Department Annual Report & Discipline Review 2012-2013 Psychology Disciplines: Psychology, Social Work, Gerontology Program: Gerontology, Cert Document Prepared By: Psychology Department 1
Department Information Documentation Current year goals Consistency of process and outcomes across the department Integration of PY-097 in other AFP classes Deeper understanding of the value of supplemental technology in on-ground classes Review and update of CARP documents Integration of Writing as a process and outcomes in PY-201 Goals for net year Develop Research Methods Class and finalize transfer model with GVSU. Review and revise Social Work Curriculum. Establish a Psychology and Social Work pre-major in the new curriculum model. Implement new Advanced Certificate in Gerontology. Internal collaborations and partnerships Led a collaborative effort with Social Science and Criminal Justice to offer a three day symposium on Gun Violence in America. Worked with Honors Program to increase classes within Psychology and student enrollment. Small group facilitator for the Be True to Your School strategic planning event. Training of Math Department faculty on PY 097 curriculum overview and the Wise Choice Process as a new method to help students problem solve for reasonable solutions. Collaboration with The PLACE to provide PY 097 curriculum overview, learning resources, and tetbooks for cross-training of tutors to help PY 097 students. Collaboration with the English Department to integrate Cornell Notes into PY 097 curriculum. Research project with Couseling to assess a measure of persistence (GRiT scores) compared with Fast Track (College Success Program) completion. Led, planned, and participated in the AFP Faculty Learning Day. Presented a session on time management skills and learning strategies on behalf of the Center for Teaching Ecellence. Presented with students at the Honors Program open house Eternal collaborations and partnerships Live forum for MLIVE on gun violence in America. Multiple radio and newspaper interviews. 2
GVSU: Working closely with the Psychology Department on the development of the Research Methods class as well as making accommodation for our students to maimize their transferability to GVSU. Family Futures and Holy Cross Children's Services: day dedicated to speakers on a variety of topics related to children and families. Topics include: child maltreatment, foster care and adoption, becoming a CASA (court appointed special advocate), preventing substance abuse, teaching study skills, and keeping families strong. Aquinas: Provided input on the revision of their Psychology Curriculum. Held two Gerontology Program Advisory Board meetings bringing together over a dozen of community agencies to share and receive input on the work of the department. Departmental needs for support from other departments within the college Program accreditation Updates Description of departmental advising plan and outcomes Held one-on-one academic advising for students majoring in Psychology, Social Work, Gerontology, or those currently enrolled in PY-097 in the Fall and Spring Semester. The purpose of these sessions was to meet with a professor in the Psychology Department to Develop a schedule for the following semester. Plan for future classes. Determine what classes are needed to graduate. Decide which classes are best for a student s transfer or career goals. Ask questions about career options in Psychology, Social Work, Counseling, Gerontology, or related fields. The dates for these sessions were: Fall October 16,17,18 Spring March 26 & 27 We had approimately 30 students in the Fall and 20 in the Spring. Departmental professional development activities MyDegreePath: All faculty trained. GRCC Library: Training on writing resources at the college and how these can be utilized by students and faculty. Writing for Psychology: Department reading, review, and application of a document developed by Harvard University for Psychology Majors. 3
Other department updates 2012 2013 Psychology Department Speaker Series o Can Political Psychology Help Us Know What We're Getting When We Vote? David Winter, Ph.D. Thursday, October 25, 1:00 2:30 o Anger: Just One Letter Away From Danger! Judith Jankowski, Ed.S. Monday, December 3, 1:00 2:30 o Our Connection To Something Bigger: The Archetypes of C.G. Jung. Sandra Portko, Ph.D. Thursday, February 14, 1:00 2:30 o Mental Toughness: The X-Factor in Sport and Life Edmund O Connor, Ph.D. Wednesday, April 3, 1:00 2:30 Implementation and sharing of results in the use of clickers in the classroom. Psi Beta, National Honor Society for Psychology in the Community College. Evaluation Questions 1. Were the department goals for this year successfully met? Please eplain. Yes. Consistency of process and outcomes across the department The assessment project opened the door to conversations with full and adjunct faculty on what and how we teach. It also provided data on core, important learning outcomes. Integration of PY-097 in other AFP classes This is a process. Sandy and Ennis have been working at both the AFP level and with individual departments such as Math and English to help them better understand the content of the class such that they can understand how the PY-097 can assist with their curriculum. Deeper understanding of the value of supplemental technology in on-ground classes The primary focus here was on clickers. We are still evaluating their best use. Review and update of CARP documents Classes have been assigned and are in process. Several faculty needed to be trained on the new model. That has been completed. Integration of Writing as a process and outcomes in PY-201 This is a continual process. We started two years ago with epectations, this year we started educating the faculty, and will continue as needed. 2. Is the Advising Plan working well? What have the outcomes been for student advising? Yes. 4
