|
Adapted for the Web from session presented 11/18/04 by Lee Ann Golper and Amy Wohlert at the 2004 ASHA Convention.
Session Objectives
- Discuss the program's responsibilities relative to
- Accurate public information
- Documenting student achievement
- Tracking student progress
- Identify trouble spots & explore tips to navigate through them
- Discuss the revised application form & supporting materials to document program compliance with standards.
What's the Intent behind Accreditation?
- Protect the interests of students
- Benefit the public
- Improve the quality of teaching, learning, research, and professional practice.
CAA Reviews
- Based on Standards for Accreditation
- Programs document compliance through:
- Application for Accreditation
- Annual Reports
- Substantive Change Plans
- Candidacy Progress Reports
Substantive Changes
Substantive changes are changes that occur in a program that may have a direct and significant impact on the program's ability to comply with accreditation standards.
- Defined in CAA policy
- Change in degree level
- Distance education
- Satellite or branch campuses
- Contractual arrangement
- Consortium
- Documentation may need to be appended to an application.
Continuous Quality Improvement
- CAA's focus
- Facilitate program self-assessment
- Identify areas for improvement
- CAA solicits feedback on, and reviews the efficiency of, its processes and forms
- Established 2 application dates
- More advanced planning of site visits
- Revised forms (Application & Annual Reports)
- More predictable decision-making time frames
CAA Applications
Review Process & Time Line
Program submits its application approximately one year prior to end of its published accreditation cycle
- February 1
- For programs with reporting dates November - April
- Fall site visit
- August 1
- For programs with reporting dates May - October
- Spring site visit
Review Milestones
- Initial review
- Staff & CAA's initial review: 2-3 months
- Program response to initial observations: due one month prior to SV
- Site visit & report
- Visit: 2-3 days
- Report due from team to national office: 30 days after visit
- Program response to report: 30 days to respond
- Site visit team response: 2 weeks
- Final review & decision at CAA Meetings (new for 2005)
Ongoing Written and Oral Dialogue throughout Review
Program has multiple opportunities to provide clarification & feedback:
- After CAA's initial review of application
- Prior to site visit
- During site visit
- After site visit (response to the report & evaluation of visit)
Revised Application Form
- Major revisions to application form for Fall 2004
- New look and feel
- More streamlining for Spring 2005
- Guidance on exhibits
- What to include with the application
- What to have available on-site
- Site visit team will verify & produce a report
- Major resource (but not the only one) in CAA's consideration of the accreditability of the program
Assessment through Standards
- Administration & Governance
- Faculty
- Curriculum
- Students
- Resources
Standard 1.0: Administration & Governance
- Regional Accreditation
- Mission & Goals
- Autonomy
- Program Leadership
- Equitable treatment
- Assessment
- Record Keeping
- Accurate Public Information
Internal consistency of mission statements
- University
- College/school
- Department/program
Program Responsibilities
Establish written student learning outcomes that cover the breadth, and reflect the program's desired level of competence (depth) in the specific knowledge and skill area.
Standard 1.3: Autonomy Indicators
- Scheduling, curriculum, policies
- Budget, admissions, enrollment, etc.
Standard 1.4: Individual Responsible for the Program of Professional Education
- Full-time appointment
- Holds a graduate degree with a major emphasis in speech-language pathology, in audiology, or in speech, language, or hearing science
- Effectively leads the program
Standard 1.5: Equitable Treatment of Students, Staff, Clients
- Compliance with ADA, Rehab Act, and federal, state, & local requirements
- Related to:
- 4.2 - accommodations for students
- 5.2 - sufficiency of space
Standard 1.6: Relate Mission & Goals to Student Outcomes
- Ongoing
- Systematic
- Describe methods & rationale
- Includes students in evaluations
- Describe data/results
- Discuss the use of data
Program Responsibilities
Demonstrate that data are gathered from the assessment of student performance, and that the data collected are used to improve the program.
Sources of Evidence to Evaluate Student Learning Outcomes
- Performance evaluations
- Portfolios
- Number & variety of clients
- Journal/research articles
- Papers
- Exams
- Grand rounds
- Presentations
- Demonstrations
- Clinical records
Program Responsibilities
Develop and incorporate formative and summative assessment instruments/methods capable of determining whether each student has achieved the program's desired level of competence in the specific knowledge and skill area.
Effective 7/1/03, programs must submit outcomes data.
- Employment Rates - 80% of graduates (averaged over 3 years) should obtain employment in the profession within 1 year of graduation (includes pursuit of advanced degree)
- Praxis Exam Pass Rates - must meet national pass rate (averaged over 3 years) for last 3 testing cycles Averages from most recent testing years fall between 75 and 79 percent in both SLP and Audiology
- Program Completion Rates - 80% of students should complete program within maximum allotted time specified by program or university for the degree program (requested in Std. 1.7)
Standard 1.7: Access, Confidentiality & Responsibility
- student files
- client files
- evidence of planning for & progress towards meeting graduation and credential requirements
- remediation
Program Responsibilities
Develop and use a recording system that, for each student, tracks progress toward and verifies the achievement of the program's expected learning outcomes, degree requirements, certification, and licensure requirements.
Standard 1.8: Public Information
- Public information includes
- Letters to students
- Catalogues
- Web site
- Letterhead
- Brochures
- Accuracy
- CAA (not ESB)
- Accreditation status of program(s), not department
Standard 2.0: Faculty/Instructional Staff
- 2.1 - Qualifications & Competency
- 2.2 - Sufficiency
- 2.3 - Institutional Support
- 2.4 - Continued Competency
Standard 2.1: Qualified & Competent
- Include vitae for everyone listed on Faculty/Instructional Staff Summary tables.
