ST. CATHARINE COLLEGE
ACADEMIC PLANNING & ASSESSMENT COLLOQUIUM
2014
2014 APAC Planning/Assessment Functions:
2013-14 – review of program assessments
2014-15 – actions items as a result of review and
budget adjustments for current year
2015-16 – new budget requests
SECTION I:
PROGRAM IDENTIFICATION
Sonography
Academic Department:
Degree Program:
Program Level (all that apply):
Associate of Science, Diagnostic Sonography
Associate
Separate Program Accreditations:
CAAHEP (on recommendation of JRC-DMS)
Date of last accreditation review(s):
September 2011
Status:
10 year continuing to 2021
Assigned Full-Time and Part-Time Faculty (Do not list adjunct.):
Erin Burns, Monnica Williams, Saretta Craft, Leah Tupts
Faculty participating in this APAC review:
Erin Burns, Monnica Williams, Saretta Craft
August 7, 2014
Date Completed
Saretta Craft
Saretta Craft
Chair’s Signature
Program Coordinator’s Signature
SECTION II:
PROGRAM DEMOGRAPHIC DATA
ASSOCIATE LEVEL
*Students declared in major
Fall
Spring
**Students graduating in major
(summer, fall, spring)
Average GPA of Graduate
***Retention Data (fall to fall)
2013-14
2012-13
2010-11
2009-10
34
34
69
67
57
15
3.33
16
Data
15
Data
Data
Data
32%
Notes
2013-14 numbers corrected to reflect only those students currently enrolled in the
program; excluded are those designated as ‘pre’ sonography majors.
16
Corrected from 17 to 16 due to death of student.
3.58
69%
Notes
Will need to be recalculated based on the revised data. 100% from fall 2013 1st yr
students continuing to fall 2014.
*Based on CPE Fall and Spring enrollment report as of Colleges census date.
**Based on CPE Degrees Conferred Report as of July 1. Some anticipated graduates, due to incompletes, may not be certified for graduation by this date.
***Based on CPE Fall to Fall enrollment comparisons. Data is program specific, does not reflect institution-wide retention of students.
Data below reflects standardized tests, licensure exams, etc. designated as assessment within the program.
Note: If no data is included, there is no record of it in the IR&E office. If this data is maintained within the department or program, please complete the table.
2013-14
2012-13
2011-12
2010-11
2009-10
Notes
Name of Exam: RDMS (AB)
Students Eligible
6
Students Attempting
1
Students Passing
1
6
0
0-N/A
6
Attempting
Passing
6
4
4
6
2
2
Notes
Notes
Notes
Per JRCDMS guidelines this data will be updated/confirmed June 2015.
Name of Exam: RDMS (OB)
Students Eligible
6
Students Attempting
6
Students Passing
6
6
4
4
6
Attempting
Passing
6
3
3
6
3
3
Notes
Notes
All students attempted/passed; data will not change.
Name of Exam: RVT
Students Eligible
Students Attempting
Students Passing
4
3
1
5
Attempting
Passing
3
2
2
4
2
2
Notes
Notes
All students attempted/passed; data will not change.
4
4
4
Name of Exam: RDCS
Students Eligible
6
6
5
5
5
Notes
Students Attempting
6
5
Attempting 5
5
Notes
Students Passing
5
5
Passing
5
5
Per JRCDMS guidelines this data will be updated/confirmed June 2015.
Comments on Program Demographic and Common Survey Data (enrollment, retention, graduates, etc.):
It should be noted that certification (earning a credential of RDMS (AB)(OB), RVT or RDCS) is voluntary. JRCDMS requires 60% success rate for those attempting
these certifying examinations. Also of note, students are now eligible to attempt all exams prior to May graduation. Exceptional performance by this class.
COMMON SURVEY DATA
2014
Positive Responses
2013
Positive Responses
2012
Positive Responses
2011
Positive Responses
Q77. Overall, has your college education at SCC improved the
85%
81%
99%
98%
quality of your life?
