Outcome Assessment Plan: Cardiovascular Technology...2.1 Provide safe, competent cardiovascular care...

Outcome Assessment Plan: Cardiovascular Technology

College: Piedmont College dedicates itself to the transformative power of education through reciprocal learning, the development of compassionate leaders, and the stewardship of our local and global communities. School of Nursing and Health Sciences: The R.H. Daniel School of Nursing and Health Sciences at Piedmont College shall be recognized as an exemplary professional academic program. The arts & sciences are the foundation upon which the students’ intellectual endeavors are built, contributing to the provision of holistic care to clients that includes physical, psychosocial, spiritual, and environmental care. The School of Nursing and Health Sciences is dedicated to respect for diversity and to community outreach.

Program Mission: The cardiovascular technology program seeks to prepare undergraduate students for careers in cardiovascular diagnostics by providing exemplary classroom and clinical education to develop their cognitive, psychomotor, and affective learning abilities relevant to non-invasive adult echocardiography. Furthermore, the program is dedicated to respecting individual diversity and engaging the community by exposing students to a variety of healthcare settings, practitioners, and patient populations.

Program Goals: 1. The Program is committed to recruiting eight quality students into each cohort and graduating them one year after program admission.

a) Piedmont Goal Reference: GOAL 8. Piedmont College will provide students the resources to achieve their academic goals in a timely fashion and meet learning outcomes expected in their degree programs.

b) Outcome (non-student learning): The number of students who matriculate into each cohort and persist. c) Measures:

1) Number of students admitted (8) 2) Retention rate by cohort (100%) 3) Graduation rate by cohort (100%)

2. The Program seeks to have an 100% passing rate on the Certification Examination.

a) Piedmont Goal Reference: GOAL 4. Piedmont College will offer traditional and innovative academic programs that are rigorous in content and flexible in real-world application.

b) SLO 1: Students will integrate knowledge, skills, and values from the arts and sciences to engage in critical and creative dialogue through discovery, analysis, and communication.

1.1 Adapt evidence-based practice concepts when making business, organizational, and healthcare decisions and critically examining cardiovascular technology practice.

1.2 Demonstrate oral, written, and visual communication strategies that are organized, coherent, accurate, and professionally prepared and delivered.

1.3 Critically evaluate research findings to develop holistic, patient-centered cardiovascular care plans. 1.4 Demonstrate knowledge of healthcare policy, law, finance, and regulatory environments, including local, national, and global trends and adapt

this information to best serve the client’s needs. c) Measures:

1) Pathology and Pharmacology Multimedia Project (80% of students will score 3.75 on the rubric)-QEP3 2) Research Methods Project (80% of students will score 3.75 on the rubric)-QEP1 3) Healthcare Finance Project (80% will score 4.0 on the rubric) 4) Capstone Project (80% will score 4.0 on the rubric)-QEP5 5) Capstone Reflection Paper (80% at 3 on the rubric)-QEP2

3. The Program seeks to provide high quality instruction that integrates cognitive and psychomotor skills into active problem solving abilities that will culminate

in 90% of students with post-graduate placements (employment or graduate school) within three months of graduation. a) Piedmont Goal Reference: GOAL 1. Piedmont College will attract and retain students, faculty, and staff, and engage alumni and friends, by providing b) SLO 2: Students will work collaboratively through interprofessional teams to provide or accommodate quality care to clients across the lifespan in a

variety of settings, while respecting the diversity of individuals, groups, and communities. 2.1 Provide safe, competent cardiovascular care in a variety of settings for patients across the life span. 2.2 Demonstrate the appropriate use of technology to provide holistic, patient-centered care. 2.3 Implement, evaluate, and modify cardiovascular care decisions for both healthy and at-risk individuals through collaboration with allied

healthcare providers. 2.4 Demonstrate cultural competence in the care of clients from diverse backgrounds.

