Speech Pathology: Speech and Language Pathology and Special Day Class College of Health and Human Services California State University, Sacramento 159
Commission on Teacher Credentialing Biennial Report Academic Years 2008-10 Name of Program: Speech Pathology and Audiology Credential awarded: Speech Language Pathology Services Credential and Special Day Class Authorization Is this program offered at more than one site? No Program Contact: Kathy Norman, Associate Dean Phone #: 916-278-4187 E-Mail: knorman@csus.edu If the preparer of this report is different than the Program Contact, please note contact information for that person below: Name: Laureen O Hanlon Phone #: (916) 278-6695 E-mail: ohanlon@csus.edu 160
SECTION A PROGRAM-SPECIFIC INFORMATION I. Context Table 63: Total Number of Candidates Enrolled and Completers Number of candidates enrolled** Number of completers Cohort completing in semester specified Fall 2008 Spring 2009 Fall 2009 Spring 2010 14 13 15 15 14 12 15 14 The CSU Sacramento Speech Pathology graduate program is 4-5 semesters long depending upon internship choices. Candidates begin the program as a cohort group and usually complete the program together. Clinical practicum experiences begin on campus in the Maryjane Rees Speech and Hearing Clinic for the first three semesters. In the fourth and/or fifth semester candidates complete a 10-week itinerant internship in the schools and/or a 10week internship in the Special Day classroom in order to qualify for the credential(s) being sought. The cohort groups who completed in Fall 2008 and Fall 2009 were 100% successful and on track. The cohort groups completing in Spring 2009 and Spring 2010 included one candidate each who did not pass 2 of his/her clinical experiences and did not complete the program. The most significant change that has occurred since our 2007-2008 biennial report to CTC is our adoption of the new standards for the Speech Language Pathology Services Credential. Because our program has a strong focus on training students to work in the schools, with a graduate curriculum course and a graduate methods course in school internships, we did not make significant changes in our graduate curriculum to accommodate the new standards. We did add an Autism Spectrum Disorders course to our undergraduate prerequisite courses to better prepare our students to meet the continuously growing demand for services for this population. II. Candidate Assessment/Performance and Program Effectiveness Information d. Primary Candidate Assessments This report will focus on 5 key assessments that are used to make critical decisions about candidate competence prior to being recommended for a credential, including: 4. Clinical Practicum Assessment, Articulation, and Accent Clinic 5. Clinical Practicum, Assessment, Language, Speech, and Voice Clinic 6. Clinical Practicum, Assessment, Advanced Language, and Complex Speech Disorders Clinic 7. Clinical Internship, Assessment, Special Day Class 8. Praxis Exam 161
The table below provides additional details about the nature of each key assessment. Table 64: Overview of Key Assessments Assessment Tool Assessment #1. Clinical Practicum Assessment Articulation and Accent Clinic Assessment #2. Clinical Practicum Assessment Language, Speech and Voice Clinic Assessment #3. Clinical Practicum Assessment Advance Language and Complex Speech Disorders Clinic Assessment #4 Clinical Internship Assessment Itinerant Internship Assessment #5. Praxis Exam Type of Assessment (Formative/ Summative) Formative Formative Formative Formative When Administered End of clinical practicum Required during first semester End of clinical practicum Required during second semester End of clinical practicum Required during second semester End of Internship Required during 4 th semester for students completing Itinerant SLP Internship Details about Administration Individual faculty assess candidate work based on a standard rubric designed by faculty group Individual faculty assess candidate work based on a standard rubric designed by faculty group Individual faculty assess candidate work based on a standard rubric designed by faculty group Individual faculty assess candidate work based on a standard rubric designed by faculty group CCTC Standards, Performance Outcomes, etc. Addressed CCTC SLPSC Standard 8 CCTC SLPSC Standard 8 CCTC SLPSC Standard 8 CCTC SLPSC Standard 8 Summative End of Program National Exam CCTC SLPSC Standard 8 As summarized in Table 63, our program had 15 Program Completers in Fall 2007 and 10 Program Completers in Spring 2008. In Table 64, we summarize the data related to completer performance as measured by the 5 key assessments detailed in Table 64. 162
Table 64: Aggregate Data on Completer Performance Assessment Tools Fall 2008 N=14 #1. Clinical Practicum, Assessment Articulation, and Accent Clinic (Reported as % passed) #2. Clinical Practicum, Assessment, Language, Speech, and Voice Clinic (Reported as % passed) #3. Clinical Practicum, Assessment, Advanced Language, and Complex Speech Disorders Clinic (Reported as % passed) #4. Clinical Internship, Assessment, Itinerant Internship Spring 2009 N=12 Fall 2009 N=15 Spring 2010 N=14 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% #5. Praxis Exam 100% 100% 100% 100% b. Additional information about candidate and program completer performance In addition to the 4 key assessments used to evaluate completer performance already reported above, we have used the following 4 assessments to help inform decisions made about the effectiveness our curriculum and our program. These additional assessments include: (1) An employer survey; (2) An alumni survey: (3) A student survey; and (4) A student learning assessment. The type of data collected, the data collection process and key findings are presented below. 163
