assessment plan for the bachelor of health science in ...€¦ · communication sciences &...

CSD-BHS Assessment Plan

1

University of Kentucky College of Health Sciences Department of Rehabilitation Sciences Division of Communication Sciences & Disorders Undergraduate Program

Assessment Plan for the Bachelor of Health Science in Communication Sciences & Disorders

College of Health Sciences

Spring 2016

Assessment Plan for the Bachelor of Health Science in Communication Sciences & Disorders 2

Communication Sciences & Disorders Assessment Plan - Undergraduate

1. Introduction and Program Overview The Division of Communication Sciences and Disorders (CSD) is comprised of two academic degree programs: 1)

Communication Sciences and Disorders BHS; and 2) Communication Sciences and Disorders MS. In keeping with the

standards of the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA), the undergraduate program in

Communication Sciences and Disorders (CSD) is considered a pre-professional degree program for both speech-

language pathology (SLP) and audiology. In order to meet Kentucky licensure and American Speech-Language-Hearing

Association certification requirements, it is necessary to complete the Master’s degree for SLP certification or the

clinical doctorate (AuD) to receive certification in audiology. The Master’s degree is considered the entry-level point for

professional speech-language pathologists, while the AuD is needed to become a practicing audiologist. The CSD

graduate program is accredited by the Council on Academic Accreditation in Audiology and Speech-Language Pathology

(CAA). Undergraduate students intent on majoring in CSD while at UK should plan on 6 years to complete both the

Bachelor of Health Sciences and Master of Science/Arts programs, and 7-8 years to complete the Bachelor of Health

Sciences and the AuD in audiology. The BHS is a selective (typically) junior-year entry program.

1.1. Mission Statement The mission of the Division of Communication Sciences and Disorders is to serve the citizens of Kentucky and

beyond by preparing graduates with the knowledge and skills needed to provide quality clinical services and

assume leadership roles; by serving the community and the professions through provision of evidence-based

clinical services, continuing education, and exchange of information among practitioners in communication

disorders; and by promoting, conducting, and supporting research that contributes to the understanding and

management of persons with communication disorders.

1.2. Basic Assessment Approach Assess 3-5 learning outcomes within a three-year cycle, using direct and indirect methods for representative

courses in the curriculum. Please see the Curriculum Map and Learning Outcomes Matrix included in this

document.

1.3. Definition of Key Terms

CSD – Division of Communication Sciences & Disorders

RHB – Department of Rehabilitation Sciences

CHS – College of Health Sciences

DD – Division Director – Administrative chief of the CSD program. The CSD DD reports directly to the Chair of

RHB.

AA – CSD Administrative Associate - The AA provides assistance to the program faculty by maintaining records

of undergraduate and graduate students in the major. The AA collects artifacts and data and compiles the data

into a spreadsheet for analysis by the CSD Assessment Liaison.

CSD-AL – CSD Assessment Liaison – CSD faculty responsible for the organization, coordination, collection and

reporting of assessment data to the Office of Assessment in the CHS.

ASHA – American Speech-Language-Hearing Association – national clinical and academic accrediting

organization for the professions of Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology.



Director of Undergraduate Studies (DUGS) - The Director of Undergraduate Studies (DUGS) is the official

representative of the undergraduate program. The DUGS administers the undergraduate program and operates

all advising. The DUGS reports directly to the CSD Division Director in RHB.

Curriculum Map: A visual depiction of how learning outcomes and/or professional standards are translated into

individual courses taught within a program.

Direct Evidence: Students show achievement of learning goals through performance of knowledge and skills.

Includes, but is not limited to: capstone experiences, score gains between entry and exit, portfolios, and

substantial course assignments that require performance of learning.

Indirect Evidence: Data from which you can make inferences about learning but do not demonstrate actual

learning, such as perception or comparison data. Includes, but is not limited to: surveys, focus groups, exit

interviews, grades, and institutional performance indicators.

