PROGRAM REVIEW
SELF STUDY GUIDELINES

I. Program Introduction/History

1. Describe your program's mission and goals. In what way do program goals respond to community and regional needs?

The mission of the Department is:
"To train competent professionals in speech, language pathology and audiology with an appropriate scientific background, clinical skill and an appreciation for the need to continue learning beyond formal academic training."

In what way do program goals respond to community and regional needs?

There are 10 goals for the student in speech pathology or audiology upon completion of the graduate program:

1. Analyze ideas and make critical evaluations.
2. Understand and apply research literature to selected disciplines.
3. Demonstrate professional communications skills.
4. Understand and apply fundamental information in anatomy, physiology, neurology and the psychology of communication.
5. Assess speech, language and hearing performance and appropriately interpret and apply information.
6. Plan, implement, evaluate and modify educational or clinical interventions across a wide range of patients.
7. Develop effective professional relationships with patients, caregivers and other professionals.
8. Appreciate, understand and apply multicultural information in assessment and therapy.
9. Recognize the need for and participate in professional activities that promote lifelong learning.
10. Earn appropriate credential, licenses and/or certifications.


The need for professionals in schools, hospitals, nursing homes, doctor's offices, VA hospitals and private practice far outpace the supply as reported both by the California Speech-Language Hearing Association (CSHA) and the American Speech-Language Hearing Association (ASHA). The ten goals listed above should provide for quality speech-language pathologists and audiologists to meet the need in Sacramento and throughout the state for credentialed personnel.

2. Assess the effectiveness of any changes (Department, College and University) made in response to recommendations from the last program review. (Include the list of recommendations in an appendix of the report).

The tab labeled PROGRAM REVIEW 1996 lists the recommendations and the Department response to the academic program review report dated 5-20-96. The following are selected responses assessing the effectiveness of any changes made in response to recommendations from the 1996 program review.


1. Formal surveys: The first recommendation to the Department was to develop a formal means of receiving feedback from employers. Prior to this time the Department used an extensive informal feedback regarding quality of students. Subsequent to the 1996 program review formal surveys are mailed approximately every other year. It was felt that an annual survey was too time consuming for both the Department and employer and would not provide enough useful new information. Two surveys have been conducted (spring of 1997 and 1999) with the next survey to be conducted at the end of spring semester 2001. Employer Survey results may be found after the tab SURVEY: EMPLOYER.

   A summary of the 1997 employer survey reveals generally very positive comments. There were only a small number of employers who said that their employees were well prepared in AAC (augmentative and alternative communication). It is not clear whether this was due to lack of training before this was in the curriculum (1996) or if it was not used at the facility. The following areas were noted as needing improvement: Assessment of speakers of English as a second language, group therapy, caseload management and IEP (individualized educational program) processes, adolescent speech and language needs, and business information (funding sources, private practice). The results in audiology were also generally positive with weaknesses being noted in otoacoustic emissions (OAE) testing, ABR (auditory brainstem response), ENG (electronystagmography) and pediatric evaluation. It should be noted that new equipment purchases in OAE and ABR occurred in 1999, which should enhance these courses in the last couple of years.

   A summary of the 1999 employer survey reveals that they are generally very satisfied with our graduates. They continue to find students less prepared in adult language assessment, dysphagia and AAC. There are very few areas that need significant improvement. It should be noted that AAC was just expanded into the curriculum in the SPHP 218 class in 1996 and one new faculty member was hired in the fall of 1999 with extensive clinical experience in dysphagia who has begun teaching the course. We hope to see improvement in this area in the 2001 survey.

   Audiology students were least prepared in ENG, a change from the last employer survey in which three main areas were noted. They would also like our students to be able to fit and modify hearing aids upon receiving their degree and for the department to develop and implement an AuD program. The AuD is a clinical doctorate in audiology, which will be the standard entry into the profession beginning 2007.
   
2. Vice chair: The division of labor has been modified somewhat since a clinic coordinator was hired two years ago. The vice chair contributes less to clinic coordination and problem solving and more to faculty and student affairs through proactive troubleshooting. The vice chair also helps in the myriad reports required of chairs and continues to discuss and assist in sensitive faculty and student issues.
   
3. Counseling course: The course taught in social work was reviewed each semester through informal feedback from students. They were universally unhappy with the course and class discussions. This displeasure with the class continued for several semesters and the course was officially moved to this department fall semester of 1999. Two new faculty members alternately teach it, one of whom was sent to Boston, MA for a weeklong workshop on counseling within the profession (Dr. Larry Boles). It will be team taught between the Drs. Roseberry and Boles in future years.
   
4. Speech assistant: The program was encouraged to investigate the possibility of offering a speech assistant certificate for those terminating at the BS degree. The guidelines as developed by the national association (ASHA) define the speech assistant as an AA degree and not BS or BA. Therefore, the department is unable to offer the certificate. Two community colleges, one in Southern California and one in Northern California are offering an AA degree for the speech assistant certificate.
   
5. Working with clients from various cultures: Since the last program review we hired a new faculty person who specializes in multicultural language issues, has written two workbooks in the area, presented numerous workshops around the country, and is conducting research with students in several different language and cultural populations. The course evaluations indicate superb performance.
   