We changed this year to a one-on-one model. We had higher numbers than previous years with much higher conversations with students. Our goal for net year is to continue to advertise and increase the number of students aware of this opportunity. We believe the new pre-major option in the curriculum model will help with this goal. Action Needed Based on the documentation and evaluation in this section, please indicate if action or improvement is needed in the following areas within the department by making your response bold: Eternal Collaborations & Partnerships Yes No Internal Collaborations & Partnerships Yes No Accreditation Yes No Departmental Advising Yes No Documentation Faculty & Staff Faculty Credentials & Certifications- See Appendi A Judy Jankowski should be listed with an Educational Specialist degree. This is a terminal/professional degree in School Psychology. Professional Development Activities A 3-day On Course Workshop I in Baltimore, MD Michigan Developmental Educators Consortium (MDEC) conference Advanced Blackboard workshop Reading of research articles, professional journals, and books related to developmental education and psychology SALT Financial System training Finding Lost Time workshop iclicker Training Online Teaching Certification Classroom Observation Training Introduction to Formation Learning Day Society for Research in Child Development Biennial conference in Seattle, WA in April 5
EOL/Release Time Work Only Dr. Sandra Lancaster received Release time in our department. This was as coordinator of our PY-097 class as part of the AFP curriculum. Here individual report was submitted and reported as part of the AFP Program Review. Faculty & Staff Accomplishments/Awards Dr. Kate Byewalter Finalist in Armen Award competition Faculty Development for Upcoming Year Continuation of work in writing within the discipline. Will be offering a session on the development of rubrics and grading writing through the English Department. Nothing additional identified at this time. We will be developing our plan as our needs arise. Evaluation Questions 1. Can course assignments be made and scheduled based on the availability of credentialed faculty? Yes. 2. Is the number of departmental faculty that are certified to teach online and through Academic Service Learning sufficient to achieve the curricular and delivery needs of the department? Yes. 3. Do the number and ratio of Full-time/Adjunct faculty support the goals of the department? No. We are currently stretched to our limit in meeting the needs of our students and the college. While we could use two additional full time tenured track faculty in Psychology, the loss of Dr. Mike Vargo and the college s refusal to fill that one open position is making it difficult to evenly distribute departmental work. 4. Is the professional development faculty and staff are receiving sufficient for them to maintain currency in their field and area(s) of epertise? Yes. 5. Are additional faculty or faculty development resources needed to support the goals of the department over the net four years? No. Action Needed Based on the documentation and evaluation in this section, please indicate if action or improvement is needed in the following areas within the department by making your response bold: Faculty credentialing Yes No Faculty online certification Yes No 6
Academic Service Learning Yes No Ratio Fulltime/Adjunct faculty Yes No Faculty professional development Yes No Resources Yes No 7
Psychology Documentation Mission & Purpose Mission/Purpose Statement The mission of the Psychology Department is to teach Psychology, Social Work, and Gerontology - providing students with a scientific understanding of the thoughts, behaviors, and emotional processes of an individual, group, or community, so as to apply this learning to their personal lives, their professional practice, or as credits toward a degree or certificate. Target Audiences Psychology, Social Work, and Counseling Majors. Students needing Social Science distribution requirements. Many indirect audiences including criminal justice, health programs, and students seeking a course or two to be admitted to graduate school. Evaluation Questions 1. Is the purpose/mission statement current and relevant? Yes. 2. What are the various audiences for the courses within this discipline? Are the various being served appropriately through the eisting variety of course offerings? Yes. Action Needed Based on the documentation and evaluation in this section, please indicate if action or improvement is needed in the following areas within the department by making your response bold: Mission/Purpose Yes No Target Audience Yes No Documentation Data Course Enrollment by Semester- See Appendi B Trends have remained consistent for most classes similar to the overall trends of the college. Enrollment is down in PY-251. The reason for this is a shift in graduation requirements for education majors at our primary transfer school, GVSU. We have stopped offering PY-263 because of a graduation requirement change for Psychology majors at GVSU. 8
PY-097 has increased over the last three years as the college has begun implementing requirements for developmental students. We intentionally decreased some of the offerings of PY-281 to do a complete curriculum redevelopment. Course Success Rates- See Appendi C Success rates tend to correlate to the level of the class. The lower level classes tend to have lower success rates while the upper level classes have higher rates. PY-281 being the eception. To increase the success rate in PY-201 the department implemented a student success metacurriculum in the course. We started this year a complete redevelopment of the PY-281 curriculum intended at increasing student success. There is a disparity between racial minorities across all classes. While we have noted this difference, we have yet to consider any targeted interventions. We believe the student success curriculum is applicable to all students and we try to work closely with all resources at the college which provide services to these specific populations. Four-Year Course Success Rates- See Appendi D These data show similar success rate information as course success rates. Evaluation Questions 1. Are all courses within the discipline viable based on the enrollment data (# of students who take the course in the academic year)? 2. Are students passing courses at the appropriate rates? If not, which courses are of concern? Are the Course Success Rates the same for the various sub-group populations? If not, where are the areas of concern? 3. Do the grade distributions seem appropriate for each course? If not, which courses are of concern? Action Needed Based on the documentation and evaluation in this section, please indicate if action or improvement is needed in the following areas within the department by making your response bold: Course enrollment Yes No Course Success Rates Yes No Course grade distributions Yes No Curriculum 9