Q31. …Did SCC prepare you for continuing your education…
Q93/94. My overall undergraduate experience at SCC…
88%
75%
89%
83%
88%
83%
85%
85%
Graduating Student Survey
Indicate how often SCC faculty and staff have:
Q33. Assisted in defining and achieving your professional goals.
Q34. Intellectually challenged and stimulated you.
Q35. Provided learning opportunities outside the classroom.
Q40. Demonstrated the value of lifelong learning through
2014
Often
2013
2012
2014
Occasionally
2013
2012
2011
2011
54%
56%
41%
53%
58%
45%
61%
61%
41%
57%
63%
45%
37%
37%
39%
37%
35%
38%
29%
32%
43%
37%
26%
40%
31%
46%
43%
39%
43%
43%
40%
44%
reading, writing, research or personal academic engagement.
Graduating Student Survey
Q9. After graduation, I plan to:
--Continue my education at SCC.
--Continue my education at another institution.
--Work full time in a related field.
-- Work full time in an unrelated field.
-- No plans yet.
2014
13%
25%
52%
5%
7%
Q10. The highest degree I plan to complete is:
--Associate’s Degree (AA, AAS, or AS).
--Bachelor’s Degree (BA, BS, BSN…).
--Master’s Degree (MA, MBA, MS…).
--Doctoral or Professional Degree (PhD, MD, DVM, JD…).
--Vocational Certificate.
2014
8%
53%
29%
10%
0%
2013
19%
18%
55%
3%
6%
2012
15%
14%
63%
3%
6%
2011
13%
12%
64%
3%
8%
2010
9%
18%
66%
2%
7%
2013
15%
51%
23%
12%
0%
2012
14%
43%
35%
8%
0%
2011
23%
39%
32%
6%
0%
2010
15%
54%
27%
6%
0%
Does the program collect data or information regarding employment of interns/graduates/alumni to report? Yes, this is part of our JRC-DMS annual report. Of the 2013 graduates, as reported, 81%
have achieved positive placement. This means that 13 of the 16 graduates are employed directly in their field, are continuing a higher degree or have entered military service, all of which are accepted
parameters of JRCDMS. For the 2014 graduates, at time of this report in August 2014, 81% (3 of 16) have gained employment in their fields. JRCDMS permits 1 year for us to report on employment
data for our graduates so this will be updated next year.
SECTION III:
GENERAL EDUCATION (CORE) DATA
Year
CAAP (Collegiate Assessment of Academic Proficiency) DATA:
Means
Writing Math Reading Critical Thinking
Science
2009-10
n = 99
Program Mean
SCC Mean
SCC Standard Dev
Nat'l Mean 4 yr. college
National Standard Dev
62.1
60.9
4.4
64.1
4.7
54.9
55.1
3.0
58.5
4.1
60.6
59.6
4.3
62.5
5.2
60.3
59.5
5.5
62.0
5.4
58.9
58.8
3.5
61.7
4.5
2010-11
n = 119
Program Mean
SCC Mean
SCC Standard Dev
Nat'l Mean 4 yr. college
National Standard Dev
Program Mean
Program Mean
SCC Mean
SCC Standard Dev
Nat'l Mean 4 yr. college
National Standard Dev
Program Mean
Program Mean
SCC Mean
SC Standard Dev
SCC
Nat’l Mean 4 yr. college
National Standard Dev
62.7
60.9
4.4
64.1
4.7
55.5
55.1
3.0
58.5
4.1
61.1
59.6
4.3
62.5
5.2
61.9
59.5
5.5
62.0
5.4
59.7
58.8
3.5
61.7
4.5
64
61.9
4.3
63.6
5.0
55
54.8
3.0
58.5
4.2
62.8
60.3
5.1
61.9
4.7
60.7
60.7
4.9
60.6
5.6
61.6
59.2
3.85
61.2
4.9
64
61.5
4.9
62.7
5.2
54.6
54.2
3.4
56.5
4.1
61.5
59.4
5.8
61.3
5.7
60.5
59.8
5.1
62.8
5.7
60.3
58.3
4.2
60.4
4.7
Program Mean
SCC Mean
SC Standard Dev
SCC
Nat’l Mean 4 yr. college
National Standard Dev
63.8
60.7
4.5
63.1
5.2
54.3
55.2
3.4
58.6
4.3
65
58.7
4.3
61.6
5.7
63.4
58.5
5.2
59.8
5.5
60.6
58.1
3.7
61.1
5.1
008-09
2011-12
n = 155
008-09
2012-13
n=146
2013-14
n=158
Other general education assessments used by the program (if applicable):
No other assessments of general education used by the program.
