor, Biology Carl Kemnitz, Deputy Provost
Thalia Anagnos, AVP of Graduate and Undergraduate Programs David Bruck, Associate Dean of Graduate Studies
Gilles Muller, Associate Dean, Office of Research
Melinda Jackson, Director of Assessment, Associate Professor Political Science Scott Heil, Director of Institutional Effectiveness and Analytics
Peter Chua, Associate Professor, Sociology and Interdisciplinary Social Sciences Adrienne Eastwood, Associate Professor, English
Colleen Haight, Associate Professor, Economics
Stoyu Ivanov, Assistant Professor, Accounting and Finance Kathy Lemon, Associate Professor, Social Work
Lili Luo, Associate Professor, School of Information Clifton Oyamot, Associate Professor, Psychology
Anthony Raynsford, Associate Professor, Art and Art History Sabine Rech, Professor, Biology
Wenbin Wei, Professor, Aviation Mary Wilson, Lecturer, History
3 CC:
Peg Hughes, Interim Chair, Department of Communicative Disorders and Sciences Elaine Chin, Dean, Connie L. Lurie College of Education
Paul W Cascella, Associate Dean, Connie L. Lurie College of Education Ravisha Mathur, Chair, Curriculum and Research
Thalia Anagnos, AVP of Graduate and Undergraduate Programs Marna Genes, AVP Academic Budgets and Planning
Pam Stacks, AVP of Research
David Bruck, Associate Dean Graduate Studies Carl Kemnitz, Deputy Provost
A-1 Appendix: Summary of Program Plan and Recommendations for the BA Communicative Disorders and Sciences
Self-Study Summary: Program Description
The mission of the Department of Communicative Disorders and Sciences (CD&S) is to provide high quality academic and clinical preparation to students seeking careers working with
individuals (and their families) who have speech, language, hearing, and swallowing disorders. Guided by the principles of evidence-based practice and working in collaboration with other professionals, their graduates adhere to the highest ethical standards in serving the needs of diverse communities.
The CD&S Department offers two degrees, the Bachelor of Arts and the Master of Arts. The Bachelor of Arts degree is a pre-professional program intending to prepare students for graduate study in Audiology or Speech-Language Pathology. The Masters of Arts Degree enables graduates to work as speech-language-pathologists and the program is accredited by the Council on Academic Accreditation in Audiology and Speech-Language Pathology via the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (800 Research Blvd., Rockville, MD, 20850; www.asha.org/academic/accreditation). The Masters of Arts degree is also an approved program of the California Licensing Board in Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology and Hearing Aid Dispensers Board (www.speechandhearing.ca.gov) and the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing (www.ctc.ca.gov).
This review will only focus on the BA degree only. The department does not offer any GE courses.
Self-Study Summary: Summary of Changes and Actions
The department reviewed feedback from supervisors and students regarding their overall preparation to conduct assessments of individuals with communication disorders. Supervisors indicated that their students were underprepared in interpreting test data and in their familiarity with some of the core diagnostic instruments for evaluating speech and language abilities in children. They evaluated their curriculum and traced the concern to their undergraduate course EDSP 124, Assessment in Speech Pathology.
Upon careful review of the course structure they determined that students did not obtain enough "practice" administering three standardized tests that are widely used in the profession. This was partly the result of the limited availability of the tests for students to check-out of their clinic diagnostic center inventory. The department applied for and was awarded a one-time SSETF allocation to increase their test inventory to support this activity, and they now have an adequate supply to support this important student activity.
The second solution the department identified was to restructure course requirements of EDSP 124. Starting in Spring 14 they have increased the required number of tests administered by each student from 2 to 6 for each of three standardized tests. They indicated that they will review the outcomes of these changes following the Spring 2015 semester.
A-2 Proposed Actions: As noted above, the program offers a Minor in Speech Pathology. The
program has not received any requests from students to minor in the department for more than five years. The faculty agreed to terminate the Minor option effective Fall 2015.
Assessment of Student Learning
The CDS BA program has made progress in developing assessment practices over the last few years, demonstrating a commitment to this important aspect of our academic mission. Additional efforts are needed to create clear plans for assessing each of the Program Learning Outcomes (PLOs) and defining criteria for levels of student achievement. Specific feedback and
suggestions for different aspects of the assessment process are listed below, based on the WASC rubric for evaluating the quality of PLOs.
Comprehensive List –Developed
The BA program lists ten PLOs which appear to be reasonable and to reflect national disciplinary standards. However, many of the PLOs are vaguely defined and do not include explicit methods and criteria for evaluating students’ mastery of each outcome. To move toward the Highly Developed category, the specific ways in which students will demonstrate mastery of specific skills and knowledge should be defined. In addition, the program may wish to consider reducing the overall number of PLOs, perhaps through consolidation. This may also help to create more efficient and sustainable assessment processes for PLOs.