Documentation Department/Discipline Curriculum History (last eight years) Re-development and full integration of PY-097 into the AFP Curriculum model. Removal of PY-263 from the course offerings based on changes at GVSU. Re-development of PY-281 based on poor student success. Development of Honors Courses (PY-201, PY-232, PY-233) Advisory Board Contributions Courses Approved for Online Delivery- See Appendi E We will be developing PY-251 as an online course net year. Honors Courses- See Appendi E Study Away Courses- See Appendi E Course Equivalencies with Transfer Institutions- See Transfer Equivalency Spreadsheet All psychology courses other than PY-097 transfer as their equivalent course to our primary transfer college (GVSU) and all other area colleges if they have the equivalent course. We do not offer a course if it doesn t transfer to GVSU. Evaluation Questions 1. To what etent is the program curriculum aligned with eternal professional standards (Industry, State, or National)? Are the current courses within the discipline appropriately and sufficiently addressing eternal standards? Please eplain. 2. To what etent is the curriculum (course offerings) aligned with the first two years of transfer institutions? [Transfer Institution Curriculum Comparison] 3. Do the program (discipline) outcomes reflect the demonstrable skills, knowledge, and attitudes epected of students by the end of the program? Are the Program Student Learning outcomes clearly stated and measurable? If not, what changes are suggested? 4. Are the current course offerings sufficient in terms of breadth and depth? If not, what courses should be added and or eliminated? [Curriculum Mapping] 5. Are the honors and study away offerings sufficient for the program? 6. Is eperiential learning, including internships and academic service learning, systematically embedded into the courses? Are the current eperiential learning opportunities sufficient? Please eplain. 7. Does the curriculum prepare students for a constantly changing employment environment, and prepare students to epect and manage change? Please eplain. 10
8. Is the curriculum developed in such a way that it allows students to continue their education once they are finished with their subsequent coursework? Please eplain. 9. Are the online offerings (courses & number of sections) sufficient to meet student needs? Action Needed Based on the documentation and evaluation in this section, please indicate if action or improvement is needed in the following areas within the department by making your response bold: Curriculum alignment with eternal professional standards Yes No Transfer alignment Yes No Program Outcomes Yes No Program Learning Outcomes Yes No Course offerings Yes No General Education Yes No Honors Program Yes No Study Away Program Yes No Internship Yes No Academic Service Learning Yes No Course sequencing Yes No Pre-requisites Yes No Preparing students for change Yes No Online Course Offerings Yes No Documentation Assessment of Student Learning Program Learning Outcome(s) assessed this year This year the department focused on critical thinking and scientific method. Measures of Student Learning An end-of-semester eam was given in every section of PY-201 in the last two weeks of the semester. The specific questions are attached. Initial Data and Findings Overall the results were positive, but there was a range of success from 75% to 45% by professor. Full time professors demonstrated higher success rate of students versus adjunct. We have asked for student grades by professor to assure a correlation between assessment data and student grades. Curricular or Pedagogical Changes Implemented 11
We have presented the data to all faculty, full and part time, and considered the results. One area identified for improvement was in the implementation of the assessment tool itself. Adjunct had questions on what could and couldn t be done. That has been clarified. Other than information about success, no additional curricular changes are planned at this time. Data and Findings (post improvement/change) Evaluation 1. What are your greatest needs for support in order to continue to move forward with your assessment work? Action Needed Based on the documentation and evaluation in this section, please indicate if action or improvement is needed in the following areas within the department by making your response bold: Identifying Measures for each Program Learning Outcome Yes No Reporting out longitudinal data in a meaningful format Yes No Creating meaningful improvement projects Yes No Documentation Preparing for the future Trends in the Field A greater and eplicit emphasis on the teaching of the scientific measurement. A long term consideration will be the implementation of SPSS (Statistical software) into relevant lasses in the department. Plans for Course Development/Revision/Elimination Over the Net Four Years Revision of PY-281 (statistics) and development of a Research Methods class. Evaluation Questions 1. Are the resources sufficient to meet identified needs and goals for the net four years? Please eplain. 2. Are the facilities and equipment adequate to facilitate teaching and learning? Please eplain. Action Needed 12
Based on the documentation and evaluation in this section, please indicate if action or improvement is needed in the following areas within the department by making your response bold: Securing resources for course development/administration Yes No Facilities/equipment upgrades Yes No Other: Other: Other: Other: Additional Tasks/Work Develop the Course Review schedule for the net four years (beginning with net year) Identify which courses from the department will be developed in online or hybrid format over the net four years. Indicate the highest priorities for online and hybrid development and the academic year in which the course will be developed. Review all publications, website, catalog to ensure consistency of information Complete Follow-Up Action Checklist 13
