The Department of Communicative Disorders and Deaf Education

There are four areas in the assessment process determined by data-based information:

1. Departmental Assessment

The curriculum of the Department is regularly reviewed and adjusted in a systematic way reflecting the changing patterns of knowledge, skills, technology, scope of practice, and the diversity of society. Regular reviews of the adequacy of curricular offerings occurs as a consequence of external reviews such as the CAA accreditation process, Board of Trustee's review, Utah State Office of Education program reviews, and as a part of NCATE and the Council on Education of the Deaf.

From a process perspective, these reviews are internally conducted through the Department's committee structure (AUD, SLP, EDHH and u/g). Agenda items for the standing committees of the departments as well as regular Department meetings allow the issues of quality, currency, and effectiveness of the graduate program in meeting standards for national certification, state licensure, state standards for teacher certification to be considered regularly. Self study is a continuing process for the Department of Communicative Disorders and Deaf Education. And twice in the past eight years, the Department has engaged in a "zero-based" restructuring of its academic and curricular offerings. The first time was a self-initiated restructuring which emerged from discussions and concerns about meeting new and current issues which were happening within the profession and within changing ASHA-CCC and CAA standards. In essence the Department completely rebuild both the academic and clinical programs to conform to those standards and to other external and internal professional inputs. Three years following that restructuring, the State System of Higher Education announced that all institutions within the system would move to the semester calendar from the quarter calendar. Hence, the Department again "zero-based" its offerings to be effective beginning with the Fall Semester 1998. Again, the quality, currency, and effectiveness measures were all adjusted to that new calendar system and in a manner fully compliant with ASHA-CAA standards.

Student's programs include much coursework from other departments as well as within the department regarding normal and impaired human development across the lifespan. Students are encouraged in their University Studies (general education) programs to take pertinent coursework related to human development and disorders. Students in COMD-DE are required to take Family and Human Development 1500 (Human Development Across the Lifespan), Psychology 1100 (Developmental Psychology, Infancy and Childhood), Psychology 1010 (General Psychology), Special Education and Rehabilitation 4000 (Education of Exceptional Individuals), Speech 2600 (Interpersonal Communication), as well as ample departmental issues (COMD-DE 2500 Language-Speech-Hearing Development).

The program recruits students from diverse economic, racial, and cultural backgrounds and students with disabilities (other than deafness or hearing loss). We do have good representation from diverse economic groups, and some from different cultural backgrounds (Hispanic, Jewish, and Native American). The Program does not have a large number of students from these groups since we are in a remote, western state with generally a limited diversity in the population.

The Program does use incentives and affirmative procedures to attract high-quality candidates who represent culturally diverse populations and individuals with various disabilities. We have an excellent Disability Resource Center where many students with disabilities are provided with ways for accommodating in the classroom. As indicated above, we have had a few students come into the program with a variety of disabilities. This information is disseminated in the region. The Program has been successful in obtaining federal support for the last 7 years and with this support available to students we are able to recruit more widely. We have an affirmative action program that aids us in getting information about the Program throughout the region.

2. Student Retention

The institution applies specific criteria for the retention of candidates who possess academic competencies and personal characteristics appropriate to the requirements for teaching. The following objective means are used to evaluated the achievement of students in area of the professional studies component of the program for teachers of the deaf and hard of hearing: 1) Grades in professional sequence classes, 2) Participation in the CAID student organization, 3) Observation and collective information about the student from teachers in the Department and Program.

Other Evaluation Measures

Additionally, the Department uses other information besides course grades to evaluate the achievement of prospective teachers. The vast majority of students come in from Elementary Education. We obtain feedback from the Elementary Education Department as to how our perspective candidates did in each of their practica assignments in their program. This information helps to evaluate the achievement of our students as prospective teachers. Once a student has entered into the professional training program their potential as a teacher is evaluated in a number of ways: practica in auditory/oral, total communication, and residential setting; in three of their classes they must demonstrate teaching technologies in front of the class; the student must show interest and ability to communicate with Deaf students on campus.

Staff talks to the students about their career as teachers. Deciding that they want to teach is one of the issues they need to have resolved before they begin the program in Education of the Deaf and Hard of Hearing. It is the staff's belief that other kinds of achievement will mean little if the student really does not like to teach. Staff helps students get involved with the Deaf community in order to help them understand Deafness and to determine if they thing that they would like working with individuals with hearing loss. Their attitude and involvement helps staff evaluate if they will make good teachers of the Deaf and hard of hearing.

Academic Competence Evaluation Measures

Students must maintain a minimum of a 'B' (3.0) average to stay in the Program. Any course they take that appears on their candidacy form must be a B or better.