6. Full-time faculty hires versed in non-English evaluation: As mentioned in number 5 above, one new hire (Dr. Celeste Roseberry-McKibbin) not only specializes in multicultural evaluation but also lived in the Philippines for much of her early life. Although she did speak Tagolog at that time, she is presently monolingual.
   
7. Department Continuing Education (CE) Offerings: The Department began offering CE courses the summer of 2000. Dr. Carole Mayer has been coordinating this activity and there are five all day long courses scheduled through summer of 2001. She is working on the next year and has about three workshops scheduled. The response has been very favorable. In addition to paid participants, we also use this activity to "thank" our many field supervisors who are allowed to attend free if they have taken one of our students during the preceding year.

3. (1) What major state and national trends (new developments in theory, research, and pedagogy) are occurring in your discipline?

(2) How does your curriculum structure and course offerings compare to those of similar programs in your discipline?

(3) What responses to changes in the discipline is your department planning and/or implementing?

AUDIOLOGY:

(1) The primary emphases in audiology are in electrophysiology testing (ENG, ABR and OAEs); amplification; cochlear implants; newborn hearing screening; and the change in the entry level for future audiologists beginning in 2007 to the clinical doctorate (AuD).

(2) There are only six masters programs in audiology in California and our program compares very favorably with them. In response to the added emphasis on amplification, the department added a second advanced course in hearing aids beginning the fall of 1997, which most programs in the state do not have. We obtained otoacoustic emissions equipment two years ago to address the lack of training in this area and obtained new ABR equipment just last year. Both ABR and otoacoustic emissions are used in newborn infant hearing screening which is one of the recent major changes occurring within the profession.

We have added a speech and hearing science course at the undergraduate level to improve the science background of audiology majors. The program also offers a counseling course at the graduate level that is not offered in many State programs. The actual sequence of courses and clinical experiences is generally similar to other California State Universities with the exceptions noted above, because all schools must meet the same national accreditation, state licensure standards and teacher credentialing requirements.

(3) The primary modification that the department is planning regards the change from the entry-level masters (MS) degree in audiology to a clinical doctorate (AuD). This change in entry-level degree must be initiated by 2007 and takes affect 2012. However, programs need to have course work in place by 2004 or 2005 so students can graduate in 2007 meeting minimal criteria. Masters' level practitioners initiated this change because they felt unprepared in the field. The national association (ASHA) finally adopted the new standard a couple of years ago. It remains controversial but "the law of the land."

The main problem that ALL programs in California are experiencing centers on the California Master Plan of higher education and the UC, CSU and CC systems. Only the UC is permitted to offer MD, JD and Ph.D. and other doctoral degrees. Only the CSU system offers a degree in speech pathology and audiology. As preparation for entry-level audiology becomes a doctoral level program, albeit clinical and not a research Ph.D., the CSU is still prohibited from offering such a degree. Therefore, the CSU programs in audiology must align themselves with either a public or private institution that grants doctoral degrees. UC Davis has rejected such a joint proposal from CSUS. The Chair and Dean are pursuing alternative institutions at the present time and met with the President, Vice-President for Academic Affairs, Chair of the Department of Speech Pathology and Audiology and the Department audiologist from the University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) in early March of 2001. The President and Provost of CSUS are supportive of such a joint endeavor and are supporting the dialogue between UNR and CSUS. A video conference call is scheduled for late May, 2001.

SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY:

(1) The following general trends seem to be evident in speech pathology. Dysphagia - Fiberoptic endoscopic evaluation of swallowing has become part of the standard procedures and is now listed in various funding structures. Augmentative and Alternative Communication (AAC) - In addition to assessment and therapy, speech pathologists are being required to help acquire funding. Transdisciplinary work - Individuals in the professions are being asked to work together across professions more frequently. Intervention in the classroom - rather than pull-out therapy, speech pathologists in the schools are being required to make the speech and language activities more relevant to classroom activities and to actually participate in classroom activities. Dialect reduction - With the increasing diversity in our population, there is more call for intervention to help speakers of English as a second language to communicate more easily in school and business. Language and speech for reading and writing - More and more research is showing that children who have speech and language problems will have reading and writing problems. This has produced a need for assessment and therapy in areas like phonologic awareness and central auditory processing. Aphasia therapy - Therapy is changing focus to those in the client's environment as well as the client. Fluency as a physical disorder - There is research being done to identify genetic and neurological factors as contributing to fluency disorders (i.e. stuttering). This means that some therapy approaches may be used which address physiological symptoms (such as respiratory abnormalities) rather than or in addition to psychological symptoms.

(2) Because all programs must meet the same credential, license and certification standards there is great similarity amongst all University programs in California. However, great latitude is provided in meeting these standards. Our department maintains a philosophy of providing students with experiences with multiple speech and language disorders (voice, fluency, aphasia, etc.) which is no longer required by the accrediting body and which some programs no longer provide. We believe that this is a strength of our program. We provide experiences in class and clinic for AAC, transdisciplinary work (with biomedical engineering and physical therapy), intervention in the classroom in their public school practicum, dialect reduction, reading and writing, aphasia and fluency.