Social Work Documentation Mission & Purpose Mission/Purpose Statement The mission of the Psychology Department is to teach Psychology, Social Work, and Gerontology - providing students with a scientific understanding of the thoughts, behaviors, and emotional processes of an individual, group, or community, so as to apply this learning to their personal lives, their professional practice, or as credits toward a degree or certificate. Target Audiences Social Work majors Evaluation Questions 1. Is the purpose/mission statement current and relevant? 2. What are the various audiences for the courses within this discipline? Are the various being served appropriately through the eisting variety of course offerings? Action Needed Based on the documentation and evaluation in this section, please indicate if action or improvement is needed in the following areas within the department by making your response bold: Mission/Purpose Yes No Target Audience Yes No Data Documentation (Curriculum Office will provide all data) Course Enrollment by Semester- See Appendi B Enrollment trends are difficult to etrapolate from these data. In 08-09 we did a complete revamping of the curriculum eliminating and combining some classes. We do know that numbers are generally down. Partly because we were conservative in our offering of these new classes given the confusion of the old grouping of classes. We are slowly adding classes, the first one stating net fall to determine need. Course Success Rates- See Appendi C 14
The same information as above applies to success rate. Four-Year Course Success Trends- See Appendi D Success rates are typical of classes in the department, but we don t have much trend data for the reasons stated above. Evaluation Questions 1. Are all courses within the discipline viable based on the enrollment data (# of students who take the course in the academic year)? 2. Are students passing courses at the appropriate rates? If not, which courses are of concern? Are the Course Success Rates the same for the various sub-group populations? If not, where are the areas of concern? 3. Do the grade distributions seem appropriate for each course? If not, which courses are of concern? Action Needed Based on the documentation and evaluation in this section, please indicate if action or improvement is needed in the following areas within the department by making your response bold: Course enrollment Yes No Course Success Rates Yes No Course grade distributions Yes No Documentation Curriculum Department/Discipline Curriculum History (last eight years) This entire program was developed with very little department input many years ago. In 2008-2009 the department did a complete evaluation of the classes. This resulted in the elimination of duplicate classes that did not transfer, reduction in contact hours in classes to align with the standards of our transfer institutions, and an overall reduction in the classes offered. The purpose of these changes were to assure students were not paying and taking classes at GRCC that had no value at transfer universities. Advisory Board Contributions Courses Approved for Online Delivery- See Appendi E Honors Courses- See Appendi E 15
Study Away Courses- See Appendi E Course Equivalencies with Transfer Institutions- See Transfer Equivalency Spreadsheet All classes transfer as their equivalent class at our primary transfer institutions. Evaluation Questions 1. To what etent is the program curriculum aligned with eternal professional standards (Industry, State, or National)? Are the current courses within the discipline appropriately and sufficiently addressing eternal standards? Please eplain. 2. To what etent is the curriculum (course offerings) aligned with the first two years of transfer institutions? [Transfer Institution Curriculum Comparison] 3. Do the program (discipline) outcomes reflect the demonstrable skills, knowledge, and attitudes epected of students by the end of the program? Are the Program Student Learning outcomes clearly stated and measurable? If not, what changes are suggested? 4. Are the current course offerings sufficient in terms of breadth and depth? If not, what courses should be added and or eliminated? [Curriculum Mapping] 5. Are the honors and study away offerings sufficient for the program? 6. Is eperiential learning, including internships and academic service learning, systematically embedded into the courses? Are the current eperiential learning opportunities sufficient? Please eplain. 7. Does the curriculum prepare students for a constantly changing employment environment, and prepare students to epect and manage change? Please eplain. 8. Is the curriculum developed in such a way that it allows students to continue their education once they are finished with their subsequent coursework? Please eplain. 9. Are the online offerings (courses & number of sections) sufficient to meet student needs? Action Needed Based on the documentation and evaluation in this section, please indicate if action or improvement is needed in the following areas within the department by making your response bold: Curriculum alignment with eternal professional standards Yes No Transfer alignment Yes No Program Outcomes Yes No Program Learning Outcomes Yes No Course offerings Yes No General Education Yes No Honors Program Yes No 16
Study Away Program Yes No Internship Yes No Academic Service Learning Yes No Course sequencing Yes No Pre-requisites Yes No Preparing students for change Yes No Online Course Offerings Yes No Documentation Assessment of Student Learning Program Learning Outcome(s) assessed this year Social Work and Psychology are using the same student learning outcomes of knowledge of scientific methods and critical thinking. These are basic skills for both programs. Measures of Student Learning See Psychology Initial Data and Findings See Psychology Curricular or Pedagogical Changes Implemented See Psychology Data and Findings (post improvement/change) See Psychology Evaluation 1. What are your greatest needs for support in order to continue to move forward with your assessment work? Action Needed Based on the documentation and evaluation in this section, please indicate if action or improvement is needed in the following areas within the department by making your response bold: Identifying Measures for each Program Learning Outcome Yes No 17