Student Learning Outcomes (SLOs): Statements of learning expectations.

2. Assessment Oversight & Resources

2.1 College Learning Outcomes Assessment Coordinator College of Health Sciences (CHS) Office of Assessment.

2.2. Unit Assessment Coordinator Director of CSD Undergraduate Students performs the duties of the unit’s assessment liaison and is responsible for

coordination of efforts with the College’s Office of Assessment.

2.3. Other Assessment Resources The CSD program administrative assistant provides clerical support to implement this Assessment Plan. In addition,

CSD faculty members provide input and support during planned CSD faculty meetings in the early segment of the

Fall semester at which time the annual student learning outcome assessment reports/improvement action plans

are reviewed and discussed.

3. Program-Level Learning Outcomes 3.1 Learning Outcomes

SLO#1: Students will comprehend and describe basic principles of vocal tract anatomy & physiology and the

impact that these principles have on speech sound production.

SLO#2: Students will comprehend, conceptualize, and describe the basic underlying principles of neuroanatomy

and neurophysiology in the context of speech production and perception.

SLO#3: Students will demonstrate knowledge of basic acoustic principles related to human hearing and speech

production.

No external accrediting organization for the undergraduate program.

SLO#4 (GCCR) - Students will demonstrate competent written, oral, and visual communication skills as both

producers and consumers of information.

Note: Both SLO#3 (disciplinary content) and a Part 1 of SLO#4 (GCCR) are assessed in the same course-CSD 402.

3.2 Accreditation Standards/Outcomes by Program [if applicable]



4. Curriculum Mapping In the course map for the undergraduate program, please note that not all courses are sequential. Some courses are

stand alone and others introductory. Also note that even though courses for SLO 3 & 4 are both writing based, their

purposes are different. CSD 402 assesses both content factors (SLO#3) and the goals of the GCCR regarding

competency in written, oral and visual communication (SLO#4 Part 1). CSD 591 only assesses the goals of the GCCR (SLO

#4 Part 2). For every cohort (Junior & Senior), we will review performance on exams (SLO 1 & 2) and written

assignments (SLO 3 & 4), allowing us to track change from year to year.

*NOTE – Part 3 of the GCCR requirement for our program will incorporate CSD 481 in to the set of classes already identified (CSD

402 and CSD 591). As of the writing of this report though, the rubric for GCCR-Part 3 and the implementation plan for this course

are still not settled. As such, only Parts 1 (CSD 402) and 2 (CSD 591) of the GCCR plan are included in this report. We will update

this report with the third part of the GCCR requirement once it is completed and vetted by the faculty.

*Superscripts beside the course names below

are used to identify which course is used to

assess each of the 4 SLOs to the right.

SLO #1 SLO #2 SLO #3 SLO #4

Students will

comprehend and

describe basic

principles of vocal

tract anatomy &

physiology and the

impact that these

principles have on

speech sound

production.

Students will

comprehend,

conceptualize, and

describe the basic

underlying

principles of

neuroanatomy and

neurophysiology in

the context of

speech production

and perception.

Students will

demonstrate

knowledge of basic

acoustic principles

related to human

hearing and speech

production.

GCCR SLO - Students

will demonstrate

competent written,

oral, and visual

communication

skills as both

producers and

consumers of

information.

Course Course Type

Key: Introduced, Reinforced, Expanded

CSD 277 - Intro to CSD Didactic I I I I

CSD 285 - Phonetics Didactic I - I - 1CSD 378 – Speech A&P Didactic I, R I I - 3,4CSD 402 – Speech Sci. Didactic R, E I I, R, E I, R

CSD 410 – Language Dev Didactic R R - - 4CSD 481 – Clinic Exp* Practical R,E R,E R,E R,E