We structure our program in a logical sequence that many programs do not follow, a class emphasizing a disorder before clinical practicum with a patient demonstrating these problems. For example, we have a voice class preceding a clinic with a laryngectomy or vocal nodule patient; a class in fluency before a clinic with a stutterer; a class in neurological disorders before a patient with aphasia or head trauma. In addition to the class, each clinic has a one-unit methods class to discuss patients and observe individual videotapes of students working with patients. Many programs have one class that discusses all disorders in a cursory manor and then the student receives a "grab bag" of potential patients. Transferring students into our program report our curriculum structure as a strength.

We are implementing and planning many changes in the curriculum in response to trends occurring in the profession. Endoscopic evaluation and videostroboscopy are discussed in the new dysphagia class and a grant was submitted by Dr. Laureen O'Hanlon to obtain new equipment. Sources of funding for AAC devices are discussed in SPHP 218, Motor Speech Disorders. Dementia and language is being incorporated in neurogenic language disorders, applications of technology in clinical practice is being expanded in the graduate technology class and the new (Fall 2001) undergraduate speech and hearing science class, classroom intervention is now experienced in the public school practicum, dialect reduction is expanded with a new experimental class offering for students in other majors (Fall 2001), and aphasia therapy emphasizing the client's environment is now discussed, demonstrated and performed in clinical practice.

[Back to Top]

II. Academic Programs

1. Describe learning expectations for your academic programs (undergraduate and graduate. Centers and Institutes)
   
   
1a. Specify expectations for the discipline, how these are established and communicated to students.

Please go to the Department of Speech Pathology and Audiology Portfolio

Click on Learning Goals and Assessment Plan and Curriculum Matrix.

These expectations are established both by the national accrediting body (ASHA) and the Department of Speech Pathology and Audiology. They are communicated to students in classes at both the undergraduate and graduate level and in practicum methods courses. They will also be disseminated to students in a new Student Handbook and Clinic Handbook, which will hopefully be online by summer 2001.

1b. Specify expectations for writing and reading, how these are established and communicated to students.

Reading and writing are an integral part of the program. Reading is stressed more than writing at the undergraduate level because of larger classes, of the need to demonstrate memorized material and some at the automatic level, i.e. phonetic transcription. However, integration of reading material is assessed by faculty judgment through multiple modes; essay exams, short projects, papers, and especially at the graduate level, case report writing. Most in-class exams do not downgrade for minor spelling, grammar and punctuation errors but major papers are graded in these areas and no errors are permitted in case report writing. The senior research class not only requires a research theme paper but also an oral and poster presentation. Expectations are communicated to students through an oral summary of class requirements and written expectations in the course syllabus.

1c. Specify expectations for computer/information competence, how these are established and communicated to students.

The department requires basic computer skills as a pre-and co-major requirement (see undergraduate advising manual page 6 behind the tab labeled ADVISING MANUALS). Additionally, there are both undergraduate and graduate courses that include chat rooms, on-line syllabi etc. There is a one unit graduate course in technology, which emphasizes the latest computer equipment and software for speech-language pathology and audiology. Technology expectations are based on faculty judgment and trends in the discipline. These expectations are communicated to the students through an oral summary of class requirements and written expectations in the course syllabus.


2. How is your curriculum structured (including core requirements, prerequisites, and electives) to achieve your learning expectations? Include a matrix that displays learning expectations and how courses contribute to achieving the expectations.

The prerequisites, core and elective courses are all designed to progressively develop knowledge and skills in fundamental areas prior to actual clinical experiences. These are required by the national accrediting body, American Speech-Language Hearing Association (ASHA), and also fulfill requirements of both the State licensing board (Speech Pathology and Audiology Examining Committee) and credentialing office (California Teachers Credential). Please see the tab labeled ASSESSMENT PLAN and turn to the fold out pages for a matrix that displays learning expectations and how courses contribute to achieving these expectations.

Please see the online Portfolio for a matrix of the learning goals and outcome measures or go to the ASSESSMENT PLAN and turn to page 7. Please see the tab labeled ASHA COURSE REQUIREMENTS for the ASHA accreditation matrix of course requirements in audiology and speech-language pathology.

3. What teaching strategies has your faculty found to be particularly effective in helping students achieve your learning expectations, e.g. service learning, field work, application assignments, etc.? (Include copies of course syllabi in an appendix.)

Our faculty have used multiple strategies in achieving our learning expectations. Students observe videotapes of various handicaps and pathologies at the undergraduate level. They hear simulations of hearing loss and voice problems. Students are scheduled for an observation class (SPHP 145) that provides 10 hours of videotape and discussion along with field observations. This class precedes a requirement to "shadow" a graduate student in the Maryjane Rees Language-Speech and Hearing Center for a minimum of 15 hours at the senior undergraduate level. This requires that they dress appropriately (the clinic has a dress code) and sit in the therapy room with the graduate student and patient. Ethics and confidentiality are discussed before this experience (SPHP 146).

Some new faculty are also incorporating list procs which allow students to have group discussions through e-mail, and web pages which allow students to get course information online. Also, there are multimedia presentations in courses by almost half the faculty and the speech science lab activities use Multispeech.