Reporting out longitudinal data in a meaningful format Yes No Creating meaningful improvement projects Yes No Documentation Preparing for the future Trends in the Field Social Work is a growing field and one of great interest to our students. With changes in insurance policies and an aging population, there will continue to be employment opportunities in this field. It is also the degree path that appears to have the most success with our student population. Plans for Course Development/Revision/Elimination Over the Net Four Years It is time to revisit the program revisions made a few years ago. In a gathering of the Social Work adjunct, it was suggested we could easily add one more class to our offerings. We ll be working on this in the net year both internally and in concert with our transfer schools. Because the original set of classes was developed without consideration of a comprehensive transfer curriculum, we may also need to renumber our eisting classes to make the number sequence commensurate with the course content. Evaluation Questions 1. Are the resources sufficient to meet identified needs and goals for the net four years? Please eplain. Possibly not. Since we have no full time Social Work faculty, we may need to pay an adjunct to assist in this curriculum development. 2. Are the facilities and equipment adequate to facilitate teaching and learning? Please eplain. Action Needed Based on the documentation and evaluation in this section, please indicate if action or improvement is needed in the following areas within the department by making your response bold: Securing resources for course development/administration Yes No Facilities/equipment upgrades Yes No Other: 18
Other: Other: Other: Additional Tasks/Work Develop the Course Review schedule for the net four years (beginning with net year) Identify which courses from the department will be developed in online or hybrid format over the net four years. Indicate the highest priorities for online and hybrid development and the academic year in which the course will be developed. Review all publications, website, catalog to ensure consistency of information Complete Follow-Up Action Checklist Gerontology, CERT Documentation Mission & Purpose Mission/Purpose Statement Gerontology is the study of the field of aging, and focuses on a basic understanding of processes, programs, and policies related to aging; these include the process of aging, and particularly the biological, behavioral and social aspects of later life. Target Audiences Students who want to augment an eisting degree providing them with a credential to work with individuals in late adulthood. Program Admissions Requirements Students must have a degree or being pursuing one in parallel to this advanced certificate. This degree is not intended as a stand alone certificate. Evaluation Questions 1. Is the purpose/mission statement current and relevant? 2. Has the target audience for the program been identified? Who is the target audience for this program? Is the program attracting and appropriately serving the target audience? 19
3. If there are admissions criteria for the program, are they appropriate and do they facilitate program and student success? If there are Action Needed Based on the documentation and evaluation in this section, please indicate if action or improvement is needed in the following areas within the department by making your response bold: Mission/Purpose Yes No Target Audience Yes No Program Admissions Yes No Documentation New Student Enrollment Program Data The data only shows 2 new enrollees later year, 2 in 2011, and 3 in 2010. Our assumption for this is under the old curriculum model, students could not have two program codes. Since they were earning this certificate in conjunction to an Associated Degree, their Gerontology code would not be indicated. We hope under the new model we will get more accurate data on individual seeking this certificate. Total Student Enrollment Total students enrolled is also low. Again, we assume the same issue as new student enrollment. Student Progress One trend we ve noticed is more students in the program are transferring. This is consistent with our changes in making this an Advanced Certificate and not a stand alone degree. Student Participation in Nontraditional Fields N/A- Enrollment too low for this analysis Credential, Certificate, or Degree Attainment Again, given how this degree was tracked in the past, we don t have good data to understand how well our students are progressing toward the completion of their certificate. 20
Student Completion in Nontraditional Fields N/A- Enrollment too low for this analysis Student Placement N/A- Enrollment too low for this analysis Student Retention and Transfer N/A- Enrollment too low for this analysis Technical Skills Attainment N/A- Enrollment too low for this analysis Course enrollment by semester Other than GO-203, which had one high year, numbers have remained consistent. GO-283 is up this last year suggesting more students have completed the program. Again, since they may also be enrolled in another Associate Degree program, the obtainment of their certificate may not be consistent with the completion of the requirements. Course Success Rates (broken down by race/ethnicity, gender, age) Success rates in the GO classes tend to be higher than average and there s little difference between defined populations. Four-Year Course Success Trends Success rate tend to stay consistent over time. Evaluation Questions 1. Is the program consistently attracting new students? 2. Is the enrollment trend meeting established targets, ensuring program viability? If targets for enrollment have not been established, what should they be? 3. Do students appear to be progressing through the program well? 4. To what etent are the targets for core program indicators (Student Participation in Nontraditional fields, Student Retention & Transfer, Credential, Certificate, Degree Attainment, Student Completion in non-traditional fields, Student Placement, Technical Skills Attainment) being met? Are the various sub-populations meeting the targets at the same rate? 21