Alumni survey: In 2009-2010, we distributed an online alumni survey to 1221 alumni and employers. Eighty-five alumni responded to the alumni directed questions. There were three sets of evaluative questions on the survey. The first set asked respondents to answer questions on a 5-point Likert scale from Very Dissatisfied (1) to Very Satisfied (5). The second set asked respondents to answer questions on a 5-point Likert scale regarding quality of preparation from Very Poorly Prepared (1) to Adequately Prepared (3) to Exceptionally Well-prepared (5). Finally, the third set asked respondents to answer questions on a 5-point Likert scale from Strongly Disagree (1) to Strongly Agree (5). All of the questions targeted evaluation of the quality of our program. Average responses across all items and indexes ranged between 3 (Neutral) and 5 (Strongly Agree/Satisfied/Exceptional). Short-answer questions were analyzed for themes; they too reveal that program completers were very satisfied with their experience in our program and recommended more focus in curriculum on assessment, autism, AAC and medical speech pathology. Table 65 provides means for the responses to this survey. Table 65: Average Responses from Alumni Survey Alumni Survey Questions Average Set 1: How satisfied were you with The level of preparation provided by coursework in various graduate therapy clinics 4.61 The responsiveness of major professors to student questions and concerns 4.53 Supportiveness of graduate clinic supervisors 4.33 Preparation for report writing and therapy applications provided by the undergraduate Introduction to Clinic course Advising Peer or faculty mentors 4.16 4.24 4.31 Laboratory facilities 4.12 Fieldwork or internships 4.39 Set 2: How well did the curriculum in your program provide you with A broad knowledge of theories and principles in the discipline? 4.23 The needed technical skills? 4.08 The communication skills required in the discipline? 4.33 The research skills required by the discipline? 3.91 164
The problem solving skills in a broad range of situations? 4.24 An understanding of the methods and practices of the profession? 4.31 Set 3: Agreement If I were starting school again, I would apply for admission to Sacramento State s program. 4.16 Considering all aspects, I was completely satisfied with the program. 4.33 I had sufficient opportunity to present problems, complaints, or suggestions to the instructional staff. I believe that my clinical practicum supervisors spent sufficient time observing and guiding my clinical practicum. I believe that my clinical practicum supervisors spent sufficient time observing and guiding my clinical practicum. 3.90 4.14 4.29 I believe the advising/counseling that the program provided was adequate. 3.98 Generally, I believe that most of what I learned was relevant to clinical work. 4.37 165
Employer survey: In 2009-2010, we distributed an electronic survey to 1221 employers and alumni. Only 15 employers responded to the employer-focused questions and only 6 of those completed most of the survey. Evaluative questions on the survey asked respondents to answer questions on a 5-point Likert scale from Strongly Disagree (1) to Strongly Agree (5). Responses are difficult to evaluate given the limited number of responses to date. As it stands the data indicate that employers believe our candidate s strengths include writing, establishing goals, responding to supervision and maintaining positive relationships with clients and staff. Questions also included ranking how well-prepared students were in specific curricular areas. Curricular strengths included articulation and phonology assessment and treatment, child language assessment and treatment and ethical practice. Curricular weaknesses included cognitive assessment and therapy. Table 66: Results from Employer Survey Survey Question A graduate of the Sacramento State program can complete speech, language, or hearing screening procedures appropriately. The program graduate is able to establish an appropriate caseload. The program graduate demonstrates adequate knowledge of diagnostic techniques and instrumentation. The program graduate applies current research findings to therapy regimens. The program graduate can establish appropriate long and short range goals for each client in the caseload. Average 4.17 4 4 4 4.29 The reports that the graduate writes are complete. 4.17 The graduate responds well to supervision. 4.67 The graduate maintains positive relationships with clients and instructional staff. 4.67 The graduate works well better in a one to one treatment situations 3.83 The graduate works well in group situations. 3.83 166
Student survey: In 2009-2010, we distributed an electronic survey to 60 classified graduate students. Fifty-one students responded. Evaluative questions on the survey asked respondents to answer questions on a 5-point Likert scale from Strongly Disagree (1) to Strongly Agree (5). Overall responses were overwhelmingly (90% or above) either Agree or Strongly Agree. Table 67: Results from Student Survey Survey Question In general, the objectives of the program and of the courses in the curricular sequence are clear. There has been considerable agreement between the announced objectives of the courses and what was actually taught. The reading assignments have been relevant to class objectives. The lectures given by the program's faculty/instructional staff are well organized and designed to facilitate the understanding of the subject. Average 4.36 4.45 4.33 4.39 In general the program's faculty/instructional staff challenge me. 4.61 My interest in the professions has increased as a result of your interaction with the program's faculty/instructional staff. The program's faculty/instructional staff attempt to relate course content to the total discipline. The program's faculty/instructional staff provide sufficient opportunity for me to apply concepts and to demonstrate understanding of the subject. The program's faculty/instructional staff genuinely care about my progress and attempt to be actively helpful. The program's faculty/instructional staff readily available to me for consultation 4.74 4.60 4.37 4.49 4.57 167