c) Measures: 1) Pharmacology Project (80% will score 4.25 on the rubric) 2) Preceptor Evaluations of Students (100% will score 3.5 on the rubric) 3) Faculty Evaluations (100% will score 3.5 on the rubric) 4) Employer Survey (respondents will score 80% of program and employee attributes at 4.0 on the rubric) 5) Exit Survey (80% of program attributes will be scored at 4.0 and 90% of students will be placed within 90 days) 6) Alumni Survey (respondents will score 80% of program attributes at 4.0 and 100% will have passed the certification exam)

4. The Program is committed to providing quality clinical sites and preceptors for experiential learning. a) Piedmont Goal Reference: GOAL 6. Piedmont College will educate the whole student through co-curricular programs, extra-curricular activities, and

experiential learning endeavors. b) SLO 3: Through civic engagement, personal growth, and ethical reasoning, students will demonstrate responsible, global citizenship by upholding

high professional standards. 3.1 Demonstrate professional moral, legal, and ethical judgment when delivering patient-centered decisions. 3.2 Maintain oversight and accountability for patient care through the application of management and leadership strategies in the context of a

healthcare system (i.e. risk management, healthcare delivery mechanisms, documentation, client privacy, and financial analysis). 3.3 Use appropriate professional guidelines to develop, implement, evaluate, and modify client care strategies in the changing healthcare

environment. 3.4 Demonstrate a commitment to professional growth and development.

c) Measures: 1) Health Policy and Law Project (80% will score 4.0 on the rubric)-QEP5 2) Student Evaluations of Preceptors (100% will score 3.0 on the rubric) 3) Student Evaluations of Sites (100% will score 3.0 on the rubric) 4) Skill Sheets (100% will score 4.0 on the rubric) 5) Piedmont 1101 Reflection Paper (80% at 2 on the rubric)-QEP4, QEP6

PG2;SLO1;M1 Evaluating Oral and Written Communication Skills, Use of Literature, and Research Methods through Formal Projects and Exercises

Description Pathology & Pharmacology Multimedia Project

Objectives Measured PG2, SLO1, QEP3

Assessment Result Rubric Score

Benchmark (Criteria for Success)

80% of students will score ≥3.75 on the rubric and section scores will average ≥3.75 overall

Sample Size and Source Students enrolled in HSCS3302

Results

2016 2017 2018

All 88 88 97 APHS 100 100

ATRG 100 100 83 CVTE 100 100 100 EXSS 100 100 100

HCAD-Ath 83 67 100 HCAD-Dem 50 0 100

OTHER

100

Narrative This goal was met, as 97% of all students and 100% of CVTE students met the target. This is a 10 percentage point group improvement from last year, and third consecutive year of 100% on target for CVTE majors. The overall poster quality was very good; this could perhaps be related to their prior experience completing a similarly formatted project as freshmen.

Plan • Continue the project as designed and using the same rubric.

Timeline for Improvement • This same assignment will be given in Spring 2019. (E. McKinney)


Description Capstone Paper






Results

2015 2016 2017 2018 All 62 80 96 88 APHS 100 100 100 ATRG 100 100 CVTE 100 63 EXSS 100 100 100 HCAD-Ath 83 80 75 100 HCAD-Dem 43 50 100 100 SFAD 100

Narrative

This goal was partially met, as 88% of all students, but only 63% of CVTE students met the target on the rubric (37 point reduction). This does represent a small decline from last year due to a few low-performing students in this program. Individual section scores showed weaknesses in “evidence”, “discussion”, and the statistical analysis, with many students failing to connect their findings to previous research. The general grammar and paper mechanics were slightly improved from last year.

Plan • Reiterate the paper outline in both this course and HSCS4410 so students are more clear for “what goes where” • Use the OWL at Purdue as a resource.

Timeline for Improvement • The general paper outline will be given more weight and peer-review time in HSCS4410 in the Fall 2018. (A. Dondanville)


Description Pharmacology paper

Objectives Measured PG3, SLO2




Sample Size and Source Students enrolled in CVTE4020

Results

2015 2016 2017 2018 All 100 100 100 100 Paper 100 100 100 100 Presentation 100 100 100 100

Narrative This goal was met, as 100% of students earned 5.0 on the rubric. Since this was the fourth year this project was completed and data collected, we are pleased with the outcome, but are unsure if the high scores reflect true student ability or a flaw in the assignment or assessment tool (halo central tendency error).