5. Is the yearly ratio of the number of students enrolled to the number of graduates appropriate given program goals? 6. Are students obtaining employment upon graduation at satisfactory rates? 7. What does the course enrollment by semester data tell you? 8. Are students passing courses at the appropriate rates? If not, which courses are of concern? Are the Course Success Rates the same for the various sub-group populations? If not, where are the areas of concern? 9. Do the grade distributions seem appropriate for each course? If not, which courses are of concern? Action Needed Based on the documentation and evaluation in this section, please indicate if action or improvement is needed in the following areas within the department by making your response bold: New Student Enrollment Yes No Total Student Enrollment Yes No Student Progress Yes No Student Participation in Nontraditional Fields Yes No Credential, Certificate, or Degree Attainment Yes No Student Completion in Nontraditional Fields Yes No Student Placement Yes No Student Retention and Transfer Yes No Technical Skills Attainment Yes No Course enrollment by semester Yes No Course Success Rates Yes No Course grade distributions Yes No Documentation Curriculum Program Curriculum History (last eight years) While there has been little change in the overall curriculum, the biggest change occurred at the end of this school year were we changed the degree from a stand alone certificate to an Advanced Certificate under the college s new curriculum model. In this new configuration, students cannot earn this degree alone but must obtain the degree in parallel or after earning another degree. The reason for this change is to match student practices and the desire of the job market. 22
Advisory Board Contributions Approval the change from a stand-alone certificate to an Advanced Certificate. Courses Approved for Online Delivery- See Appendi E Honors Courses- See Appendi E Study Away Courses- See Appendi E Course Equivalencies with Transfer Institutions- See Transfer Institution Spreadsheet While a few classes transfer, this is intended as a terminal degree, not part of a transfer curriculum. Program/Course Equivalencies with K-12 Institutions Evaluation Questions 1. Is the program structured appropriately given the target student population and current student population (traditional, transfer, and/or adult learners)? Please eplain. 2. To what etent is the program curriculum aligned with eternal professional standards (Industry, State, or National)? Are the current courses within the program or discipline appropriately and sufficiently addressing eternal standards? Please eplain. 3. Does the program design and structure reflect eternal standards and best practices? Please eplain. 4. To what etent is the curriculum aligned with the first two years of transfer institutions? [Transfer Institution Curriculum Comparison] 5. To what etent is the curriculum aligned with the coursework at K-12 institutions? 6. Do the program outcomes reflect the demonstrable skills, knowledge, and attitudes epected of students by the end of the program? Are the Program Student Learning outcomes clearly stated and measurable? If not, what changes are suggested? 7. Are all four of the ILOs and associated competencies integrated into the program? Do students have the opportunity to build the knowledge, skills, and attitudes associated with the ILOs throughout the program? [Curriculum Mapping] 8. Are the current course offerings sufficient in terms of breadth and depth? If not, what courses should be added and or eliminated? [Curriculum Mapping] 9. Have general education courses been purposefully integrated into the program? Are the general education courses within the program appropriate and sufficient to support the learning associated with the Institutional and Program Learning Outcomes? [Curriculum Mapping] 10. Are the honors and study away offering sufficient for the program? 23
11. Do the course sequences require increasing application of higher-order thinking skills as students progress through the program? Is the course sequence aligned in such a way that the Program Student Learning outcomes are mastered by the end of the program? 12. Is eperiential learning, including internships and academic service learning, systematically embedded into the courses? Are the current eperiential learning opportunities sufficient? Please eplain. 13. Does the curriculum prepare students for a constantly changing employment environment, and prepare students to epect and manage change? Please eplain. 14. Is the curriculum developed in such a way that it allows students to continue their education once they are finished with this program? Please eplain. 15. Are the online offerings (courses & number of sections) sufficient to meet student and programmatic needs? Action Needed Based on the documentation and evaluation in this section, please indicate if action or improvement is needed in the following areas within the department by making your response bold: Program structure Yes No Curriculum alignment with eternal professional standards Yes No Transfer alignment Yes No Curriculum Alignment K-12 Yes No Program Outcomes Yes No Program Learning Outcomes Yes No Course offerings Yes No General Education Yes No Honors Program Yes No Study Away Program Yes No Internship Yes No Academic Service Learning Yes No Course sequencing Yes No Pre-requisites Yes No Preparing students for change Yes No Online Offerings (courses & programs) Yes No Documentation Assessment of Student Learning Program Learning Outcome(s) assessed this year 24