- Update practicum supervisor list and verify CCC status of all supervisors from clinical education sites identified on Clinical Population worksheets.
Standard 2.2: Sufficiency of Faculty
- The Tables
- Faculty (Appendices III A & B)
- Students (embedded as question 2.2.2)
- Sufficiency Indicators
- Not teaching overload
- Not using a large number of adjuncts
- Adjuncts that you do use are qualified and integrated into the program.
- Class sizes are not excessive (including students from satellite campuses, DE)
- Sufficient presence of doctoral faculty
- Student opportunity to participate in research
- Balance of students and faculty
- There's no magic number here -you need to make your case
- Reasonable student contact with faculty for advising, class matters, etc.
- Students in clinic are adequately supervised; accumulate hours
Standard 2.3: Institutional Support
- Financial support, competitive salaries
- Release time
- Vacated faculty lines are kept
- Searches opened
Standard 2.4: Continued Competence
- Describe support for continuing professional development
- Describe competency evaluation procedures, which may include
- Faculty attend/present at seminars, workshops, etc.
- Publications
- Teaching evaluations
- Compliance with maintenance requirements (SCCC & state)
Standard 3.0: Curriculum (Academic & Clinical Education)
- Consistent with mission & goals, sufficient for credentials
- Currency/scope of practice
- Research
- SLH interdependence
- Academic & clinical sequencing
- Supervision
- Client welfare/confidentiality
- Program involvement with external clinical sites
- Ethical, safe conduct
- Variety of clinical sites, populations
Program Responsibilities
Maintain a curriculum that
- Is consistent with mission & goals
- Addresses specific knowledge and skill (K/S) areas
Standard 3.1
- Describe consistency with mission and goals
- Describe the process to identify and validate student learning outcomes for K/S
- Balance of academic and clinical components
Credit Hours
New embedded table that specifies degree and delineates credits
- Academic
- Clinical
- Electives
- Required research
- Total for graduate degree Minimums:
- Audiology
- Doctoral degree
- 75 graduate credits
- Speech-Language Pathology
- Master's degree
- 36 graduate credits
Curriculum Documentation in Accreditation Applications
3.1 A - Curriculum Offerings table (Appendix IV):
- How is this table used within the context of the CAA review?
- CAA reviewers use this to triangulate data and check for
- Full rotation of program's offerings
- Sequencing of courses
- Class size
- Number & frequency of adjuncts used
- Consistency with vitae, catalogs, sample KASAs, etc.
- Curriculum Offerings tables - tips
- List each course offered in past 2 years - including all practicum, research, & professional courses.
- Did you include availability of basic/foundational coursework at your institution (sciences, mathematics, etc.)?
- Why are sample certification Knowledge and Skill Acquisition Summaries (KASA) requested?
- CAA members utilize these as evidence that
- courses and practicum offered to meet program objectives and SCCC requirements
- data from student file sufficient to complete application
- Will the students selected be jeopardized in any way?
- Student names/identifying information should not appear and is not recorded or shared with CFCC.
- Programs should provide 2 samples for each area of accreditation, but may provide a KASA for one hypothetical student if program has just transitioned.
Standard 3.2
- Describe curriculum review processes
- Indicate how curriculum prepares students re:
- Clients across the lifespan
- Multicultural society
- Contemporary professional issues
Standards 3.3, 3.4, 3.5
- 3.3 Scientific foundations & research
- more than a list of research opportunities
- response should integrate information ("learn and incorporate")
- 3.4 Speech - Language - Hearing interaction & interdependence
- 3.5 Sequencing
- Include different tracks, distance education, satellite/branch programs
Standards 3.6, 3.7, 3.8, 3.9
- 3.6 Supervision
- Commensurate with clinician's skills & client's needs
- Assessment of skill before placements
- 3.7 Ethical decision-making; access to supervisors
- 3.8 Establishing and monitoring agreements with external clinical sites
- 3.9 Provision of effective, ethical, safe,& legal clinical services
- Activities may include practicum seminars, research courses, SOAP notes, progress charts
Standards 3.10 and 5.5
- 3.10 Clinical practicum facilities
- Clinical Population data forms (Appendices IX A and B)
- Variety:
- Settings
- Populations
- Ages
- 5.5 Consideration of the client base to meet program goals (provided in 3.10)
- Large enough?
- Diverse enough?
Standard 4.0: Students
- 4.1 Admissions
- Contrast against institutional criteria
- FT/PT/DE/master's/doctoral
- 4.2 Accommodations
- 4.3 Policies
- Describe student access
- Complaint policy and records
- Does the program review complaints in light of accreditation standards?
- CAA's contact information
- Standard 4.4
- Advising for all students, may be linked to
- Sufficiency of faculty (2.2)
- Remediation towards learning goals (1.6)
- Use of advising/tracking forms (1.7)
- Access to services (4.2)
Standard 5.0: Resources
- 5.1 Report on financial resources; indicate adequacy
- 5.2 Indicate if physical facilities are sufficient
- 5.3 Indicate if clinical equipment/ materials are adequate
- 5.4 Indicators of adequacy of resources (library/ computers/staffing)
- 5.5 (addressed with 3.10)
Are resources available to the program that may assist in goal achievement? Provide descriptions as necessary.
Audiology Degree Program Eligibility
- Eligibility for CAA accreditation
- Master's programs in audiology no longer accredited after 12/31/2006
- All programs contacted August/September 2004
- Required response about future of master's program in audiology
- Determined end-date of accreditation for that program
- Transition to a clinical doctoral program
- Programs should file appropriate report (SCP or application) for CAA's review and approval at least one year before students enroll
Accreditation Resources
Additional Resources - just a mouse click away!
|