Plan • This assignment will be given again in the same format and assessed using the same rubric next year to give a more clear picture of the data meaning.

Timeline for Improvement • This assignment will be given in Spring 2019. (P. Braum)

0

1

2

3

4

5

% M

eetin

g Ta

rget

Pharmacology Paper Section Scores

2015

2016

2017

2018

Target


Description Healthcare Finance Project






Results

2016 2017 2018 All 100 90 82 CVTE 100 100 90 HCAD-Ath 100 100 60 HCAD-Dem 100 50 100

Narrative This goal was met, as 82% of all students and 90% of CVTE students met the target. This represents an 8 point decline for the group and 10 point reduction for the major cohort. The majority of low scores were from not submitting the assignment sections.

Plan • Consider paring down the material to allow for more in-class engagement activities.

Timeline for Improvement • The project will be modified in Spring 2018. (M.McKinney)


Description Health Policy and Law Project






Results

2015 2016 2017 All 100 79 50 APHS 100 100 100 CVTE 100 75 50 HCAD-Ath 100 50 100 HCAD-Dem 100 100 30 Other 100 SFAD 0

2015 2016 2017 All 100 92 100 APHS 100 100 100 CVTE 100 100 100 HCAD-Ath 100 100 100 HCAD-Dem 100 75 100 Other

100

SFAD

100

Narrative

This target was partially met, as 100% of CVTE students met the target on the presentation, but only 50% did so on the paper. This ~25 point reduction from last year on the paper could be due to this group of CVTE students being less academically inclined as previous cohorts (several have previously failed out of other academic programs and this major is their ‘fall back’ plan). However, when looking at the individual scores, only a small number of students did poorly, which compromised the overall class performance. The students also relied heavily on their own opinions and did not support their conclusions with evidence.

Plan • Add a few case reviews due at the midpoint as a checkpoint to ensure they will have evidence at the end. • Clarify that opinion is not evidence

Timeline for Improvement • Implement summer 2018. (J.Koshuta)


Description Capstone Presentation






Results

2015 2016 2017 2018 All 100 95 89 88 APHS 100 100 100 ATRG 100 100 CVTE 67 75 EXSS 100 90 100 HCAD-A 100 80 75 100 HCAD-D 100 100 100 100 SFAD 100

Narrative This goal was partially met, as 88% of all students, but only 75% of CVTE students met the target on the rubric. This represents no change for the group as a whole and an 8 point improvement for CVTE majors. With the exception of ‘organization and visual aids’ which improved significantly (4.4 to 5.0) from last year, all other measures were virtually unchanged.

Plan • Reiterate the paper outline in both this course and HSCS4410 so students are more clear for “what goes where” • Use the OWL at Purdue as a resource.

Timeline for Improvement • The general paper outline will be given more weight and peer-review time in HSCS4410 in the Fall 2018. (A. Dondanville)


Description Pharmacology Presentation





Sample Size and Source Students enrolled in CVTE4020

Results

2015 2016 2017 2018 All 100 100 100 100 Paper 100 100 100 100 Presentation 100 100 100 100

Narrative This goal was met, as 100% of students earned 5.0 on the rubric. Since this was the fourth year this project was completed and data collected, we are pleased with the outcome, but are unsure if the high scores reflect true student ability or a flaw in the assignment or assessment tool (halo central tendency error).

Plan • This assignment will be given again in the same format and assessed using the same rubric next year to give a more clear picture of the data meaning.