All students who enroll in any teacher education program at Utah State have to have their fingerprints taken and a check made of any violations of the law. Any student who has been convicted of a felony in Utah cannot be certificated to teach in the public schools. The University has an academic honesty code to which all students are expected to abide. Two years ago we advised a student to change into a different major because she was not able to teach well and did not really seem to enjoy it. Students who did not meet the institution's requirements for retention are permitted to complete a bachelor's degree, but they cannot be certified to teach. Any student in the graduate program who falls below the 3.0 average is placed on probation for a semester and if the grades do not improve the student is not allowed to graduate with a masters degree. All students are given a booklet that describes the program requirements. In each of the "Class Schedule" booklets published each semester the university regulations are explained. In those regulations are descriptions of due process.

Each student is provided with an academic advisor for both the graduate and undergraduate programs. The advisors meet with each student who has identified themselves as a Deaf Education major at the undergraduate level and helps them design a program of study that will allow them to complete the Program in the most efficient manner. At the graduate level each student meets with the academic advisor each semester. A program of study is developed and ultimately approved by the school for graduate studies. Students are also provided with academic and other professional assistance as required.

3. Student Participation in Program Evaluation and Development

The program for preparation of teachers of the Deaf and Hard of Hearing has a systematic procedure for securing feedback on the Program and the faculty members from students and graduates. The Department of Communicative Disorders and Deaf Education has been engaged in the formal and informal evaluation of its training program for many years. Evaluation is provided for each facet of the program, including the undergraduate degree program, the graduate program, including the undergraduate degree program, the graduate degree program, the continuing education program, the special project program, USU Speech-Language-Hearing Center, departmental administration and departmental interface. This evaluation is accomplished using both formative and summative evaluation formats.

Formative Evaluation

The formative evaluation has been accomplished by the use of a zero-base evaluation of the program. The zero-base curriculum concept suggests that basic competencies be obtained by the students by the conclusion of the program. These competencies are derived by reading the literature, surveying the professional training programs and surveying practitioners in the field to determine what they actually do and how well their training prepared them for the tasks. These competencies are then developed and sequenced. Once the competencies are fully developed and sequenced, suggestions of methods and techniques for developing these competencies are discussed. The discussion leads to recommendations of new courses or alterations of the curriculum.

Summative Evaulation

The summative evaluation consists of recommendations of students as they matriculate through the coursework and of faculty as they evaluate the coursework and teaching on an annual basis. One of the modifications that came from the students was the Program develop a degree program that would allow them to work on a dual major in Education of the Deaf and Elementary Education. This recommendation was accepted and we are now moving into the suggested program. It was also felt, based on our two summative evaluations, that the student practicum and coursework were separated too far from each other. Thus we have altered the sequence of coursework and practicum so that they are done at the same time. Evaluation processes are a continuing source for change in program direction and for decisions about continuation of program thrusts.

Data Collection and Course Evaluation

The process for collecting and utilizing student evaluation of the overall program is done on an annual basis and consists of each graduate (from the previous year) completing a questionnaire concerning the Program. Additionally, each course is evaluated every semester. The course evaluations are used as a way of determining if the course is meeting students' needs and expectations and if the manner of presentation is effective. The evaluations are also used by the department head as a way of evaluating faculty performance during the year. As described earlier, these evaluations play a big role in determining faculty performance as they are evaluated by their peer group. Thus there is considerable pressure to meet the needs and expectations of the students.

4. Student Feedback and Program Response

One method for obtaining input from students is through regular quarterly evaluations by seniors and graduate level students. The data collected indicate a high level of satisfaction with learning and practica experience they are getting. Information received from individual items within the supervision section is important. It is discussed with the supervisor in order to rectify perceived problems. The interpretation of these data is important to the training program the results are perceived as positive indicators of the quality of training received at USU.

An additional dimension of the students' perception of their learning experiences may be obtained by the course evaluation forms used routinely by USU. The Department collects data on the students' perceptions of courses taught. The available data from such an instrument can be used in many ways by the Program in judging the adequacy of academic teaching as well as course organization goals and texts. One of the most important bits of data from this instrument is the item which asks the students to compare the instructor with other instructors on a five point scale from top 10% to bottom 10%.

Finally, we obtain information from former graduates on information or program changes they would like to see to improve the Program. One way staff have done this recently is to hire a former student as a consultant to the Program to help us in the program design. The result was the addition of a class and the way our practicum is coordinated with coursework. Feedback from former students has been very positive.

Data-Based Decisions