Assessable Outcomes – Emerging
Many of the current PLOs are vaguely worded. For example, PLO 1 states that students completing the BA in CDS should demonstrate “oral and written communication skills”. The ways in which students will demonstrate these skills, and the specific nature of these skills as relevant to this discipline, are not defined. Other PLOs refer to a “beginning level” of skills in assessment of communication disorders, or research skills, but the specific criteria for beginning, intermediate, or advanced skills are not defined.
Furthermore, it is not clear that the program has developed concrete plans for assessing each of the PLOs. More specific assessment plans should be defined for all PLOs, including specific examples of assignments, exams, rubrics, and surveys used to evaluate student performance at varying levels for each outcome.
Finally, the committee notes that recent assessment reports indicate that 100% of students have “mastered” the PLOs evaluated, based on cumulative assignments in specific courses. Without more specific information about how specific skills and knowledge were evaluated, this data is not particularly useful. As the program focuses on developing more detailed assessment processes, the benefit of creating authentic and meaningful evaluation standards should be considered as a primary motivation.
Alignment –Developed
A-3 the changing models of service delivery and their effect on speech language/audiology therapy management) is not mapped to any courses in the curriculum. To move toward the Highly Developed category, the program should indicate how increasing levels of proficiency are developed as students’ progress through the CDS BA program. The program plan does indicate that the department has used evidence from their assessment of one PLO to adjust their
curriculum and advising practices, to improve student success. This is an excellent example of the department’s commitment to using assessment data to “close the loop” and contribute to continuing improvement, and might serve as a model for further development.
Assessment Planning – Developed
The 2014 Annual Assessment Report includes a multi-year assessment schedule. However, an updated schedule covering the 5-year period from Fall 2014-Spring 2019 should be provided. Given the large number of PLOs, we also encourage the department to develop more specific plans for implementing changes based on assessment results (closing the loop), and ensuring that assessment procedures are sustainable over the long term.
Student Experience – Developed
The department has identified this as an area of focus for improvement over the next planning cycle. PLOs are readily accessible on the department website, and included in course syllabi. To move fully into the Highly Developed category over the next few years, the programs may wish to consider asking students to participate in more self-assessment in relation to the outcomes, perhaps through reflective essays at the capstone level, or surveys of student and alumni.
Required Data Elements
Enrollments in Communicative Disorders and Science have been holding relatively constant between 2011-4, varying between 92-96 students. Fall 2015 saw a 17% increase above
average enrollment, to 111 students. In FA15, the department offered 3 undergraduate courses/ 6 sections. The average headcount per section for all courses was 17.7 which was well below the average for the college (20.6) and university (28.0). The SFR in fall 2015 (20.9) was
somewhat lower that for the college (21.9) and university (26.4). The department’s FA15 FTES was 101.13 (up from an average of 85.5 over the prior four years) and its FTEF was 11.7 for all courses. The induced load matrix shows most CDS classes are taken by their majors; however, there are a few students majoring in Kinesiology, Communications Studies, Special Education, Linguistics, Biology, in descending order, as well as dozens of other majors.
The number of applicants to the CDS program has fluctuated from a low of 37 in FA12 to a high of 101 in F14. With an admission rate fluctuating around 68%, the enrollment rates for first-time freshmen has averaged 16% over the past 5 years. The number of first-year entering freshmen effectively doubled in 2015 from the average of the preceding 4 years. In FA15, there were 111 majors in the program. In the 2014/2015 AY, there were 32 bachelor degrees awarded (roughly similar to those awarded in the past five years.
A-4 stable over time. It should be recognized that the number of students entering in each cohort tends to be small, averaging 4 students over the past ten years. The first-year retention rate for new undergraduate transfer students was 93.1% for the FA14 cohort, which has remained very stable over the past five years; well above the rates for the college (84.3%) and university (86.1%). The 6th year retention analysis for first-time freshmen in 2009 revealed a 100%
retention rate for first-time freshmen (3 students), however was at 0% for the preceding 4 years; the college rate was 79.3% and university rate was 66.1%. The third-year retention analysis for new undergraduate transfer students in 2012 revealed a 90.9% retention rate, and shows a fairly stable increase over the past four years. Prior to that, small numbers increase variability. The rates for the college and the university during this same period were 81.6% and 78.9% respectively. The 6-year graduation rate for first-time freshman was 66.7% for the FA09 cohort, which is above the college (65.5%) and university (56.1%) norms. The 3-year graduation rates for new undergraduate transfer students for the FA12 cohort was 90.9%; again above the rates for the college (72%) and for the university (58.0%).
Generally, the program appears strong. The only area of possible concern is the low number of students in previous years.