Timeline for Improvement • This assignment will be given in Spring 2019. (P. Braum)

0

1

2

3

4

5

% M

eetin

g Ta

rget

Pharmacology Presentation Section Scores

2015

2016

2017

2018

Target

PG3;SLO2;M2 Evaluating Clinical Progress and Competence and the Ability to Integrate Didactic Concepts in the Clinical Setting

Description Preceptor Evaluation of Student



Benchmark (Criteria for Success) 80% of students will score ≥3.5 on the rubric

Sample Size and Source All students completing clinical experiences

Results

Student Average Brown, Evette 3.48 Brown, Scott 4.27 Edoimioya, Shawn 4.30 Fleming, Kenzie 4.39 Manotas, Rachel 4.30 Thomas, Blake 4.35 Warren, Emilie 4.24 Warren, Kassie 4.42

Group Average 4.23

2015-2016 2016-2017 2017-2018 All 100 98 93 Certificate 100 100 90 Bachelor's

97 97

0

1

2

3

4

5

Aver

age

Scor

e

Student Evaluation Subscale Scores

2015-2016

2016-2017

2017-2018

Target

020406080

100

All Certificate Bachelor's

% o

n Ta

rget

Student Evaluation Targets

2015-2016

2016-2017

2017-2018

Target

Narrative

Given the large number of high scores and very low original target (60%), the target score was raised to be 80% at 3.5 on the rubric. This new target was met, as 93% of all students exceeded a score of 3.5 on the rubric. However, when disaggregating the data by program status (certificate or bachelor’s degree), one student has had several evaluations at or lower than the target. This student underwent remediation, and was subsequently removed from the program when unable to meet minimal clinical standards.

Plan • This assessment will be given again in the same format next year with additional student to give a more clear picture of the data meaning.

Timeline for Improvement • Reassessment will take place in April 2019 (A.Dondanville)

1.001.502.002.503.003.504.004.505.00

Aver

age

Scor

e

Student Evaluation Score

Brown, Evette

Brown, Scott

Edoimioya, Shawn

Fleming, Kenzie

Manotas, Rachel

Thomas, Blake

Warren, Emilie

Warren, Kassie

Average


Description Student Evaluation of Preceptor



Benchmark (Criteria for Success) 100% of preceptors will score ≥3.5

Sample Size and Source All Preceptors currently assigned students

Results

2016-2017 2017-2018 2018-2019 All 99 99 Heartcenter 100 98 Hospital/Other 96 100

Narrative Given the large number of high scores and very low original target (60%), the target score was raised to be 100% at 3.5 on the rubric. This new goal was nearly met, as 99% of all preceptors met the target. When disaggregating by location (Heartcenter or Other), one preceptor at one site received a few evaluations lower than the threshold.

020406080

100

% M

eetin

g Ta

rget

Preceptor Evaluation Targets

All

Gainesville

Other

Target

00.5

11.5

22.5

33.5

44.5

5

Aver

age

Scor

e

Preceptor Evaluation Targets

Target

2016-2017

2017-2018

2018-2019


Description Student Evaluation of Site



Benchmark (Criteria for Success) 100% of sites will score ≥3.5

Sample Size and Source All sites with assigned students

Results

2016-2017 2017-2018 2018-2019 All 100 97

Hospital/Other 100 95 Heartcenter 100 98

0

20

40

60

80

100

% M

eetin

g Ta

rget

Site Evaluations by Student Targets

2016-2017

2017-2018

Target

2018-2019

2016-2017

2017-2018

2018-2019

Practice Opportunities 4.53 4.43 Resources 4.76 4.79 Relevant Experience 4.74 4.82

Narrative Given the large number of high scores and very low original target (60%), the target score was raised to be 100% at 3.5 on the rubric. This new goal was nearly met as 97% of sites scored >3.5 on the rubric. While this is a slight decrease from last year (-3 pionts), the disaggregated data reveal only 3 scores below the target. The individual content scores all improved slightly, but not significantly.