CSD 482 – Clinical Mgt 1 Didactic R R R -

CSD 483 – Clinical Mgt 2 Didactic R R R -

CSD 484 - Diagnostics Didactic R R R -

CSD 491 - Audiology Didactic R, E R R, E - 2CSD 571 – Neuro Speech Didactic E I, R, E I - 4CSD 591 – Aural Rehab Didactic R, E R, E I, R, E I, R, E



5. Assessment Methods & Measures

5.1 Direct Methods/Measures

5.2 Indirect Methods/Measures All student learning outcomes utilize direct measures of student learning.

6. Data Collection & Review 6.1 Data Collection Process/Procedures

6.1.1 When will data be collected for each outcome?

6.1.2 How will data be collected for each outcome?

SLO #1 SLO #2 SLO #3 SLO #4

Students will comprehend

and describe basic principles

of vocal tract anatomy &

physiology and the impact

that these principles have

speech sound production

Students will comprehend,

conceptualize, and describe

the basic underlying principles

of neuroanatomy and

neurophysiology in the

context of speech production

and perception

Students will demonstrate

knowledge of basic acoustic

principles related to human

hearing and speech production

GCCR SLO - Students will

demonstrate competent written,

oral, and visual communication

skills as both producers and

consumers of information.

Final Examination Final Examination Drafting, composition and

editing of reflective papers.

Drafting, composition and editing

of research-based papers.

Learning Outcome Date and Course – CYCLE 1 Date and Course – CYCLE 2

SLO #1 Fall 2015 (CSD 378) Fall 2018 (CSD 378)

SLO #2 Fall 2015 (CSD 571) Fall 2018 (CSD 571)

SLO #3 Spring 2017 (CSD 402) Spring 2020 (CSD 402)

SLO #4 Fall 2017 (CSD 591/Spring CSD 402 artifacts included in analysis)

Fall 2020 (CSD 591/Spring CSD 402 artifacts included in analysis)

Learning Outcome Collection of data

SLO #1 Compilation of Final Exams (CSD 378) at the end of the semester.

SLO #2 Compilation of Final Exams (CSD 571) at the end of the semester.

SLO #3 Generate copies of Hearing Loss Reflection Paper (CSD 402) at the end of the semester.

SLO #4 Generate copies of Aural Rehab Research Paper Assignment (CSD 591) at the end of the semester. Prior CSD 402 artifacts are included in the analysis.



6.1.3 What will be the benchmark/target for each outcome?

\

Rationale: Benchmarks were developed by the faculty and were based on a historical overview of course

grades from our undergraduate curriculum. The faculty have historically agreed that a B or higher should be

the benchmark for our courses given the need to maintain a high GPA, and high level of content aptitude in

light of a highly competitive national graduate school admissions process. The progressively more stringent

benchmarks of SLO #4 GCCR Part 2 (CSD 591) compared to GCCR Part 1 (CSD 402) is intended to index student

growth in their multimodal communication skills from the Junior to Senior year.

6.1.4 What individuals/groups will be responsible for data collection SLO #1 – Course instructor - Andreatta (CSD 378) w/ help from the program AA

SLO #2 – Course instructor - Andreatta (CSD 571) w/ help from the program AA

SLO #3 – Course instructor - Olson (CSD 402) w/ help from the program AA

SLO #4 – Course instructor - Olson (CSD 591) w/ help from the program AA

7. Assessment Cycle and Data Analysis 7.1 Assessment Cycle (3 years) The CSD Program follows a 3 year assessment cycle, with 1 to 2 outcomes assessed each year. Both cohorts of

students (juniors and seniors) are assessed twice using two different direct measures (an exam and a written

paper). With this scheme, we are able to assess the same cohort of students at 2 distinct time points. Assessment

of SLOs takes place in representative and faculty selected courses. Faculty in each representative course are asked

to maintain records and artifacts specific to the outcome measure specified above. Data are compiled and analyzed

in the early summer each year for the outcomes being assessed. Drafts of the results are analyzed and interpreted

by the Unit Assessment Coordinator in conjunction with the College Learning Outcomes Assessment Coordinator in

late summer/early fall semester. Results are presented to the CSD faculty members during the September faculty

meeting of each year. Assessment reports are completed by October 1st of every year and turned in to the College

Learning Outcomes Assessment Coordinator for review. Final reports are sent to the university’s assessment office

no later than October 31st of every year.