The graduate level has progressively more "difficult" patients along with report writing and lesson plans that build upon previous course work and observations. Methods classes provide opportunity for videotapes and discussion of clients presently seen in the clinic. Classes include role-playing, videotapes and interview transcriptions. The advanced terminal experiences are field placements in hospitals, public schools and private clinics/practice. Feedback from the supervisors provides quality checks on information and skills that students display or may need (see SURVEY: EMPLOYER).

4. Describe your department's involvement in (if any) and evaluation of distance and distributed education courses.

We have no distance education.

5. Describe your program's assessment plan. Include both assessment of student learning outcomes and surveys of graduating seniors, and graduate students and alumni.

Please see Assessment Plan and Learning Objectives on the Department of Speech Pathology andAudiology Portfolio.

6. Using assessment data, analyze the effectiveness of your program including the ability of students to meet:
1. The department's learning expectations
2. The University learning goals
3. Writing and reading standards in the major
4. Computer/information competence standards
   
   
The Department's Learning Expectations: The department assessment plan lists 10 goals that the student will successfully complete upon graduating from this program (see ASSESSMENT PLAN). It lists outcomes under each goal and outcome measures by which each goal is measured. One such area in which the Department receives data is a summative evaluation (PRAXIS examination) required for State licensing and the Certificate of Clinical Competence awarded by ASHA. We have learned that the few individuals who have failed the speech pathology and audiology PRAXIS during the last two years, tend to have English as a second language. For example, during the last three years 25 students have taken the PRAXIS. Twenty-two passed (88%) and three failed (12%). Of the three who failed two had English as a second language, with Hindi and Serbo-Croatian as the first language. We attempt to intervene with ESL students to improve their pass rate. Based upon all of the formative and summative measures, the department is very effective in educating speech-language pathologists and audiologists.


The University Learning Goals: The University lists six specific expectations of undergraduate learning: 1.) Competence in the discipline, 2.) Analysis and problem solving, 3.) Communication, 4.) Information competence, 5.) Cultural legacies and 6.) Values and pluralism.

1.) The program of study in speech pathology and audiology is very structured as observed in ADVISING MANUALS. Knowledge and skills obtained in the junior year are fundamental for courses at the senior year and beyond. Formative evaluation includes integration of material in case studies. Competence is evaluated both in summative course examinations and documentation of clinical behaviors in test administration, scoring and interpretation.

2.) Analysis is incorporated into all of the clinical preparation courses such as aural rehabilitation, phonology, voice disorders etc. Case presentations are discussed which require analysis of complex issues and appropriate recommendations. Diagnosis and solving speech and hearing problems are an integral part of most courses. Specific tests are taught which purport to show the effectiveness of therapeutic intervention strategies.

3.) The ability to read, write, speak and listen is emphasized in the department. Students must demonstrate knowledge and skills in the assessment and treatment of speech and hearing disorders. They write papers, and in the research class write a poster session and present it orally to the class. All students take at least one semester of sign language and are permitted to use it to fulfill their language requirement when three semesters are completed.

4.) Information competence is utilized at a more basic level with undergraduate students. Library research is required as is basic word processing and use of the internet. It is in the graduate program that a course is offered with specific reference to speech pathology and audiology majors (see course syllabi for SPHP 224).

5.) Cultural legacies are emphasized in specific courses such as SPHP 143 (multicultural language disorders) and deaf culture in SPHP 132 (aural rehabilitation) and differences in articulation (SPHP 110, phonetics) amongst various groups and dialects. Different cultural emphases are discussed for the aged population and modifications necessary to test nonverbal patients and those with differing backgrounds.

6.) Values and pluralism are taught in specific undergraduate courses such as SPHP 120 (introduction to language-speech and hearing disorders) and SPHP 146 (introduction to clinic). Ethics is also integrated into graduate speech pathology courses (SPHP 221 neurogenic language disorders, 224 technology and 227 dysphagia) and audiology courses (SPHP 248A methods audiology, see course syllabi).

Writing and Reading Standards in the Major: Assessment data for writing and reading is primarily imbedded in formative tests at the undergraduate level. Most classes have essay examinations, some have papers (such as SPHP 137) and SPHP 148 (Research) includes a paper, poster session and oral presentation. Dr. Boles even has a section on "Reading, Conducting and Writing Research." However, the primary writing emphasis is at the graduate level when client case reports and diagnostic evaluations must be written on each patient. These can range from one page diagnostic summaries to ten page summaries of semester therapy. Writing also includes letters of consent, letters to teachers and parents, letters regarding individualized educational plans to the schools and letters to physicians. Students who cannot write these reports and letters will not pass the respective methods class or clinic and will not graduate. Writing is simply an integral part of the graduate clinical program. Our students are very successful at this task as evidenced by employer survey, student survey and grades awarded students at the graduate level.