GENERAL EDUCATION (CORE STUDIES) SURVEY DATA (excerpts from the Graduating Student Survey):
SCC Graduate Responses to the question: “Indicate to what extent you believe your knowledge or abilities (in theses areas) have improved while at SCC”
Strongly Agree, Agree, Disagree, Strongly Disagree, Not Sure
Positive rating includes combined percent responses of Strongly Agree and Agree. Negative rating includes combined percent responses of Disagree and Strongly Disagree
2014
COMMUNICATION
*Writing Skills
*Public Speaking Skills
Interpersonal Skills
2013
Negative
12%
7%
2012
Positive
Negative
83%
14%
86%
10%
Positive
86%
96%
2011
Negative
14%
4%
2010
Positive
Negative
96%
2%
93%
5%
n/a
n/a
Positive
88%
89%
Negative
10%
9%
Positive
84%
88%
85%
87%
11%
10%
76%
85%
17%
9%
81%
92%
18%
6%
86%
93%
14%
8%
80%
89%
n/a
14%
9%
n/a
95%
58%
3%
38%
87%
66%
7%
27%
88%
69%
8%
23%
95%
65%
5%
35%
99%
75%
1%
20%
77%
87%
19%
9%
75%
84%
19%
11%
81%
88%
15%
8%
76%
93%
24%
7%
93%
93%
7%
6%
92%
9%
83%
11%
92%
6%
90%
10%
92%
5%
INFORMATION LITERACY
*Computer Skills
Evaluating information from multiple sources
General Knowledge
REASONING
Analytical and Problem solving skills
Ability to think critically
Mathematical Skills
CULTURAL COMPETENCY
Knowledge of people of different races or cultures
Ability to get along with people of different races or cultures
INDIVIDUAL COMPETENCY
Leadership abilities
Identifying personal strengths & weaknesses
Understanding of problems facing your community
Understanding of problems facing our nation
Narrative analysis of General Education (CORE STUDIES) performance by program graduates. Please comment on required areas of Writing, Reading, and Critical Thinking from
the CAAP exam, optional areas of Math and Science should be included in comments if used for program assessment. Address any particular strengths, weaknesses, lessons
learned, or potential needs for the program and its performance as suggested by data.
CORE STUDIES NARRATIVE: Compared with 2013 data, our students’ scores in writing were minimally decreased (0.2). The program mean exceeded the SCC mean and the
national mean 4 yr by several points. Our students’’ scores in both reading and critical thinking exceeded 2013 program mean, 2014 SCC mean and national mean of 4 yr college.
While we are pleased with these data, we will be interested to see any effect on future evaluations from our intended increase in technology use in AY2014-15.
SECTION IV:
STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOMES
Note: Student Learning Outcomes are to be expressed for every degree program. Each degree program should have three to five clearly defined and measurable outcomes.
STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOME 1: Students will demonstrate entry-level knowledge in concentration-specific material (vascular, cardiac, general sonography).
Indicator 1:
Instrument/Performance Standard
Measurement/Data
Final grade in all first semester DSP concentrationspecific courses.
83% of students will attain the threshold score to progress
in the program.
100% achieved the threshold (18 of 18 students). Note:
this is the first time in the history of this program.