1. Apply aging-related technical knowledge gained in coursework and other learning eperiences to an on-site field placement. 2. Demonstrate older adult helping skills which build on previous field placement and learning eperiences and reflect his/her educational goals. 3. Define components of the helping process and discuss how the process is applied in a real life situation (i.e. their field placement agency). Measures of Student Learning Third party assessment in the form of Student Practicum Evaluation feedback provided by Placement Site Supervisors upon completion of GO 283 Gerontology Practicum 2: Question 1: Student is able to apply the technical knowledge gained in coursework and other learning eperiences to this on-site field placement. Question 3: Student demonstrates helping skills which build on previous field placement and learning eperiences and reflects his/her educational goals. Question 5: Student is able to define components of the helping process and discuss how the process is applied in the field placement agency. Initial Data and Findings Learning Outcome 1: Winter 2013 average student rating = 94% (low = 70%, high = 100%) Learning Outcome 2: Winter 2013 average student rating = 95% (low = 80%, high = 100%) Learning Outcome 3: Winter 2013 average student rating = 95% (low = 75%, high = 100%) Curricular or Pedagogical Changes Implemented None Data and Findings (post improvement/change) Evaluation 2. Are licensure/certification eam pass rates are above national or state averages (if applicable)? If not, please eplain what needs to be done to improve. 3. What are your greatest needs for support in order to continue to move forward with your assessment work? Action Needed Based on the documentation and evaluation in this section, please indicate if action or improvement is needed in the following areas within the department by making your response bold: 25
Identifying Measures for each Program Learning Outcome Yes No Reporting out longitudinal data in a meaningful format Yes No Creating meaningful improvement projects Yes No Preparing for the future Documentation Job and Wage forecasts With an aging population, it is assumed these jobs will increase in demand. What is not known is if the industry will adopt any real standards for the hiring of such personal thus giving credence to this certificate. Environmental Scanning/Trends PROE Student Survey Results NA- No Survey Results for this program Advisory Board Survey Results NA- No Survey Results for this program Program Planning Other than the shift in the certificate, there is no planned changes over the net four years. Evaluation Questions 1. Do the job projections and wages data suggest that this program will be viable over the net four years? 2. Is the number of graduates aligned with the market need (job forecasts/transfer institutions)? 3. What did you learn from the PROE Student Survey results? Will you take any actions with the program as a result of what you have learned? 4. What did you learn from the Advisory Board Survey results? Will you take any actions with the program as a result of what you have learned? 5. Are the resources sufficient to meet identified needs and goals for the net four years? Please eplain. 6. Are the facilities and equipment adequate to facilitate teaching and learning? Please eplain. 26
Action Needed Based on the documentation and evaluation in this section, please indicate if action or improvement is needed in the following areas within the department by making your response bold: Program Planning Yes No Securing resources for course development/administration Yes No Facilities/equipment upgrades Yes No Other: Yes No Other: Yes No Other: Yes No Other: Yes No Additional Tasks/Work Develop the Course Review schedule for the net four years (beginning with net year) Identify which courses from the department will be developed in online or hybrid format over the net four years. Indicate the highest priorities for online and hybrid development and the academic year in which the course will be developed. Review all publications, website, catalog to ensure consistency of information Complete Follow-Up Action Checklist 27
Appendi A Faculty Credentials & Certifications Psychology Department Faculty Credentials Last Name First Name Employee Group Title Hi Educ Lv Barth Keith Adjunct Faculty/Adjunct Master's Brown Mary Adjunct Faculty/Adjunct Master's Byers Laura Adjunct Faculty/Adjunct Doctorate Curro Theodore Adjunct Faculty/Adjunct Master's Dyk Barbara Adjunct Faculty/Adjunct Master's Faber Michael Adjunct Faculty/Adjunct Master's Firlan Urminda Adjunct Faculty/Adjunct Doctorate Forbes Nancy Adjunct Faculty/Adjunct Master's Griffin Gabriel Adjunct Faculty/Adjunct Master's Harter Andrew Adjunct Faculty/Adjunct Master's Henders William Adjunct Faculty/Adjunct Master's Houck Marc Adjunct Faculty/Adjunct MD,DDS,JD Kieliszewski Jeffery Adjunct Faculty/Adjunct Doctorate Kivinen Michael Adjunct Faculty/Adjunct Master's Kleiman Ian Adjunct Faculty/Adjunct Master's Lee Joseph Adjunct Faculty/Adjunct Master's Mullen Patricia Adjunct Faculty/Adjunct Master's Perko Antonina Adjunct Faculty/Adjunct Master's Potvin Denise Adjunct Faculty/Adjunct Master's Prior Kerry Adjunct Faculty/Adjunct Master's Shumaker Gayle Adjunct Faculty/Adjunct Master's Termeer Paula Adjunct Faculty/Adjunct Master's Vandevelde Margaret Adjunct Faculty/Adjunct Master's Walenjus Teresa Adjunct Faculty/Adjunct Master's Wallsteadt Susan Adjunct Faculty/Adjunct Master's White Michaelene Adjunct Faculty/Adjunct Master's Byerwalter Mary Faculty Professor Doctorate Conner Frank Faculty Professor Doctorate Jankowski Judith Faculty Professor Master's Lancaster Sandra Faculty Assistant Professor Doctorate Rubin Sophie Faculty Assistant Professor Doctorate Young Ennis Faculty Assistant Professor Master's 28
Psychology Department Faculty with Academic Service Learning Credential First Name Kate Frank Urminda Judith Whitney Sherry Michael Last Name Byerwalter Conner Firlan Jankowski Johnson Rhoden Vargo Psychology Department Faculty certified to do online/hybrid teaching First Name Last Name Frank Conner Nancy Forbes Judy Jankowski Jennifer Sobie Terry Stockton Michael Vargo Kate Byerwalter Sherri Rhoden Paula Triplett Cedric Williams Susan Wallsteadt Keith Barth Sophie Rubin Michaelene White Ennis Young Sandra Lancaster Mindy Firlan 29
Christina Barland Edmondson 30