Computer/Information Competence Standards: The undergraduate advising manual states on page 6 that competency in computer skills in word processing and general familiarity with computers is needed. This may be met with course or general experience. Department specific skills are taught and assessed in SPHP 224: Technology for Speech Pathology and Audiology. This course develops "knowledge of the available technology for evaluation and treatment of speech, language and hearing disorders, for professional needs, and for research use in speech pathology and audiology." It also develops skills in "the use of different software programs, internet sources, and other technology for the evaluation and treatment of speech, language and hearing disorders, professional needs, and for research use in speech pathology and audiology." Ethical issues and computer technology is only minimally addressed in present courses. It will be added to future courses. Other graduate courses include computer technology specific to hearing aids, phonetics, augmentative and alternative communication devices, voice and the hearing impaired.

7. Describe how your department maintains consistency in multiple sections of courses.

The department does not have multiple section courses. We do, however, have certain clinics under the supervision of two or more part-time faculty. Consistency in this case is maintained by:

1. One methods class with one professor for all students no matter who their supervisor may be.
2. Instruction and orientation by the clinic coordinator of all new part-time employees.
3. Part-time employees tend to be our former students.
4. Student evaluation forms and report writing format is the same for any particular clinic.

8. Discuss changes needed to enhance or improve the effectiveness of your academic program outcomes.

The Department has just completed several course change proposals to take effect Fall 2001 that should enhance program effectiveness. Based upon student and faculty input, we moved the counseling course from the undergraduate to graduate level so students could apply counseling principles and discuss problems related to their patients in the language-speech and hearing clinic.

The acoustic phonetics course was previously only required for speech pathology majors. It was moved to the undergraduate level and renamed speech and hearing sciences to better describe the new content areas and expanded requirement for both speech pathology and audiology majors. Speech acoustics is an important area for audiologists, especially in hearing aids, and this material is an excellent prerequisite for graduate students prior to their amplification courses.

The Department dropped the services and practices course that had major emphasis in the discussion of ethics and the ASHA code of ethics. This content was distributed to four classes in speech-language pathology (SPHP 146, SPHP 221, SPHP 224 and SPHP 227) and to one primary methods class in audiology (SPHP 248A). The one unit was "given" to neurogenic language disorders. This class went from 3 to 4 units, which enables it to cover expanding areas in the profession not previously taught and to expand other previously covered areas with more clinical examples and theory.

The curriculum committee is reviewing other potential changes while closely monitoring unit requirements for graduation. The faculty have ongoing discussions and advisory committee input regarding academic and clinical experiences and ways to enhance the program to maintain currency in the field.

The major program development is the change from a masters to a clinical doctorate in audiology (AuD). This is required by 2007. Because the CSU system cannot grant a doctorate, we must align ourselves with a doctoral granting institution. A tentative four-year curriculum was devised but will await further modification until a companion institution agrees to work cooperatively with CSUS and the Department of Speech Pathology and Audiology. University of California, Davis rejected the concept because of money (the medical school was not going to be reimbursed any money from Arts and Sciences from the student's three quarter residency requirement) and philosophy (some medical doctors did not want audiologists to be "doctors"). University of the Pacific will not initiate a joint program because of cost. Alternatives are being pursued. (See I.C.3.)

9. Does your department and its programs offer General Education and/or Services courses? No

[Back to Top]

III. Students

A. Student Profile

1. Enrollment patterns

Because the Department has control of program size at the graduate level, there is less fluctuation in student enrollment than at the undergraduate level. The majority of undergraduate students transfer from the community college and the Department has little control over this population. According to the Office of Institutional Research, graduate enrollment has ranged from a high of 72 in Fall 1996 to a low of 58 in 1997 and 2000, a range of 14 students. At the undergraduate level, enrollment has ranged from 158 in 1996 to a low of 87 in 2000, a range of 71 students (see tab labeled DEMOGRAPHICS. The graduate pattern is predictable but the undergraduate is not.

2. Gender and ethnic composition

We tend to characterize our Department as white female. Indeed, the Office of Institutional Research supports this generalization. At the undergraduate level the Program is 94% women while the College and University are 62% and 56% respectively. Although the ethnic mix is heavily white (54%), the Program is closer to the rest of the College and University in American Indian (2%), Asian (14%), Hispanic (10%) and other (15%). The only category that appears somewhat low is African American at 4% (DEMOGRAPHICS).

At the graduate level, the Program remains heavily female (90%) compared to the College (78%) and University (64%). The white category increases to 78% (compared to 54% at the undergraduate level), and the number of Asian (7%) and other (12%) is consistent with College and University norms. However, there are no American Indian or African American students and the percentage of Hispanic (3%) is much lower than the College (12%) or University (9%) as a whole. It should be noted that during this period we have had some students that we would characterize as African American but they must have either not responded or classified themselves as Other.

We have had a steady decline of males regardless of ethnicity according to the Office of Institutional Research. The Program had a high of 19 males in 1997 to a low of 8 in 2000. In fact, of the 19 males in 1997 only 9 were white and of the 8 males in 2000 only 3 were white. It is a unique position to have so few white males. Indeed, we treat all males, including white, as an underrepresented population in the Department (DEMOGRAPHICS).

3. Retention and graduation rates

First time freshman and undergraduate transfers in the Major have about a.10 poorer 1-year retention and 5-year retention compared to the University. The difference is about the same for graduation rates with the Program being poorer than the University by about.10 for the undergraduate transfers (DEMOGRAPHICS).

