Submitted Fall, 2005
(Objectives 1,3,4,5,6,7,8 )
Each semester clinic and field supervisors complete an evaluation of students under their supervision.
Clinic Evaluations: Each student (both undergraduates and graduates) enrolled in clinical practicum is evaluated based on performance in evaluation and treatment of clients with communication disorders. The grading scale recognizes that students new to clinical practice need more guidance and do not perform as well as students about to leave the program. Therefore, as a student progresses through practicum assignments, they are expected to score higher and higher on the scale in order to maintain an acceptable grade.
1st Semester Graduate – 12 graduate students were assessed. A score of 5.0 or better is required in order to pass. The scores ranged from 5.45 to 7.25 with an average of 6.35.
2nd Semester Graduate – 2 graduate students were assessed. A score of 5.35 or better is required in order to pass. The scores ranged from 5.65 to 7.45 with an average of 6.30.
3rd Semester Graduate – 11 graduate students were assessed. A score of 5.75 or better is required to pass. The scores ranged from 6.10 to 8.55 with an average of 7.65.
4th Semester Graduate – 13 graduate students were assessed. A score of 6.50 or better is required in order to pass. The scores ranged from 7.20 to 9.00 with an average of 8.35.
Field Placement and Student Teaching Evaluations: During her/his last semester (fifth) of graduate study, each student must complete two internship placements, one in a clinical or hospital setting and the other in a public school setting. The site supervisors completed a survey evaluating the performance of the students who interned in their place of employment. Students were assessed on a scale from 2-Minimally competent to 5 – Extremely competent with a 1 for Not applicable. Students were rated in fifteen areas with a possible high score of 75 and a score of 60 is required in order to pass.
Thirteen students were assessed and each student was assessed twice, once in each setting, yielding 26 completed evaluations. Scores ranged from 70 to 80 with an average score of 76.35.
These performance assessments allow for feedback to the students and the faculty members as to whether the learning objectives were being met and if there was a need for program changes. Department members are in agreement that this assessment adequately measures knowledge base and clinical skills of our students.
At the bottom of each form is a section for comments from supervisors. Analysis of these comments indicates that no major deficiencies were noted with our student interns, although they feel that our students need more experience in evaluating dysphagia clients and in handling tracheotomy patients. During the 2003/2004 assessments process, recommendations from the supervisors included that student interns more information about caseload management, more work with behavior techniques, and more practice writing treatment goals. The faculty modified clinical practicum requirements to reflect these recommendations. As a result of these modifications, none of the supervisors mentioned a deficiency in this area. Many of the supervisors are the same supervisors from last year.
We have been concerned over the last several years with the growing need for providing our students with hands-on dysphagia and trach experience. Given that both of these diagnostic and treatment areas require invasive techniques, we have been unable to provide this experience. During the summer of 2005, the program has utilized priority monies to purchase medical simulators that will allow our students to practice invasive techniques such as trach suctioning and care, nasal and oral endoscopy, and otoscopy. Practice on the simulators will be integrated into two undergraduate courses, two graduate courses, and all clinical practicum at the graduate level.