Learning Outcome Target/Benchmark

SLO #1 All students will achieve an 80% or better on a mixed methods exam which includes objective and subjective questions.

SLO #2 All students will achieve an 80% or better on a mixed methods exam which includes objective and subjective questions.

SLO #3 (1) 80% of all students will achieve a grade of 70% or better on the first draft of the reflective paper assignment and (2) 80% of all students will achieve a grade of 80% or better on the final version of the reflective paper assignment.

SLO #4 (1) 90% of all students will achieve a grade of 70% or better on the first draft of the research summary assignment and (2) 90% of all students will achieve a grade of 80% or better on the final version of the research summary assignment.



7.2 Data Analysis/Procedures Course data is collected each semester and subsequently analyzed in the following manner:

SLO #1 &#2 (CSD 378 & CSD 571) - First, the % correct responses for each question on the final exam is

calculated for all students. Secondly, the data is visually inspected to identify which questions were answered

correctly by less than 80% of the class. These questions are then examined more closely for their content. For

those questions that were responded to correctly less than 80% of the time, general trends are noted and

discussed.

SLO #3 (CSD 402) - This assignment is worth 24 points and was graded using a rubric (See appendix) across 2

areas (content and structure). The purpose of this activity is to address the humanistic implications of hearing

loss through personal experience and reflection. Additionally, the activity introduces students to the use of APA

referencing which is an important skill in the communication disorders discipline. In this assignment, students

incorporate outside resources (using APA referencing style) that corroborate their perception. For example, if a

student indicated that they had difficulty understanding speech in noise, they were required to find a similar

citation in the literature to support this perception. (Please note that this assignment counts for both the (1)

content requirement for SLO #3 and (2) for the GCCR requirement specified in SLO #4 [demonstration of

competent writing activity]). The student’s progression in writing will be demonstrated within assignments in



both CSD 591 and CSD 402. Additionally, the metrics reflect an overall improvement in the baseline score in

CSD 402 compared to CSD 591 as well as an improvement in the second draft score within each assignment.

SLO #4 (CSD 402 & CSD 591) - This assignment is worth 100 and will be graded using the rubric found in the

Appendix. The rubrics reflect how the paper will be evaluated and include aspects related to content, micro and

macrostructure features. Students provide a 1st draft for instructor evaluation and feedback. Feedback

provides the student with guidance on how to modify and refine their revision. The student’s progression in

writing will be demonstrated within assignments in both CSD 591 and CSD 402. Additionally the metrics reflect

an overall improvement in the baseline score in CSD 402 compared to CSD 591 as well as an improvement in

the second draft score within each assignment.

7.2.1 How will the data and findings be shared with faculty? Results are presented to the CSD faculty members during the September of each year. This opportunity allows

for faculty members to reflect on the outcomes of the annual assessment of the courses inspected. Faculty

members develop strategies for addressing concerns raised during the assessment process.

7.2.2 Who was involved in analyzing the results? The AA is responsible for the organizing assessment data and putting it into a workable format. The analysis is

conducted by the faculty of each assessed course in consultation with and with feedback given by the

Assessment Liaison, the DUGS, and the Program Director.

7.2.3 How are results aligned to outcomes and benchmarks/targets given? When assessment results are presented to faculty for review and reflection, they are shared in comparison to

the benchmark/target for the learning outcome under review. As part of this process, the benchmark/target is

also reviewed to determine whether it should be altered or remain the same based on the assessment results.