4. Part and full-time enrollments

There is a greater percentage of graduate students who attend full-time (85%) compared to undergraduate students (78%). This may be because the Department has more assistance available for graduate students and/or a greater number save and take out loans so that they can complete the graduate program in two years.

5. "Native" and transfer students

The data are very difficult to compare because the vast majority of our majors transfer from community colleges. For example, in the Fall of 1999, we had 1 student who graduated within the major who was a first-time freshmen in the Program compared to 23 transfers. That is the major reason why predicting junior class size is so difficult.

B. Student Academic Performance

1. Grading Distribution - Percent "A" for upper division undergraduate students (U) and graduate students (G) in speech pathology and audiology compared to College of Health and
Human Services (C).

In comparing College upper division undergraduate students to Department students, the figures remain about the same (plus or minus 5%) through fall 1999. Beginning fall of 1999, Department distribution is about 15% higher than the College of Health and Human Services, CSUS (DEMOGRAPHICS). There are two possible and intertwining explanations: the addition of three new faculty members beginning Fall semester 1999 who may have a different testing and grading approach, and the addition of the counseling class taught by departmental faculty rather than those in social work. The counseling class historically has higher grades and these were not averaged into department means until the fall of 1999.

In comparing Department graduate students to College graduate students, there is generally about 20% more "A's" given in the department than in the College until Fall Semester 1999. During fall 1999 a dramatic increase in "A's" was observed with an equally dramatic decrease during Spring Semester 2000. There is no data yet to conclude whether these figures will remain volatile or stabilize at about the same historic 20% difference or increase, as was the case in upper division courses. It should also be noted that: we have no data comparing grades to other comparable programs in California, calibration of grading between old and new faculty occurs over time, and we don't know that with the lower enrollments the last two years if there may have been a possible "preselection" with only the stronger students enrolling. Students know that they cannot get into the graduate program without a 3.0 GPA (usually higher) and they can't get into the profession without a graduate degree. Pretty good motivation for high grades!

2. GPA's

The overall GPA for upper division students tends to improve in the senior year (3.0) compared to the junior year (2.95). The graduate GPA means ranges from 3.28 to 3.44 from 1996 to 2000. Much of the GPA is "dictated" by our graduate admission criteria. A student must have a minimum of 2.75 overall GPA and 3.0 in the major to even apply to the graduate school. Because we can only accept about 12 students per semester and we routinely have around 40 applications, that means competition is present for the available openings, which is a motivating factor or improved grades. Additionally, one must maintain a minimum of 3.0 at the graduate level to remain a student. It is interesting to note that some students are listed as having a 2.90 or below at the graduate level when one cannot remain in or graduate from the graduate program without at least a 3.0 GPA.

3. Students on probation

Because the program requires high GPA's to be admitted into the graduate program and a master's degree in order to be certified and licensed, we tend to preselect those students who are more highly motivated and goal oriented. The probation and disqualification data from the Office of Institutional Research seems to support this assumption. We tend to have minimal disqualifications and probationary students. From Fall 1996 to 2000, the total percentage of probationary (PR) and disqualified (DQ) students including all four years of undergraduate and two years at the graduate level ranged from 2.4 to 6.2 (PR) and.5 to 2.7 (DQ) respectively. The University as a whole ranged from 6.8 to 12.3 for probationary students and 3.3 to 4.7 for disqualification (DEMOGRAPHICS).

4. WPE Pass rates

For data available in 1998 and 1999, our transfer students are either much higher than the College or University (90% compared to 67% and 69% respectively), or on par (64%, 65% and 65% respectively). The pass rate for Native students in the Department has ranged from 100% to 50% over the last two years while the College and University pass rates for Native students has remained at about 75%. Clearly, there is not a pass rate trend in the two-year data for Native students in the Department of Speech Pathology and Audiology.

5. Preparation for upper division/graduate coursework

The majority of our students enter the major at the junior level. They have completed the basic general education requirements before entering CSUS. Most students take the following five courses either in preparation for upper division or concurrent with the junior or senior year; human development, computer skills, linguistics, statistics and manual communication.

C. Student Academic Support

1. Describe how the department provides academic and career advising. Are faculty and students satisfied that the advising needs of students are met? (Data from SNAPS and Program Assessment Questionnaire). If data indicate a need for response describe your action plans.

The department assigns each new undergraduate student at the junior level a faculty advisor from among all full-time tenure track faculty. The department chair is available on a drop-in basis, by telephone and by e-mail to answer all immediate questions and to plan programs, especially during the summer. At the graduate level, the graduate coordinator is faculty advisor for all graduate speech pathology majors and the chair is advisor for all audiology majors. Students are allowed to retain the same advisor at the graduate level as they had at the undergraduate level if they request.

Career advising is limited to further explanation and experience in the major work settings of speech pathologists and audiologists; schools, hospitals, doctor's offices and private practice.

Students appear to be "neutral" regarding their advising experiences as reported from the Office of Institutional Studies, although the 3.66 is higher than CSUS as a whole (see tab labeled OUTCOMES). The neutral response may be because we distribute an undergraduate-advising manual (ADVISING MANUALS) to all students and the fact that they enter our major with a generally clear understanding of where they are going. According to a survey reported by the Office of Institutional Studies (OIS), 74% of the students felt the undergraduate and graduate advising manuals provided appropriate program planning assistance. Our students tend to be very goal oriented and know by the junior year the profession they want and how to get there.