Student Learning Assessment: In 2009-2010, we distributed a 10-item student learning assessment across all student levels of our program. The items included a focused set of questions targeting basic to higher-level distinctions between speech and language along with other questions covering general areas of the curriculum. Students overall demonstrated excellent performance (90%+) on basic distinctions requiring identifying systems of language versus speech as a group. More difficulties became apparent when students were asked to differentiate speech from language in applied questions, as indicated below where green indicates the correct answer. Across cohorts, the patterns of errors were very consistent across all three of the higher-level questions, except that the 4 th -semester students performance on questions 2 and 3 were more accurate than any of the other cohort groups. 1. Learning which speech sound changes are meaningful and which speech sound changes are not meaningful in your language is the developmental task of which system? Answer Options a. Morphology b. Articulation c. Phonation d. Phonology e. Syntax Response Percent 37.6% 5.4% 5.9% 44.8% 6.3% 2. Which system would be primarily impaired if a child had a cleft palate? Answer Options Response Percent a. Phonology b. Semantics c. Syntax d. Resonance e. Fluency/stuttering f. Both a and d 3. The essential difference between speech and language is 2.2% 1.3% 0.0% 32.3% 0.9% 63.2% Answer Options a. Speech is communication, language is ideas b. Speech is physical/motor, language is symbolic representation c. Language is communication, speech is sound d. Language is learned, speech is innate. Response Percent 3.2% 63.1% 29.3% 4.5% 168
III. Analysis of Candidate Assessment Data In this section, we discuss the data displayed in Table 65 and the additional data that was summarized in Section II b. We focus our discussion on the strengths and areas for improvement revealed by the analysis of these data. Strengths: a. Candidate performance: The results indicate that our candidates are successfully meeting the criteria for demonstrating clinical competencies for each clinical experience (Assessments #1-4) before progressing to the next clinical practicum. Candidates are also performing very well on the summative Praxis exam (Assessment #5) demonstrating very strong performance in their overall preparation for knowledge and skills acquired cumulatively in our program. b. Program effectiveness: Alumni surveys indicate that our program strengths encompass faculty responsiveness to candidates and the extent to which coursework prepares candidates for clinical practicum experiences. Employer surveys indicated our specific strengths were in articulation and phonology assessment and treatment, child language assessment and treatment and ethical practice. Student surveys indicated program strengths in challenging students, increasing interest in the field and applying content to the total discipline. The student assessment survey indicated strengths across all cohort groups for basic distinctions between speech and language as well as a significant strength in the final semester students ability to apply and analyze the more complex distinctions of speech and language. Areas for improvement: c. Candidate performance: Our current assessment tools for clinical practicum experiences demonstrate that all completers are meeting clinical competencies before advancing to the subsequent clinic. This assessment at the end of the semester evaluates readiness for the next clinical level and some non-completers were identified by failure to meet criteria. Although remediation was completed, these candidates were never able to meet criteria for advancement and exited the program. b. Program effectiveness: Alumni surveys indicate that program completers felt satisfied or very satisfied about all domains on the survey. One area of improvement indicated by an almost neutral average response was how well the curriculum provided research skills needed for clinical practice. Employer surveys indicated assessment and research are areas for improvement. From our student learning assessment, it was apparent that improvement is needed in developing a more critical sense of the distinctions between speech and language earlier in our program. IV.Use of Assessment Results to Improve Candidate and Program Performance Our newly developed clinical competencies assessment tools have also been used to track clinical skills across the clinical training process. Students are required to go over their clinical competencies from previous semesters with each new clinical supervisor. This process of reviewing the clinical skill development has provided more opportunities for students and 169
supervisors to set goals for improvement. Additional data from the Praxis indicated that our candidates performance was equal to or above state and national averages on all areas tested. We have also implemented curriculum discussions in every faculty meeting focusing on particular areas in our curriculum. Through these discussions our faculty determines ways we can cover important concepts like distinctions between speech and language, and use and interpretation of normative testing data across the curriculum more effectively. Subsequent curricular and content changes have been made to target these areas. Further student learning assessment will be implemented across cohorts to assess impacts of these changes. We also hope to see improvements in our future alumni and employer survey data which reflect these changes. 170