00.5

11.5

22.5

33.5

44.5

5

Aver

age

Scor

e

Site Evaluations by Students

2016-2017

2017-2018

2018-2019

Target

PG4;SLO3;M4 Evaluating Skill Competence and Mastery

Description Skill Sheets


Assessment Result Rubric Score and Overall Score


100% of students will score 4 or higher on rubric and 80% Overall

Sample Size and Source All Students

Results

2016-2017 2017-2018 2018-2019 All 88 96

0

20

40

60

80

100

% M

eetin

g Ta

rget

Site Evaluations by Student Targets

2016-2017

2017-2018

Target

2018-2019

Brown, Evette 2.891 Echocardiography Evaluation 2.474 Patient Care Evaluation 3.308

Brown, Scott 4.780571429 Carotid Evaluation 4.706 Echocardiography Evaluation 4.526 Patient Care Evaluation 5 Renal Evaluation 5

Edoimioya, Shawn 4.823571429 Carotid Evaluation 4.8825 Echocardiography Evaluation 4.5 Patient Care Evaluation 5 Renal Evaluation 5

Fleming, Kenzie 4.60075 Carotid Evaluation 4.735 Echocardiography Evaluation 4.5525 Patient Care Evaluation 4.6155 Renal Evaluation 4.5

Manotas, Rachel 4.754333333 Carotid Evaluation 5 Echocardiography Evaluation 4.763 Patient Care Evaluation 5 Renal Evaluation 4

Thomas, Blake 4.5789 Carotid Evaluation 4.666666667 Echocardiography Evaluation 4.596333333 LE Venous Evaluation 4 Patient Care Evaluation 5 Renal Evaluation 4.5

Warren, Emilie 4.641285714 Carotid Evaluation 4.3235 Echocardiography Evaluation 4.921 Patient Care Evaluation 5 Renal Evaluation 4.5

Warren, Kassie 4.475 Carotid Evaluation 4.294 Echocardiography Evaluation 4.8685 Patient Care Evaluation 5 Renal Evaluation 4

Narrative This target was not quite met, as only 96% of students met the threshold score on the rubric. This does represent an 8 point improvement. One student had two low evaluations which brought the group total/average down.

Plan • The low-scoring student is receiving remediation; all assessments will be continued as given.


PG3;SLO2;M4 Evaluating Skill Competence and Mastery

Description Employer Survey


Assessment Result Rubric Score and Overall Score

Benchmark (Criteria for Success) respondents will score 80% of program and employee skill attributes at 4 on the rubric

Sample Size and Source Employers of Alumni

Results n/a

Narrative The first student will graduate in July 2017.

Plan • An employer survey will be sent to all students’ supervisors following passing of a board exam.

Timeline for Improvement • Surveys will be sent approximately 1 year after graduation (P. Braum)

PG4;SLO3;M5 Through civic engagement, personal growth, and ethical reasoning, students will demonstrate responsible, global citizenship by upholding high professional standards.

Description Piedmont 1101 Community Service Reflection Paper

Objectives Measured PG4, SLO3, QEP4, QEP6



Sample Size and Source Students enrolled in PDMT1101

Results

Narrative This assessment measure will be implemented in 2018-2019.

Plan •

Timeline for Improvement •


Description Capstone Reflection Paper




Sample Size and Source Students enrolled in HSCS4450 and ATRG4420

Results

2018 All 87 APHS 100 ATRG 67 CVTE 88 EXSS HCAD-Ath HCAD-Dem 100 SFAD

0102030405060708090

100

% M

eetin

g Ta

rget

Capstone Reflection Targets

2018

2019

2020

2021

Target

Narrative This assessment measure was implemented for the first time in 2017-2018. It is important to note that this measure is on a 4-point scale, while all others are on a 5-point scale. This goal was met for CVTE students (88% on target).

Plan • Continue data collection in Spring 2019 (A. Dondanville, J. Koshuta)

Timeline for Improvement • Continue data collection in Spring 2019 (A. Dondanville, J. Koshuta)

00.5

11.5

22.5

33.5

4

% M

eetin

g Ta

rget

Capstone Reflection Section Scores

2018

2019

2020

2021

Target

PG1;Non-SLO;M2,3 Overall Program Effectiveness Description Retention/Graduation Rates Objectives Measured PG1 Assessment Result Number of students persisting in the program and graduating each year. Benchmark (Criteria for Success) 100% of students will persist each semester and graduate 1 year after admission Sample Size and Source All Students in the Clinical Year and those in the pre-professional phase of the program

