Data Driven Decision Making Action Plan
Program/Department/Committee: Counseling
Chair: Program Head – Salene Cowher
Date: April 19, 2011
Assessments Examined:
 NCE pass rate,
 Comprehensive exams,
 site supervisor midterm and final evaluations,
 Alumni surveys,
 MAKSS,
 KSD at candidacy and internship,
 Rubrics for individual classes (identified target outcomes for core classes),
 employer survey,
 interview of site supervisors,
 course evaluations by students,
 student ratings of clinical experiences.
 Conceptual framework
Summary of Data Analysis:
 NCE pass rate – 90+% pass rate
 Comprehensive exams, - 90+% pass rate
 site supervisor midterm and final evaluations, Vast majority are 4& 5s (scale of 1-5).
Very few identified as problematic – we have a Dispositions policy, a Grade Appeal
Policy in plce for concerns. Supervision by clinical faculty of no more than 6 per class.
 Alumni surveys, - every 3 years – reports written – shared with faculty, uploaded on web
page for sharing with students. 90+% employment,
 MAKSS All students show an increase in awareness, knowledge and skills concerning
diversity over the course of the program.
 KSD at candidacy and internship, Students demonstrate the ability to self-evaluate re:
knowledge, skills and dispositions necessary for professional counseling.
 Rubrics for individual classes (identified target outcomes for core classes), - Majority of
students score Target or Acceptable on target outcomes – if a pattern of lower than
acceptable occurs, the course is reviewed for changes in pedagogy or teaching strategies.
 employer survey, - done evry 3 years – majority identify that they would hire grads again.




interview of site supervisors, - most areas identified as 4 or 5 (5 point Likert Scale),
supervisors identify strengths of program and any “holes” they have noted. “Holes”
reported back to faculty as a whole. Supervisors also identify “goodness of fit” of
students’ readiness for employment.
course evaluations by students, - done for tenured faculty every 5 years, non-tenured
every semester. Vast majority rate teaching as A or B.
student ratings of clinical experiences. Students rate clinical experiences at Practicum and
Internship. On-site and campus supervision, preparation, taping critiques allpoint to good
to excellent experiences and preparation.
Conceptual framework – students regularly report on standards that are addressed in each
class - emphasis on diversity and professionalism appear frequently.
Proposed Action:
 Alumni survey – due to be updated and distributed
 Upload Alumni Survey report and Employer Survey
 Revisit current assessments and make revisions as needed
 Begin to prepare for next site visit
Relevance to Conceptual Framework:
Students are provided a consistent forum to report on the standards that are addressed in each
class - emphasis on diversity and professionalism appear frequently.
Desired Outcomes:
 Continued accreditation
 Responsible, ethical, highly-skilled counselors
Standards Addressed:
 Foundations
 Contextual Dimensions of Counseling
 Knowledge and Skills
 Clinical Instruction
Criteria for Success:
 Successful completion of course work (3.0)
 Successful completion of Clinicals
 Pass Comprehensive Exams and NCE
 Employment in the field
 Site-supervisor and employer ratings (4 or 5)
Time Table:
Person(s) Responsible for Data Collection and Analyses:
COUNSELING AND HUMAN DEVELOPMENT
ASSESSMENT TIMELINE
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec
Alumni survey
X
X
X
X
X
Comp exams
X
X
X
CRC or NBCC
X
X
X
Clinical rating
X
X
X
Site Supervisors
Staff members will be in charge of collecting data from the various assessments
and compiling a report for each area. The following assignments have been made:
1. Guidance Alumni survey - Dr.Connell
2. SPS Alumni survey - Dr. Norton & Dr. Cowher
3. Comprehensive exams - Dr. Mitten
4. CRC results - Dr. Packard
5. NBCC results - Dr. Cowher
6. Clinical ratings - Dr. Mitten and Dr. Cowher
7. Site supervisors - Dr. Norton
8. Rehab Alumni survey - Dr. Packard
Reports will be presented at a staff meeting in December. If the target outcomes
for any of the assessment procedures are not met, departmental discussion of
results will be used to determine the advisability of program change. Any change
suggested will be explored and if appropriate will be pursued during the Spring
semester to be implemented the following Fall.
Note: prepared by Dr. Adrienne Dixon and Dr. Sue Norton – no guarantee that others would
agree with this report.