Program Resources
In AY 2015/2016 the department had five tenured and eleven temporary faculty. The
percentage of tenured/tenure-track instructional faculty is 31.25%. For comparison the College and University ratios are 30% and 34.9%, respectively.
The Department has three member support staff. However, it is becoming increasingly apparent that a 0.6 level clinic director, who is part of the support staff, is not adequate to meet the needs of the program. There has been virtually no development of new clinical referral sources and they have not developed new clinical placements to sustain the program in the long run. The difficulty in developing new sources of clients to support clinical instruction is compromising their ability to offer their students appropriate treatment and assessment experiences. In addition, because the clinic director's reduced presence on campus, accessibility to student and faculty and responsiveness to students and faculty has suffered. They believe the program would be better served if the position were restored to a 1.0 appointment level.
The B.A. in Communicative Disorders and Sciences offered by the Department of
Communicative Disorders and Sciences (CDS) is the oldest UG program in the discipline of communicative disorders and sciences within the CSU. Although they do not have a readily available written history for the program they believe the program began sometime in the 1940s. The department is administratively located in the Connie L. Lurie College of Education. The department office is located in Sweeney Hall 115. In addition to the B.A. degree they also offer a Minor in Speech Pathology. However, due to program impaction they have not accepted
A-5 Other Strengths and Weaknesses
● The Department is fortunate to have a student study room immediately across from the department office.
● They have a clinic observation suite that houses a local server that supports their video observation systems. All clinic rooms feed into the server, so supervisors can observe up to four sessions simultaneously. The observation system is in disrepair and puts the program out of accreditation compliance. They had applied for and were successful in obtaining SSETF funding to install a new observation system that they hope to have installed in Spring 2015.
Recommendations from the Department from Self Study 1. Recruit an additional tenure track faculty member.
2. Increase the appointment level of the clinic director to 1.0.
3. Implement a student exit survey to track student dispositions post-graduation.
4. Implement an internal tracking system to accurately assess 3 year and 6 year graduation rates.
5. Refresh the clinic environment.
6. Develop a pool of qualified temporary faculty to support the program.
7. Increase the number of teaching assistants to support faculty in large lecture classes. 8. Explore opportunities to reduce class size in core courses.
9. Identify high impact practices to support P/T and URM students.
Recommendations from External Evaluator
1) Carefully consider the vision of the undergraduate program. Align that vision to the values of the department and the students whom you wish to serve. Engage all faculty in this process.
2) Develop PSLOs that align with the vision and values that are set forth. It is further recommended that the PSLOs be carefully aligned and mapped to the ULOs and the CLOs (course learning outcomes). The program may want to center their PSLOs on the repeated themes of preparing students for graduate school, developing critical thinkers, providing sound scientific training, and fostering the development of a community-engaged citizen. The program may also want to consider streamlining their PSLOs.
3) Consider the curriculum as a whole and each course individually to determine how the program will meet the SLOs. As well, if curriculum is to be modified, the program may want to consider the transparency of course titles and descriptions within the discipline. For example, one of the stated aims of the program is to develop knowledge of anatomy & physiology; however the course title for that content is not readily discernible.
4) Develop an assessment plan that includes procedures and timelines for assessing the summative knowledge and skills acquired in meeting the PSLOs. The program may want to
A-6 include survey data as well to capture student perspectives on end-of-program acquisition of PSLOs. If one of the goals is to ensure success towards entry in graduate school, the program will want to effectively track this data point.
5) The program would benefit from the development of rubrics/metrics to assess outcomes, a system to track the data, time to analyze the data, and development of a process to implement changes. It is recommended that the university provide support for the program in carrying out this work.
6) Consider collaboration with other departments/disciplines within the college and across the university. Can the program build greater interdisciplinary training opportunities that may open additional career paths for the students?
7) Consider outreach that would more effectively engage freshman and sophomores in the program, especially those that come in as declared majors. Can the program consider the development of lower division coursework to engage the students earlier on in their student life cycle.
8) Consider developing LDGE and UDGE courses that would expose the campus at large to the discipline of communicative sciences and disorders, and generate FTEs for the department.
9) Consider creation of road maps to GE’s and the ASHA four for lower division students coming in as freshman.
10) Consider reformatting the coursework to provide more major courses in the final semester. Students commented that they would have preferred to continue with greater ‘major’ coursework in their final semester. If one of the primary aims of the program remains to prepare the students for graduate work, this recommendation would be in line with generating momentum for their advancement towards graduate school.
11) Consider maintaining a space for students so that they may build rapport, develop a sense of community, and have space to work collaboratively.
Recommendations from Dean
The previous Associate Dean, Mary McVey, has reviewed the Program Planning Report for the Department of Communicative Disorders & Sciences and finds it to be well thought out and in keeping with the overall goals of the Lurie College. It was unclear if the Dean had reviewed the self-study from the department.