Results

Program Fall 2016 S to F Spring 2017 F to S Fall 2017 S to F Spring 2018 F to S

Applied Health Science 9 1.1 6 0.67 3 0.5 3 1 Athletic Training (all) 33 1.6 29 0.88 29 1 30 1.03 Cardiovascular Tech (Clinical) 5 5 5 1 9 2 9 0.9 Exercise & Sport Science 42 1.6 37 0.88 34 0.92 34 1 Health Care Admin 26 1.5 20 0.77 13 0.65 13 1 Pre-Cardiovascular Tech 11 1.1 13 1.18 14 1.08 14 1 Sport &Fitness Admin 1 4 4 6 1.5 6 1

Narrative

This goal was partially met, as 80% of PCVT students retained from fall to spring, but only 89% from the first to third semesters of the professional phase of the program (student withdrew for financial reasons). All 5 students enrolled in the professional cohort last summer also graduated on target (100%). While we are not yet at our goal of 15 pre-professional students, the numbers have grown from 4 to 14 over the last three years.

Plan • Continue tracking enrollment and retention each term. Timeline for Improvement • Reassess in Spring 2019. (A.Dondanville)

PG1;Non-SLO;M1 Overall Program Effectiveness Description Acceptance/Admission Rates Objectives Measured PG1 Assessment Result Number of students applying and being admitted to the program each year. Benchmark (Criteria for Success) The program will accept 8 students per year Sample Size and Source All Students applying for the Clinical Year

Results

CVTE

Semester in the Program

Cohort Entrance Semester Interview Accept FA SP SU GR Retent.

% Avg.

Enroll. Target Enroll.

Fall 2015 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.00 8.00 Fall 2016 6 5 5 5 5 5 1 5.00 8.00 Fall 2017 9 9 9 9 8 0.889 8.00 8.00 Fall 2018 10 10 8.00

Narrative This goal was met, as 9 students were admitted to the clinical phase; this is an increase of (5 to 9). The program is now accredited, and has accepted all applicants thus far. We anticipate having 10 students in the 2018 cohort, but are unsure if the low admission standards (2.5GPA) is giving us the strongest cohort (i.e. should all be accepted or should the program requirements be strengthened?).

Plan • Continue administering the program as it was this year and monitor application and admission rates prior to the start of the clinical

year. • Institute clinical skill “check points” in the fall and spring terms to determine the need for remediation.

Timeline for Improvement • Review application and admission data in June 2019. (A.Dondanville) • Clinical skill checkpoint development June 2018 (P. Braum)

PG3;SLO2;M5 Overall Program Effectiveness Description Senior Exit Survey/Placement Objectives Measured PG3, SLO2 Assessment Result Rubric Score Benchmark (Criteria for Success) Students will score 80% of program attributes at 4 on the rubric and 90% will have post-graduation placements secured within 3mo of graduating

Sample Size and Source Graduating Seniors (July)

Results

2015 2016 2017 All 100 100

Certificate 100 100 Bachelor's

2015 2016 2017 All 4.375 4.79

Certificate 4.375 4.79 Bachelor's

020406080

100


% M

eetin

g Ta

rget

Exit Survey on Target

2015

2016

2017

Target

020406080

100


% M

eetin

g Ta

rget

Exit Survey on Target

2015

2016

2017

Target

Narrative Since these data are collected after annual reports are due, this metric will always be from the previous year. Of the 5 graduating students in 2017 (July), only 2 completed the survey. They scored program attributes at 4.79, meeting the target. This represents no change from last year. Additionally, 4 of 5 students were employed immediately after graduation (the other chose to not seek employment to begin a family).