7.2.4 How will the data be used for making programmatic improvements? Feedback reports are shared with the faculty in the spring. During a mid-spring faculty meeting, the faculty

identifies strategies to address noted deficiencies. Faculty identify if strategies can be universally implemented

to affect more than just the course that was analyzed in the preceding fall semester. If no serious deficiencies

are found, the faculty will discuss revising or changing the SLO’s metric to better capture student performance.

7.3 Data Analysis Report Process/Procedures Each degree-granting academic program within the College submits a six-year assessment plan as part of the UK

periodic review process. The assessment plan template is provided by the UK Office of Assessment. The assessment

plans contain two three-year assessment cycles of student learning outcomes, curriculum maps and assessment

tools. The completion of the annual assessment reports and improvement action plans are a priority for the College

and has been included as a metric in previous versions of the College strategic plan.

8. Teaching Effectiveness 8.1 Identify Measures of Teaching Effectiveness All instructors will use the University Teacher Course Evaluation (TCE) process to be evaluated by their students

each semester. Through the annual and biennial review processes of faculty performance, each instructor will be



asked to provide a self-reflection which will include areas of improvement. New faculty members are peer reviewed

at least once during their first academic year of teaching. The Program Director and Department Chair review the

TCE results, any available peer review forms, and the self-reflection with the instructors and provide feedback to

the instructor.

8.2 What efforts to improve teaching effectiveness will be pursued based on these measures? A key measure of teaching effectiveness is the performance on the annual faculty performance review. The review

includes evaluation of the teaching portfolio, including the teacher course evaluation data. This information is used

to develop individualized faculty intervention plans and/or College-wide faculty development initiatives as needed.

9. Plans to evaluate post-graduation success There are currently no post-graduation success metrics given that the Bachelors in CSD is not a terminal degree that

allows for clinical practice. We will attempt to track the number of seniors who apply to graduate school and who

are subsequently accepted into competitive graduate program across the nation. Anecdotally, almost all seniors

apply to and gain admittance into their first, second or third choice schools. The number of our seniors who are not

admitted to any graduate program is very small (<3 out of a cohort of >50).



10. Appendices

SLO # 1 and #2 Final Exams are used to assess SLO #1 and SLO #2. The courses are additive in that the students’ understanding of new concepts depends strongly on their understanding and retention of past materials. Therefore, the final exam requires students to use information they have learned throughout the semester in order to complete final exam questions successfully. The exams typically included the following types of questions; multiple choice, fill-ins, matching, brief essays, true-false, labeling figures, some simple figure or flowchart drawing, etc. Exam questions are derived from lectures, outlines, textbook readings, and any outside readings that are assigned. SLO # 3 and SLO #4 Part 1 CSD 402 - Written Communication Assignment - Reflection Paper Instructions and Rubric (24 points) You will write a 3 page (300 words per page) reaction paper about your experience while wearing ear plugs. The paper must submitted by uploading it to CANVAS. The paper should include the following aspects: 1. The ear plugs will artificially create a mild hearing loss (<30 dB ). Ear plugs should be worn for a total of 4 hours in at least 4

different settings (one hour in duration for each setting). a. Two of these settings must include active listening, which includes some form of a communication exchange (any public

forum such as grocery store, bank, restaurant etc). b. Two settings must include passive listening, which do not include a communication exchange (i.e. watching TV, listening to

the radio).

Do not wear earplugs while driving because this could compromise your personal safety.

Do not wear earplugs if you have a history of drainage from your ears.

2. Provide 4 references that support the reactions that you experienced using APA format within the text and a reference list in APA format at the end of the paper. a. APA (American Psychological Association) style is most commonly used to cite sources within the social sciences. This

resource, revised according to the 6th edition, second printing of the APA manual, offers examples for the general format of APA research papers, in-text citations, endnotes/footnotes, and the reference page. For more information, please consult the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association, (6th ed., 2nd printing). https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/560/01/

3. Incorporate two (2) concepts/ideas/terms from CSD 402 that relate to the experiences you report in the body of your paper. This requires thought and integration of content presented and this experience. Both concepts that you discuss must be highlighted. a. For example, many of you will notice that the mild hearing loss created from the ear plugs reduces the volume of sound.