Appendi B- Course Enrollment by Semester 2008 2012 Course Enrollment Data Summary Course Fall 2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 Winter 2009 Summer 2009 Total Fall 2009 Winter 2010 Summer 2010 Total PY 097 276 231 77 584 679 536 188 1403 PY 100 442 365 129 936 595 622 210 1427 PY 201 1415 963 433 2811 1575 1369 472 3416 1561 1513 402 3476 1527 1441 399 3367 PY 203 28 28 56 28 28 56 28 28 56 27 28 55 PY 231 161 248 120 529 207 285 147 639 205 306 179 690 215 321 140 676 PY 232 231 283 131 645 230 308 145 683 226 308 178 712 229 347 169 745 PY 233 230 295 81 606 245 236 85 566 237 204 88 529 205 187 76 468 PY 234 93 91 38 222 92 114 50 256 114 110 42 266 112 108 40 260 PY 251 64 105 29 198 63 95 20 178 47 52 99 64 64 PY 260 36 35 71 35 36 71 36 36 72 37 36 73 PY 263 36 36 35 35 36 36 PY 281 70 70 43 183 72 89 38 199 69 89 17 175 48 70 18 136 PY 298 1 1 GO 203 35 35 36 36 36 36 27 27 GO 261 16 16 16 16 14 16 30 35 35 GO 262 16 16 16 16 15 15 36 36 GO 263 16 16 17 17 16 35 51 34 34 GO 282 10 10 14 14 6 6 16 16 GO 283 9 9 12 12 7 7 21 21 SW 102 7 7 10 10 34 35 23 92 35 35 32 102 SW 103 14 14 9 9 18 14 32 SW 220 18 18 28 28 Fall 2010 Winter 2011 Summer 2011 Total Fall 2011 Winter 2012 Summer 2012 Total 31
PY 097 Appendi C - Course Success Rates (Success = grades A to C-) Race/ Ethnicity Age Course Success Rates AtD categories Course success rates (A-C divided by all grades) by subcategories: Race/Ethnicity, Gender, Fulltime/Part-time, and Pell Grant recipient/no Pell. White non- Hispanic Black non- Hispanic Hispanic Asian / Pacific Islander Native American Nonresident Alien No response or other Number Course 233 321 69 9 3 0 54 689 Total 145 129 47 6 2 0 32 361 Percent Successful Course 62% 40% 68% 67% 67% NA 59% 52% Less than 20 20-24 25 or older Total Number Course 324 170 195 689 189 81 91 361 Percent Successful Course 58% 48% 47% 52% Gender Female Male Total Number Course 349 340 689 214 147 361 Percent Successful Course 61% 43% 52% Pell Pell No Pell Total Number Course 525 164 689 268 93 361 Percent Successful Course 51% 57% 52% 32
PY 201 Race/ Ethnicity White non-hispanic Black non- Hispanic Hispanic Asian / Pacific Islander Native American Nonresident Alien No response or other Number Course 1,109 170 108 37 10 3 92 1,529 Percent Successful Course Total 872 86 74 31 5 2 67 1,137 79% 51% 69% 84% 50% 67% 73% 74% Age Less than 20 20-24 25 or older Total Number Course 842 389 298 1,529 Percent Successful Course 640 271 226 1,137 76% 70% 76% 74% Gender Female Male Total Number Course 1,009 520 1,529 Percent Successful Course 773 364 1,137 77% 70% 74% Pell Pell No Pell Total Number Course 750 779 1,529 Percent Successful Course 521 616 1,137 69% 79% 74% 33
PY 260 Race/ Ethnicity White non-hispanic Black non- Hispanic Hispanic Asian / Pacific Islander Native American Nonresident Alien No response or other Number Course 27 4 2 0 1 1 2 37 Percent Successful Course Age Less than 20 20-24 21 2 1 0 1 1 2 28 Total 78% 50% 50% n/a 100% 100% 100% 76% 25 or older Total Number Course 3 23 11 37 Percent Successful Course 3 17 8 28 100% 74% 73% 76% Gender Female Male Total Number Course 25 12 37 Percent Successful Course 21 7 28 84% 58% 76% Pell Pell No Pell Total Number Course 18 19 37 Percent Successful Course 13 15 28 72% 79% 76% 34
PY 281 Race/ Ethnicity White non-hispanic Black non- Hispanic Hispanic Asian / Pacific Islander Native American Nonresident Alien No response or other Number Course 38 4 3 0 2 0 1 48 Percent Successful Course Age Less than 20 20-24 28 2 1 0 2 0 1 34 Total 74% 50% 33% n/a 100% n/a 100% 71% 25 or older Total Number Course 13 24 11 48 Percent Successful Course 10 17 7 34 77% 71% 64% 71% Gender Female Male Total Number Course 32 16 48 Percent Successful Course 20 14 34 63% 88% 71% Pell Pell No Pell Total Number Course 27 21 48 Percent Successful Course 15 19 34 56% 90% 71% 35
SW 102 Race/ Ethnicity Number Course Number Successful Course Percent Successful Course White non-hispanic Black non- Hispanic Age Less than 20 20-24 Number Course Number Successful Course Percent Successful Course Hispanic Asian / Pacific Islander Native American Nonresident Alien No response or other 21 9 2 0 3 0 0 35 20 7 1 0 2 0 0 30 Tota l 95% 78% 50% n/a 67% n/a n/a 86% 25 or older Total 13 5 17 35 12 5 13 30 92% 100% 76% 86% Gender Female Male Total Number Course Number Successful Course Percent Successful Course 23 12 35 20 10 30 87% 83% 86% Pell Pell No Pell Total Number Course Number Successful Course Percent Successful Course 19 16 35 15 15 30 79% 94% 86% 36
SW 103 Race/ Ethnicity White non- Hispanic Black non- Hispanic Hispanic Asian / Pacific Islander Native American Nonresident Alien No response or other Number Course 8 8 2 0 0 0 0 18 Percent Successful Course 7 6 1 0 0 0 0 14 Total 88% 75% 50% n/a n/a n/a n/a 78% Age Less than 20 20-24 25 or older Total Number Course 2 3 13 18 Percent Successful Course 2 2 10 14 100% 67% 77% 78% Gender Female Male Total Number Course 14 4 18 Percent Successful Course 11 3 14 79% 75% 78% Pell Pell No Pell Total Number Course 15 3 18 Percent Successful Course 11 3 14 73% 100% 78% 37
GO 261 Race/ Ethnicity White non- Hispanic Black non-hispanic Hispanic Asian / Pacific Islander Native American Nonresident Alien No response or other Number Course 25 6 2 2 0 0 0 35 21 5 2 2 0 0 0 30 Percent Successful Course 84% 83% 100% 100% n/a n/a n/a 86% Total Age Less than 20 20-24 25 or older Number Course 3 9 23 35 2 6 22 30 Total Percent Successful Course 67% 67% 96% 86% Gender Female Male Total Number Course 27 8 35 24 6 30 Percent Successful Course 89% 75% 86% Pell Pell No Pell Total Number Course 25 10 35 20 10 30 Percent Successful Course 80% 100% 86% 38
GO 262 Race/ Ethnicity Age White non- Hispanic Black non- Hispanic Hispanic Asian / Pacific Islander Native American Nonresident Alien No response or other Number Course 28 5 2 0 0 0 1 36 Percent Successful Course 24 5 2 0 0 0 0 31 Total 86% 100% 100% n/a n/a n/a 0% 86% Less than 20 20-24 25 or older Total Number Course 3 9 24 36 Percent Successful Course 3 6 22 31 100% 67% 92% 86% Gender Female Male Total Number Course 32 4 36 Percent Successful Course 29 2 31 91% 50% 86% Pell Pell No Pell Total Number Course 28 8 36 Percent Successful Course 23 8 31 82% 100% 86% 39
GO 282 Race/ Ethnicity White non- Hispanic Black non- Hispanic Hispanic Asian / Pacific Islander Native American Nonresident Alien No response or other Number Course 11 2 2 0 0 1 0 16 Percent Successful Course 11 2 2 0 0 1 0 16 Total 100% 100% n/a n/a n/a 100% n/a 100% Age Less than 20 20-24 25 or older Total Number Course 0 6 10 16 Percent Successful Course 0 6 10 16 n/a 100% 100% 100% Gender Female Male Total Number Course 12 4 16 Percent Successful Course 12 4 16 100% 100% 100% Pell Pell No Pell Total Number Course 8 8 16 Percent Successful Course 8 8 16 100% 100% 100% 40