Plan • The graduating student will be asked to complete the survey prior to graduation. Timeline for Improvement • The survey will be administered in July 2018. (A. Dondanville)

00.5

11.5

22.5

33.5

44.5

5

Aver

age

Scor

e

Exit Survey Program Attributes

2015

2016

2017

Target

PG3;SLO2;M6 Overall Program Effectiveness Description Alumni Survey Objectives Measured PG3, SLO2 Assessment Result Rubric Score Benchmark (Criteria for Success) Respondents will score 80% of program attributes at 4 on the rubric and 100% will have taken and passed the certification exam. Sample Size and Source All Alumni every 3 years Results n/a Narrative This program has no alumni meeting the criteria yet. Plan • Alumni surveys will be sent to all program graduates every three years. Timeline for Improvement • The first survey will be sent in July 2019. (A. Dondanville)

PG3;SLO2;M3 Overall Program Effectiveness Description Faculty Evaluations Objectives Measured PG3, SLO2 Assessment Result Rubric Score Benchmark (Criteria for Success) 100% of faculty will score 3.75 or higher on the rubric Sample Size and Source All Course Faculty currently assigned students

Results The one faculty member scored 5 on all but three faculty evaluations (average of 4.92). This was a slight change from last year having only 1 evaluation with a score of less than 5.

Narrative

This goal was met; this was a slight change (+2) from last year having only 1 evaluation with a score of less than 5. however, since there is only one faculty member in the program, it is unclear if the instructor is truly outstanding or if the students’ lack of comparators contributed the homogeneity (halo central tendency error). Unfortunately, since this faculty person is also the program director, the evaluations are never truly anonymous, which could also contribute to the scores.




Description Research Methods Paper




80% of students will score ≥3.75 on the rubric


Results

2015 2016 2017 All 90 63 63 APHS 100 33 50 ATRG 83 67 CVTE 100 67 25 EXSS 100 56 100 HCAD-Ath 75 67 100 HCAD-Dem 100 67 25 SFAD 100

0

20

40

60

80

100

% M

eetin

g Ta

rget

Research Methods Paper Rubric Targets

2015

2016

2017

Target

Narrative

This goal was not met, as only 63% of all students and 25% of CVTE students reached the target. Only 25% of CVTE students reached the goal a 42 point reduction. Many students continue having difficulty determining a research direction and envisioning the fundamental supporting information. We believe that part of this may be due to only one third of these students having completed scaffolding papers in previous classes (CVTE and HCAD do not have previous experience with this type of assignment). Additionally, this group of PCVT students has lower than average GPAs and are completing the major as a “fall back” option after not being selected into the NURS program.

Plan • This assignment will be given again in the same format and assessed using the same rubric next year to give a more clear picture of the data meaning. • Additional opportunities for students to work on their writing and citation skills will be given in this class next year. • More emphasis will be placed on developing the outline next year.

Timeline for Improvement

• This assignment will be given in Fall 2018. (A. Dondanville) • Additional in class group assignments for students to work on sentence construction and citation use will be implemented next year (A. Dondanville)

00.5

11.5

22.5

33.5

44.5

5

Aver

age

Scor

e

Research Methods Paper Rubric Scores

2015

2016

2017

Target


Description Research Methods Presentation




80% of students will score ≥3.75 on the rubric


Results

2015 2016 2017 All 83 64 73 APHS 100 67 100 ATRG 50 67 CVTE 50 100 63 EXSS 100 67 100 HCA-Ath 75 67 80 HCA-Dem 100 50 50 SFAD 100

0

20

40

60

80

100

% M

eetin

g Ta

rget

Research Methods Presentation Rubric Targets

2015

2016

2017

Target

Narrative This target was not met, as only 73% of students overall met the target and 63% of PCVT students scored at least 3.75 on the rubric. This is a 37-point reduction for this major (and 9 point improvement for the group as a whole). Similar to the related paper, students scored lowest on ‘discussion and recommendations’; again, this likely relates to their difficulty connecting concepts into large frameworks.

Plan • This assignment will be given again in the same format and assessed using the same rubric next year to give a more clear picture of the data meaning. • Additional opportunities for students to work on their writing and citation skills will be given in this class next year. • More emphasis will be placed on developing the outline next year.

0

1

2

3

4

5

Aver

age

Scor

e

Research Methods Presentation Section Scores

2015

2016

2017

Target

Outcome Assessment Plan: Cardiovascular Technology...2.1 Provide safe, competent cardiovascular care...

Documents

Transcript of Outcome Assessment Plan: Cardiovascular Technology...2.1 Provide safe, competent cardiovascular care...