This reduction in volume is a result of a decline in the intensity of the signal, measured in decibels. A decibel is a unit of pressure and reflects a ratio between 2 numbers. There are several types of decibel scales used in the description of human hearing etc.

Rubric for Reflection Paper The rubric below will be used to grade the reaction paper.

FIRST DRAFT Personal Reaction to HL - 10 points Observed Not observed

CONTENT

Writing describes the settings where these occurred. 1 0

Provides 4 supporting peer reviewed research articles. 1 0

Writing introduces a personal reaction to HL (this may include comments related to feelings or situations actually experienced).

1 0

STRUCTURE

https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/560/01/



MACROSTRUCTURE: paper flows in a logical sequence, clarity of writing and coherence and leads the reader to the conclusion (reader could follow easily without guessing or inferring).

2 0

Writing reflects synthesis of at least 2 concepts from class (i.e. signal to noise ratio, decibels, OHC vs IHC, constructive vs destructive interference, formants, distortion, harmonics, fundamental frequency etc). These concepts must be highlighted (integration).

2 0

MICROSTRUCTURE: Technical quality of writing (errors observed - grammar, spelling, punctuation, etc.). 1 0

Overall paper organization includes section headings and title at the top, highlighted concepts described in syllabus.

1 0

Reference page follows APA guidelines. 1 0

Total points/ 10

Percent Score ______________________

SECOND DRAFT Personal Reaction to HL - 14 points Exceeds Expectations

2

Meets Expectations

1

Does not meet Expectations

0

CONTENT

Writing describes the settings where these occurred.

Writing introduces a personal reaction to HL (this may include comments related to feelings or situations actually experienced).

STRUCTURE

MACROSTRUCTURE: paper flows in a logical sequence, clarity of writing and coherence and leads the reader to the conclusion (reader could follow easily without guessing or inferring).

Writing reflects synthesis of at least 2 concepts from class (i.e. signal to noise ratio, decibels, OHC vs IHC, constructive vs destructive interference, formants, distortion, harmonics, fundamental frequency etc). These concepts must be highlighted.

Meets Expectations

1

Does not meet expectations

0

MICROSTRUCTURE: Technical quality of writing (errors observed in grammar, spelling, punctuation, etc.).

Overall paper organization includes section headings and title at the top, highlighted concepts described in syllabus.

Reference page follows APA guidelines.

Total points /14 points

Percent Score ____________________________



SLO # 4 Part 2 CSD 591 - Rubric for Written Structured Abstracts with Summary: 100 points.

Phase 1 – Developing the Question. (12 points) Phase 2 – Formatting Reference List – Use APA to correctly format all sources of information. (12 points) Phase 3 - Peer Review of Structured Abstracts - Performed in Class. Students will exchange papers with another peer in class. Your will complete this review sheet based on each of the 5 abstracts created by your peer. This activity is NOT associated with any portion of your grade or your peer’s grade, but rather is meant to give you a way to revise and rethink what you and your peer have already written. At the conclusion of the review you will return this sheet with comments and discuss your findings with the other student.

Areas evaluated Meets criteria

described

Does not meet criteria

described

Content

Is the purpose of study clearly identified?

Is the study sample identified? Is this a compilation of studies, a systematic review or is this one study with one particular population?

Can you identify the Intervention/Independent Variable or the predictor variable of the study?

Can you identify the outcome/ response or dependent variable of the study?

What was the method? What did the authors do to conduct this study?

What was the overall conclusion of the authors?

Structure

Macrostructure:

Does the abstract follow the overall template provided?

Is the summary easy to follow? Is it hard to follow and therefore unclear to the reader?

Microstructure:

Is the author (s), year title, journal, volume pages provided at top of abstract summary?

