Home
Back
Section VI: EVALUATIONS IN THE PROGRAM
A. Program mission, objectives and student learning outcomes are developed and revised when necessary through self-study on a regular schedule.  This evaluation process is based on input from program faculty, current and former students, and personnel in cooperating agencies.

An evaluation of mission and program objectives occurs every three years. The current cycle of mission and objectives review was conducted by program faculty in the spring and summer of 2007. Input from constituencies (current and former students, as well as cooperating agencies represented on the Advisory Board) on the most recent revisions was obtained at the most recent Advisory Board meeting (See here for meeting minutes and roster of those in attendance).

B. The program faculty conduct a developmental, systematic assessment of each student’s progress throughout the program, including consideration of the student’s academic performance, professional development, and personal development.

Student progress is evaluated systematically throughout the program, beginning with admissions and concluding with an exit interview when students graduate. A complete description of assessment procedures is available here. Included in this process is the student evaluation form which completed on ever student by every instructor every semester.

C. Faculty establish a comprehensive, integrated plan of program evaluation, indicating how the mission, objectives, and student learning outcomes are met. Program evaluations must be ongoing, with formal evaluation occurring as follows:
1. an annual evaluation that documents how, where, and the extent to which program objectives are addressed in course syllabi;

This is accomplished annually by faculty. All program instructors evaluate and revise syllabi to insure alignment of student learning outcomes with the program mission and objectives, CACREP curricular requirements, expected levels of student performance, and program revisions. Syllabi are collected annually and reviewed by the Counseling Dept. Chair (Dr. Lemoncelli).
 
2. a review by program faculty of programs, curricular offerings, and characteristics of program applicants;

This is carried out annually during the Counseling Dept. Spring Retreat, which is an annual day-long meeting of program faculty. During 2007, this meeting was carried out at the conclusion of the Spring '07 semester (see minutes here). For 2008, the annual retreat is scheduled for mid-May after graduation.

3. at least once every three years, program faculty conduct and document findings of formal follow-up studies of program graduates to assess graduate perceptions and evaluations of major aspects of the program;
4. at least once every three years, program faculty conduct and document findings of formal follow-up studies of clinical site supervisors and program graduate employers to assess their perceptions and evaluations of major aspects of the program; and
5. at least once every three years, program faculty document use of findings from VI. C.1, 2, 3, and 4 above in program modifications.


Starting at the end of the 2007 calendar year, and triennially, recent alumni, current alumni employers, and recent and current site supervisors are surveyed using the questionnaires found here. Quantitative data from the most recent survey can be found here while written qualitative data is available here.  Because this procedure was recently implemented, no program modifications have yet been applied. When this data is compiled, changes (if any) will be documented. That said, the program evaluation data received over the last three years from exit interviews, advisory board meetings and feedback from students and site supervisors, resulted in the following programmatic changes and considerations:
 D. An official report that documents outcomes of the comprehensive program evaluation shall be prepared and distributed on a systematic basis (at least once every three years) to students currently in the program, program faculty, institutional administrators, and personnel in cooperating agencies (e.g., employers, site supervisors).

The results from the most recent survey of graduates, site supervisors, and employers is available on the department home page under Program Evaluation, and is updated regularly. It is available for review by current, former and prospective students, and other interested constituencies such as site supervisors, and potential employers of Marywood graduates. 

E. Students have regular and systematic opportunities to formally evaluate faculty and the students’ curricular experiences.

This is accomplished via student evaluations of courses at the end of every semester. Evaluation procedures are both quantitative and qualitative, and faculty  are provided with student feedback after final grades have been submitted to the registrar. (See samples of course evaluation summaries and student comments). The data from these evaluations provides valuable feedback related to the course and the faculty  members. In addition, faculty frequently seek informal feedback within their courses during the semester.

F. Provide annual results of student course evaluations to faculty.

The Institutional Research department at Marywood computer-scores student course evaluations and returns summaries, as well as original written student comments (see above example)  at the end of the semester after final grades have been submitted by faculty. Also included are summaries for both the department, and for the Reap College of Education to allow for comparisons to a normative data set. Faculty summarize their student evaluations and present results to the Dean and to the department chair in conjunction with their annual Faculty Activity Report (FAR).

G. Present written faculty evaluation procedures to program faculty at the beginning of each evaluation period and whenever changes are made in the procedures.

Procedures and directions (Here) for course evaluations are presented to faculty along with the appropriate forms for each class to be evaluated. Faculty are notified well in advance of any proposed changes in evaluation procedures by the Dept. of Institutional Research. 

Home
Back