2. What support does your department provide for students in need of extra assistance? To what extent are your faculty and students satisfied with the support available at the department level: At the University level? If your analysis reveals a need for changes, describe plans.

Undergraduate students have tutors provided in two classes: introduction to audiology and anatomy and physiology of the speech mechanism. Additionally, if assistance is requested in other classes, the department will assign one of the TA's from the two aforementioned classes to give individual help in other areas. The faculty are always available during office hours and for extra assistance as supported by OIS stating that on a scale of 5, 4.02 of the students felt that most faculty were readily available to students outside class time (see OUTCOMES, FACULTY, SNAPS and PHONE POLL).

D. Student Professional Development

1. What opportunities does your department provide to socialize students into the discipline or provide them with professional opportunities?

The Department provides socializing opportunities and supports the student organization for
pre-professional opportunities and experiences. The National Student Speech Language Hearing Association (NSSLHA) has a local chapter with officers which appears to be much more active at the upper division undergraduate level than at the graduate level. There are "pizza and pop" parties sponsored by NSSLHA, and a Department sponsored "pizza orientation" of first semester junior students in September, a Christmas Party pot-luck lunch in the speech and hearing clinic during finals week and a May "tea" for graduate speech pathology students to meet their future master clinician for the public school practicum experience.

Undergraduate students have two primary classes: an observation class (SPHP 145) in which a minimum of 10 hours of observation of different pathologies and therapies is presented along with commentary by the faculty member, and introduction to clinic (SPHP 146) in which students spend about 10-15 hours as a "buddy" with a graduate clinician. During these 10-15 hours, the undergraduate student shadows the graduate student in obtaining therapy materials, watches as they develop and write lesson plans, sit in on therapy and parent conferences, and generally get the "feel" of what it will be like as a graduate student working with "real" patients. Additionally, many other classes also have videotapes of clients, pathologies and therapy to illustrate concepts taught in class (i.e. child language, stuttering, aural rehabilitation and voice disorders).

Graduate students are required to obtain a minimum of 350 supervised clinical clock hours in a minimum of three different settings. Most of our students acquire over 400 hours. The entire graduate program stresses clinical experience and expertise at graded levels of complexity. The graduate experience terminates in field placements where therapy and diagnostics are provided with a minimum of supervision with stress placed upon independence (see SURVEY: CLIENT and SURVEY: STUDENT).

[Back to Top]

IV. Faculty

A. Faculty Profile

Please find faculty vita information in the Department of Speech Pathology and Audiology Portfolio. You may access this information by clickin on the Teaching and Learning tab.

B. Assess faculty profile for the ability to offer the curriculum and to sup-port program goals. Describe plans for addressing any identified issues.

The program presently has three FERPers (Faculty Early Retirement Program); one in audiology, one in speech science and one clinical speech-language pathology supervisor. The three new faculty hired in the fall of 1999 complement the two speech pathology FERPers and with part-time faculty as supervisors, the Department can meet national certification standards and program goals. However, it is becoming increasingly more difficulty to hire part-time supervisors because of the "tight" job market. That is one reason why the department will hire a second full-time staff speech-language pathologist rather than an academic faculty position when the clinical supervisor completes her FERP in four years.

The department can only minimally offer the MS in audiology. The chair of the department is one of three audiologists and he has reduced teaching and supervision because of administrative responsibilities; one audiologist is FERPing and teaches courses that only he is qualified to teach and has no extra time to supervise; that leaves one full-time audiologist for teaching and supervision. We have relied upon many part-time supervisors during fall 2000 and spring 2001 which have been difficult to hire because of the very tight job market in audiology. Using part-time faculty makes it difficult to maintain consistency among all of the supervisors. The main goal of the audiology program is the transition to the clinical doctorate of audiology (AuD). This will require three full-time Ph.D. audiologists, one full-time,
twelve-month staff audiologist, and a minimum of three units of release to administer the joint doctor program. We have about 3 and ½ years in which to have this program "up and running" in order to graduate those entering in 2005 with the new standards, which take effect on January 1, 2007.

C. Faculty as teachers:

1. Analyze data available form the College Outcomes Survey (COS) and Program Assessment Questionnaire (PAQ) to identify any issues that need action. Describe plans for addressing issues. Letters a - c support faculty as good and dedicated teachers and a program that is meeting its goals.

a.There were five areas that scored 70% or higher in very satisfied or satisfied: level of preparation provided by coursework in various graduate therapy clinics (76%), responsiveness of major professors to student questions and concerns (77%), appropriateness of grading policies of major courses (86%), level of interest major professors took in you and fellow majors (78%), and supportiveness of graduate clinic supervisors (OUTCOMES).

