The University of Toledo

2011-2013 Strategic Plan Outcomes and Updates

Strategy

Goals

Objective/

Action Plan

Outcome/

Updates

1.0

Provide SLP Graduate program that meets or exceeds CAA accreditation standards and university expectations

1.1 Provide students knowledge and understanding of the conceptual foundations of Speech-Language Pathology and provide experiences that allow for the development and application of knowledge learned during course of study.

Complete a review of the Master’s program curriculum and make changes as necessary (see also 1.3).

A comprehensive review of the Master’s program was completed taking into consideration expected professional knowledge and skills; professional trends; mission and strategic planning of program, college and university; program resources, and related data in late 2010/early 2011. The curriculum and plan of study were revised, submitted to the appropriate university authorities for approval, and went into effect Fall semester 2012. Eight courses were modified and the plan of study was adjusted to better position students and improve student outcomes. In addition to modifying courses and course offerings, students were divided into to cohort groups (tracks). The tracks enhance student learning experiences by pairing coursework with appropriate clinical experiences, improving block scheduling, and improving faculty-student ratio within a given course.

Add a minimum of one SLP/major elective course for undergraduates.

Due to increases in faculty workloads, increases in minimum enrollment requirements for a course, and reduction of part-time instructors, no elective courses were developed. However, a wide range of undergraduate independent studies (e.g., Learning Issues of Deaf Children) were offered by faculty to students in lieu of electives (over and above standard teaching workload). Additionally, students were engaged in faculty research, offering a form of elective opportunity.

1.2 Complete a review of the student learning outcomes with regards to the curriculum changes in the Master’s program and changing KASA standards (2014) to insure anticipated improvement in quality, matriculation, and student success.

Review outcomes (by each faculty) for assigned courses and clinic in comparison to the 2014 Revised KASA Standards and suggest any appropriate changes to the   Program committee.

Review, as a group, the revised curriculum plan, draft outcome changes, including   priority outcomes, and 2014 KASA Standard to determine necessary changes.

The UT Knowledge and Skills Assessment and Student Learning Outcomes (by course and clinical experience) were revised for implementation Fall 2013 along with corresponding forms.

1.3 Provide students with on-campus clinical experiences that reflect best practice, are evidence-based, and allow for the development and application of knowledge and skill learned during course of study.

Complete a review of the current plan of study, student matriculation and outcome achievement, clinic client and student clinician outcomes, and other key indicators including teaching and supervisory evaluations to determine possible ways to improve students’ on-campus clinical experience (see also 1.1).

The Department Chair and Program Director reviewed all student teaching evaluations along with faculty to determine ways to develop a more cohesive graduate experience. The Clinic Coordinator reviewed every client file/outcomes with each student’s outcomes and experience, and supervisors experience and all evaluations. Alumni and employer survey findings along with input from the SLP Program Advisory board were taken into consideration. The findings of this comprehensive review were discussed by the Program committee and led to the changes described above in curriculum and plan of study.

Complete a review of the clinical program and documentation of services in light of the curriculum modifications, which went into effect fall, 2012

Following implementation of the change in curriculum and students’ plan of study, student experiences for the first year were reviewed (including student supervisory and teaching evaluations, matriculation, clinic experience and knowledge and skills achievement as well as faculty and supervisor input). Based upon the data collected in the first year of operationalizing this plan, it was determined to be beneficial and meet expectations. No major changes were recommended for the Fall 2013 school year. However, the Graduate Handbook was revised for Fall 2013, as was the program website, to reflect the changes following the successful implementation of this plan. (Also see 1.4)

1.4   Insure program reporting and marketing materials including the website and brochures are consistent with national accreditation standards for data reporting and information access

Review program reports and informational materials including the website and brochures.

The program’s informational and reporting materials including the website and brochures have been reviewed and updated, and are consistent with national accreditation standards for data reporting and information access.

2.0 Community Engagement

Expand the role of the Speech-Language-Hearing Clinic in the community

Develop a clinical service program at a minimum of one new community site.

The Clinical program (UT students under supervision of UT clinical staff) expanded into several off-campus sites (schools including Great Expectations and the Knight Academy )to supplement current services, and meet the needs of children at-risk for speech-language-hearing and academic concerns. In return, students obtained valuable learning/training experiences in authentic settings.

3.0 Involve under-graduate and graduate students as well as alumni in key program functions and processes to facilitate student learning and to obtain stakeholder input.

3.1 Involve students and alumni, as well as other stakeholders, in a minimum of one assessment meeting.

Provide information about the assessment process and gather data (e.g., program and alumni surveys, open discussion, focus groups).

Faculty met with students as a group and discussed assessment processes in at least two different meetings across the academic year (2012-2013) including a program advising meeting and a clinic meeting; students were encouraged to openly discuss concerns and issues, send input via email and/or the “Suggestion Box.” A similar forum was held with on-campus and off-campus clinical supervisors as part of a day-long a Supervisory Conference in 2011 hosted by the Program for the benefit of the part-time supervisory staff. Additionally, these discussions were held with the Advisory Board at the annual meeting, and the supervisory staff at each semester meeting. Student and stakeholder data was collected in classes, and at the meetings described above.

3.2 Involve students and alumni, as well as other stakeholders, in a minimum of one program planning meeting/function

Provide information about the program planning process and gather data (e.g., open discussion, focus groups).

Faculty met with students as a group and discussed program planning in at least two different meetings across the academic year (2012-2013) including a program advising meeting and a clinic meeting; students were encouraged to openly discuss concerns and issues, send input via email and/or the “Suggestion Box.” A similar forum was held with on-campus and off-campus clinical supervisors as part of a day-long a Supervisory Conference in 2011 hosted by the Program for the benefit of the part-time supervisory staff. Additionally, these discussions were held with the Advisory Board at the annual meeting, and the supervisory staff at each semester meeting. Student and stakeholder data was collected in classes, and at the meetings described above. Additionally, parent input is sought through clinic client feedback forms each semester and members of the advisory council who are also parents of both students and clinic clients.