Indicator 2:
Instrument/Performance Standard
Measurement/Data
Mock registry score in concentration-specific DSP
seminar courses
50% of students will score at or above 85% on the mock
registry exam. (These are felt to be an indicator of
anticipated performance on the national certifying
exams.)
Vascular: 100% (4 of 4)
Cardiac: 83% (5 of 6)
General 100% AB (6 of 6) 100% OB (4 of 6)
Indicator 3:
70%
Observation and written tests
National certifying exams in their concentration-specific
area.
60% of graduates will pass this exam within one year of
graduation.
This data reflects the 2013 graduating class as this allows
a one year period for data collection consistent with the
time interval assessed by JRC-DMS for programmatic
accreditation. JRC-DMS assesses each concentration
individually, hence the format below. The AB & OB is
combined as they represent the general track. Taken as a
whole program, 64% attained the threshold. NOTE: the
data is reporting on those who attempted both exams for a
credential; not the pass rate.
Vascular: 1of 4 (25%)
Cardiac: 5 of 6 (83%)
General AB/OB together 4of 6 (67%)
STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOME 2: Students will demonstrate entry-level knowledge of Sonography Principles and Instrumentation (SPI).
Indicator 1:
Instrument/Performance Standard
Measurement/Data
Final grade in DSP 225.
50% of students will achieve a final grade of 85% or
higher.
72% (13 of 18 of fall 2013 students) met the benchmark.
Indicator 2:
Instrument/Performance Standard
Measurement/Data
ARDMS Sonography principles and instrumentation
(SPI) exam.
60% of graduates will pass this exam within one year of
graduation .
To date 88% have achieved this benchmark.
STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOME 3: Students will demonstrate entry-level clinical skills.
Indicator 1:
Instrument/Performance Standard
Measurement/Data
Clinical Module
100% of students will achieve a final grade of 85% or
higher.
100% (16 of 16 students) attained the threshold score.
(This SLO reflects May 2014 graduates.)
Indicator 2:
Instrument/Performance Standard
Measurement/Data
Required scan proficiencies
100% required to graduate
100% threshold met.
Indicator 3:
Instrument/Performance Standard
Measurement/Data
Job placement
80%
81% (13 of 16) Threshold met
Indicator 4:
Instrument/Performance Standard
Measurement/Data
Overall Rating of graduate (Employer Survey)
100% Overall Rating of 4 on a scale of 1 – 5
100% threshold met
(Includes: cognitive, psychomotor & affective domains)
Comments on Student Learning Outcomes (possible actions for improvement if needed, adjustments to the measures used to evaluate, etc.):
Student learning outcome 1, indicator 3: Of May 2013 vascular graduates (4), 3 attempted, 1passed the vascular technology exam. We note that this is the only part of four student
learning outcomes in which the threshold was not met. The track coordinator notes that the following class (2014 graduates) have all passed this exam without any modifications to
the class material/methods. All other SLO’s met or exceeded thresholds.
rl³
STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOME : READING HABITS
Students will exhibit a habit of reading which will:
Demonstrate a value for reading, stimulating a broader external awareness.
Demonstrate a value for reading, stimulating a deeper internal reflection.
Internalize the benefits and pleasures found through reading professionally.
Internalize the benefits and pleasures found through reading recreationally.
SECTION V:
rl³ : read to learn. read to lead. read to live.
rl³
STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOME 1: READING SKILLS
Students will demonstrate skill in reading literary narrative and informational (content)
passages in the following manner:
Identify or infer the main idea, central point, purpose, and perspective of a passage.
Differentiate between events and details of significance and those of lesser or minor importance.
Understand relationships including cause and effect, influence, and connotation between characters,
events, and ideas.
Draw generalizations and conclusions including author’s attitude toward audience, reader, and
material from passage contents.
Use context to determine appropriate meaning of words and phrases to improve vocabulary.
Narrative on rl³ and the degree program’s efforts to support it.