b.There were six areas that scored 70% or higher in exceptionally well, more than adequately and adequately categories: How well did the curriculum in your program provide you with broad knowledge of theories and principles in the discipline? (76%), How well did the curriculum in your program provide you with communication skills required in the discipline? (99%), How well did the curriculum in your program provide you with research skills required in the discipline? (85%), How well did the curriculum in your program provide you with problem solving skills in a broad range of situations? (90%), How well did the curriculum in your program provide you with understanding of the methods and practices of the profession? (88%), and How well did the curriculum in your program provide you with needed technical skills? (84%).

c.Eighty six percent (86%) of the students surveyed would definitely or probably recommend the CSUS program to other students interested in speech pathology or audiology.

d.The only category that fell below 70% when looking only at very satisfied and satisfied was the preparation for report writing and therapy applications provided by the undergraduate introduction to clinic course (62%). Twelve per cent (12%) were neutral and fourteen percent (14%) were dissatisfied. It is unclear how many years these responses represent and therefore it is difficult to evaluate any particular instructor. The information will be presented to the present instructor for class preparation next fall.

2. Describe how the faculty are involved in professional development activities to improve and enhance their teaching effectiveness.

Please refer to faculty vita, which may be found in the Department portfolio on the web. All of our faculty attend continuing education at state and national conventions. They have attended short courses, scientific papers and poster sessions. Many have presented at conventions, and, indeed, are "experts" in their field. Four faculty are actively engaged in research and have had books or articles published within the last two years.

3. To what extent are faculty using "best practice" in their roles as teachers? How are faculty offering students a variety of learning experiences to address the diversity of student learning styles? (see COS data).

Please see IV.C.1.a for comments on faculty. Faculty use a variety of learning experiences, for example: web pages, e-mail, video tapes, audio tapes, power point, overheads, small group discussion, straight lecture, observations in clinic and off campus, and the applied communication science lab (ACSL) which provides students the opportunity to participate in faculty research.

4. Comment on your faculty's innovations in pedagogy and their knowledge of current trends in their academic specialties.

The alumni outcomes survey generally attests to the diversity of teaching strategies and the wealth of information provided by our faculty. The primary weakness reported (by one person?) was the lack of business aspects in private practice. Multimedia to the "older" faculty is overhead projector, videotape and audiotape presentations. For the "newer" faculty, power point is added along with web pages,
e-mail and chat rooms. Also, two new faculty have begun the applied communication science lab (ACSL), which emphasizes research opportunities for students who work alongside faculty in developing and conducting various research projects.

5. Describe the department's process for evaluating teaching effectiveness (in the major and in general education offerings). How are data used to enhance or improve teaching?

Please see tab labeled EVALUATION FORMS for a copy of the teacher and supervisor evaluation form. All new faculty have two visits by full-professor, tenured faculty to evaluate teaching and teaching effectiveness, and tenured faculty have post-tenure review every five years. The report is reviewed by the department chair and discussed with the faculty member if any areas need to be addressed according to student or faculty input. The department offers no general education classes.

D. Faculty as Scholars

1. Describe the department's specific expectations for scholarly, creative activities.

The ARTP document lists the following as examples of some of the evidence that might be used under scholarly or creative achievements: accomplishments in research and/or creative projects, publication of articles, books, reviews, and research papers, unpublished manuscripts, membership and appropriate participation in activities of professional organizations, presentation of professional lectures, continued learning, products of consultantships of a professional nature.

2. Describe scholarly and creative activities of faculty in the last six years (vita).

Please see web portfolio for individual faculty achievements. In summary, our faculty have been very active: at least four book publications, numerous articles published, countless workshops and short courses presented, professional involvement in the local, state and national speech-language, hearing associations, grants submitted, consultantships and international travel with students.

3. Analyze the extent to which the faculty meet the department's expectations for scholarly/creative activities. Identify issues in need of improvement and describe action plans.

The faculty in congregate meet the department's expectations for scholarly and creative activity. Of course, some faculty have evidence in all categories while others have documented evidence in one or two categories. Three faculty applied for the recent Scholarly and Creative Achievement Award, in fact one faculty member submitted two proposals. The Department is trying to be creative in creating release time (3 units) for research activities. Perhaps the weakest area has been in research and publication. We have mixed feelings in this area. The "older" faculty were hired with a clear understanding that teaching should be paramount. Scholarly activities were defined more loosely and no pressure was felt to publish or perish. Unfortunately, the "newer" faculty have much higher expectations to publish but WITHOUT University financial support or release time or reduced teaching loads that are required for good, consistent research productivity. Until the University can adequately support such expectations we feel that this desire for research is counterproductive and unreasonable.

E. Faculty Service to the University and Community.

1. Describe faculty involvement in service to the University and Community in the last six years.

Please see vita in web portfolio. In summary, the faculty have been very involved in Department, College and University committees. The "newer" faculty have been very productive in Departmental committees and those within the College of Health and Human Services, CSUS. The "older" faculty have extended this involvement into University activities as well. All of the faculty have community involvement either through paid or unpaid consultantships, workshops, supervising interns and membership on community boards.

2. Analyze the extent to which the faculty meet the department's expectations for service. Identify issues in need of improvement and describe action plans.

All of the faculty meet department expectations for service to the University and Community. Please see web portfolio.

[Back to Top]

V. Governance Process at the Program, College and University Levels

[Back to Top]

VI. Institutional Support/Resources

[Back to Top]