Quality of writing (errors observed in grammar, spelling, punctuation, etc.)?

Does it follow APA guidelines in references? and in title at top of page?

Is there too much information or not enough information? If so in what section(s)?

*Do you have other comments for your peer student to consider when re-writing?

Point allocation for entire written project Points Possible

Phase 1: Developing the Question Logical question (follows format provided), rationale for selection provided, on time submission EMAIL.

12

Phase 2: Preliminary Reference List :Adequate and appropriate resources, style, on time submission EMAIL. 12

Phase 3: In class peer review of 5 structured abstracts Summarize study according to format provided Must include Author/Title, Background, Purpose, Study sample, variables, Method, results, conclusion. RUBRIC PROVIDED but no points allocated IN CLASS

0

Phase 4: Revision of 5 structured abstracts based on peer feedback that includes all of the items in phase 3. Instructor to use same rubric as used in peer review of phase 3 except with point allocations. RUBRIC PROVIDED. UPLOAD TO CANVAS.

24

Phase 5: Submission of draft of 2 page summary based on structured abstracts. Feedback provided by instructor based on RUBRIC PROVIDED. UPLOAD TO CANVAS.

22

Phase 6. Revision and re-submission of final summary of all 5 structured abstracts that you reviewed that address the same question/problem. RUBRIC PROVIDED. UPLOAD TO CANVAS.

30

Total 100



Phase 4 - Instructor Review of Structured Abstracts - uploaded to Canvas (24 points)

Phase 5 - Instructor Review of Draft 2 page summary (22 points)

Areas evaluated Exceeds 2

Meets 1

Needs Improvement

0.5

Content

Background of problem provided.

Main key points from abstract summaries provided.

Description of variables studied.

Structure

MACROSTRUCTURE: paper flows in a logical sequence, clarity of writing (reader could follow easily without guessing or inferring).

Conclusion adequately reflects summary of abstracts (student).

MICROSTRUCTURE: Technical quality of writing (errors observed in grammar, spelling, punctuation, etc.).

Overall paper organization includes section headings and title at the top .


Meets word requirement.

Visual

Is at least 1 visual provided that reinforces the main idea of the study, findings or possible future study?

Is the placement logical? Does it enhance the overall summary? Does the visual have a label?


Meets 1

Does not meet 0

Content

Is the purpose of study clearly identified?

Is the study sample identified? Is this a compilation of studies, a systematic review or is this one study with one particular population?

Can you identify the Intervention/Independent Variable or the predictor variable of the study ?

Can you identify the outcome/ response or dependent variable of the study?

What was the method? What did the authors do to conduct this study?

What was the overall conclusion of the authors?

Structure

Macrostructure:

Does the abstract follow the overall template provided?

Is the summary easy to follow? Is it hard to follow and therefore unclear to the reader?

Microstructure:

Is the author (s), year title, journal, volume pages provided at top of abstract summary?

Quality of writing (errors observed in grammar, spelling, punctuation, etc.).

Does it follow APA guidelines in references and in title at top of page?

Is there too much information or not enough information? If so, in what section(s)?



Phase 6 - Rubric Instructor Review of Draft 2 page summary (30 points)


Meets 2

Needs Improvement

1

Content

Background of problem provided.

Main key points from abstract summaries provided.

Description of variables studied.

Structure

MACROSTRUCTURE: paper flows in a logical sequence, clarity of writing (reader could follow easily without guessing or inferring).

Conclusion adequately reflects summary of abstracts (student).

MICROSTRUCTURE: Technical quality of writing (errors observed in grammar, spelling, punctuation, meet word requirement, etc).

Overall paper organization includes section headings and title at the top.


Visual

Is at least 1 visual provided that reinforces the main idea of the study, findings or possible future study?

Is the placement logical? Does it enhance the overall summary? Does the visual have a label?

assessment plan for the bachelor of health science in ...€¦ · communication sciences &...

Documents