DSP 201 is the RS course and consists of professional journal articles to support the textbook for this course. These articles contain
CME questions that must be passed in order to earn the credit. All students are achieving credit, indicating that they comprehend the
material in the articles.
Reading Intensive Course(s): HSC 321
Reading Supportive Course(s): DSP 201
SECTION VI:
PROGRAM CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT NARRATIVE
Briefly summarize recommendations for improvement based on this analysis. Recommendations may address internal curriculum and instruction methods, program level
actions, needs for coordination with other programs/divisions, college-wide or community aspects, faculty development, resources or other improvements suggested by the
data. Also, please use the tables below to list any specific action items identified as a result of this review and indicate an estimated value if there is a budget implication.
Narrative closing out the 2013-14 Academic Year:
As stated in narrative responses throughout this document, we are pleased with the performance of our program students in AY 2013-2014. We are exploring options to
enhance active learning in the classroom using students’ personal electronic devices and the computers available in HS 202 where we conduct most of our lecture classes. We’re
learning more about flipping the classroom and Prezi software.
Also of note, due to changes in the JRCDMS regulations allowing students to challenge technology board examinations 60 days prior to graduation, we revised our spring
seminar courses. To facilitate student success rates on these exams, we changed the curricula in these courses from a 16 wk format to an 8 wk format so that students could go
straight to their technology board exam with the best preparation possible.
Narrative Action Item (s) for the current 2014-15 Academic Year with requested budget adjustment:
Our biggest immediate need for AY2014-15 is equipment in the sonography labs. Our current equipment is failing due to extensive use, age and is frankly outdated in a number
of cases. Each year I have submitted a request for addition of a more current system to replace one of our failing or no longer useful systems. This is stated on the annual
planning budget submitted below. ADJUSTMENTS REQUESTED: 1) $500 to cover 4 instructors/track coordinators to attend the Educators’ Day at the SDMS national conference.
This day of educator meetings in prior to the full 3-day regular conference (for which we obtained SDMS Foundation Grants) and is an out-of-pocket expense for each of us. Note
that this national conference has never been held in Louisville and we are not requesting food, lodging or travel support. 2) Addition of a PT clinical coordinator, estimated salary
of $10,000 annually. This is needed to relieve the current Clinical Coordinator who is also responsible for coordinating the general concentration, teaching physics (and providing
remediation as needed), teaching DSP 201 clinical prep and all abdominal courses in the program, as well as providing support to the program director. Her job is surpassing the
manageable level and it would be extremely difficult to replace her position, especially given the recent success in pass rates of the SPI, which is directly related to programmatic
accreditation. Although listed as adjustment for this AY, it would take some time to find a qualified person for this role, so it’s more likely a 2015 expenditure than a 2014
calendar frame.
Budget Adjustment Item request for 2014-15:
Educators’ Day for 4 program faculty
Clinical Coordinator position (PT)
Budget $
500
10,000
BUDGET DETAIL REQUEST – NEW FUNDS ONLY FOR 2015-16
Department Name:
New Funds Only
Sonography Program
Date:
August 7, 2014
Personnel: Please state if the position is FT or PT
Department
Account #
Depart.
Objective
#
12006
Position Description
Clinical Coordinator (could be PT)
Total
Estimated
Salary
Fund
Source
Dept.
Priority
10,000
2015-16
X
2016-17
X
2017-18
X
10,000
Operating Expenses: this would include additional supplies, postage, copying, places you will travel,etc. Under detail be very specific on what & why you are requesting this increase.
Department
Account #
Depart.
Objective
#
Detail
Funds
Requested
Fund
Source
Funds
Requested
Fund
Source
Dept.
Priority
2015-16
2016-17
2017-18
2015-16
2016-17
2017-18
x
x
x
Total
Equipment, Furnishings, & Technology: list one item per row
Department
Account #
Depart.
Objective
#
12006
1
Total
Detail
Recurring need, but time frame is variable. Two refurbished ultrasound systems &
probes
100,000
100,000
Dept.
Priority