Strategic plan: speech-language pathology
Strategic Plan 2010-2017
The program in speech-language pathology has the following strategic
plan.
Vision Statement
The graduate program in speech-language
pathology at The University of Southern Mississippi aspires to be recognized
nationally for superior academic and clinical education of speech-language
pathologists, provision of clinical services for individuals with communication
disorders, and advancement of the development of practitioners and researchers.
Mission Statement
In congruence with the University of
Southern Mississippi mission and the College of Health mission, the
departmental mission of the program is to educate students to become competent
professionals in the field of communication disorders via a variety of
instructional models. Activities include developing professionals for a diverse
and changing population, utilizing current best practices, advancing knowledge
through research, and serving as a resource for the community and profession.
Success is evidenced in the eligibility of graduating students for national
certification, accomplishments in research, excellence in clinical instruction,
and the success of our graduates as professionals.
Envisioned Future in 2020
The program in speech-language pathology
has developed procedures for ongoing review of academic and clinical policies
and activities that ensure excellence of training in undergraduate, masters,
and continuing education programs. A
procedure is in place for using objective measures to ensure that clinical services
are based on scholarship. The program attracts a number of students from all
over the country, and it encourages international students as well. There is
both a diverse student and clinical population reflecting world demographic
trends. Under the guidance of world-renowned faculty, students will explore
both theory and practice in courses that prepare them to meet the needs of an
increasingly complex society. The program offers students challenging and often
multidisciplinary programs through consortiums with other universities that aid
them in realizing their full potential via a variety of instructional methods.
The admissions process results in a body of students who demonstrates superior
scholarship and clinical competence. Successful graduates of the program are
employed in various settings which include research, educational, clinical, and
medical settings. Graduates are also active in state and national professional
organizations. Financial support for students continues to be expanded through research
and education grants, and special programs such as the
DuBard School for Language Disorders and the
Children’s Center for Communication and Development. These provide students
with unique and exciting clinical and research experiences.
Faculty members have the time to pursue
research topics of interest, obtain grants, and develop special projects in
collaboration with other disciplines and outside agencies, and they are widely
published in their areas of expertise. All clinical programs and projects enjoy
national and international recognition and support. Consequently, the graduate
program has expanded to include a doctoral program in speech-language pathology
that achieves national acclaim. As a result of this expansion, faculty have increased in number, and a mentoring program is
in place to ensure the successful pursuits of scholarly endeavors by junior
faculty. The program is housed in a state-of-the-art facility that affords
cutting edge equipment and clinical materials.
Process
The speech-language pathology master’s program’s
strategic plan was designed by faculty with input from students, practicing
speech-language pathologists and interested members of the community. The
faculty began with the previous strategic plan, recommendations from the
reaccreditation process, needs expressed by supervisors, and the mission
statements and goals for the University, College of Health, and Department of
Speech and Hearing Sciences. Using those as a basis, the faculty developed
goals that addressed programmatic, faculty, and student needs. Also considered
and incorporated into the plan, are the needs of professionals within the state
and current professional practices. A plan that considered the program’s vision
statement and was achievable within a five year time frame was designed. Once
the plan was aligned with the institution’s mission, it was reviewed by the
Dean and Provost.
Guiding Principles/Values
In order to meet the mission, the Program will emphasize:
·
Academic
excellence
·
Clinical excellence
·
Integrity/Ethics
·
Responsivity to the
needs of clients and the communities (local, state, regional, national)
·
Research-based
practices
·
Interdisciplinary
collaboration
·
Diversity
·
Advocacy
FOCUS AREA: Clinic Demographics of Adult
Clients
Issue: To provide all graduate students
with adequate on-campus clinical experiences with adults with communication
disorders. This will assure that students have the basic knowledge and clinical
skills necessary for placement in an off-site experience.
Baseline data:
For the years 2008-2010, 41% of the
students were assigned adult clients during their on-campus clinical
experience. Data collection will continue on a regular basis to ensure that the
desired outcome of 90% is achieved and maintained.
Outcome
·
Graduate
students are given clinical experience in treating at least one adult with
communication disorders.
Indicator of success
·
End-of-semester
surveys of clinic records show that 90% of students have been assigned at least
one or more adult clients.
Strategies
1. The clinic faculty will continue to hold
ongoing reviews of graduate student caseload variety.
·
Results: Implemented.
·
Action:
Continue implementation of strategies.
2.
By
2011, the clinic faculty will provide public information about services offered
for adult clients in the clinic via media presentations, printed materials, and
visits to local treatment centers.
·
Results:
Implemented via word of mouth and brochure created.
·
Action: Distribute
brochure and continue implementation of strategies.
3.
By
2011, the clinic faculty will develop marketing strategies to target the adult
population.
·
Results:
Implemented via word of mouth and brochure created.
·
Action: Distribute
brochure and continue implementation of strategies.
4.
By
2011, the clinic faculty will initiate an adult client referral process to be
provided to physicians, rehabilitation staff, assisted living staff, and
support groups.
·
Results:
Implemented via word of mouth and brochure created.
·
Action: Distribute
brochure and continue implementation of strategies.
FOCUS AREA: Clinical and Classroom
Knowledge
Issue: The integrating of classroom
instruction and clinical experiences can result in students developing
appropriate academic knowledge and clinical skills.
Baseline data:
For the semesters Fall 2008 and Spring and
Fall 2009, baseline data were collected from both off-campus supervisors and
graduating students concerning the integration of academic knowledge and
clinical skills in their assigned sites. The results indicated that 78% of supervisors
reported that the students demonstrated their ability to integrate course
knowledge with their practicum experience.
81% of students reported that they were able to integrate course
knowledge into practicum experience at their assigned site.
Outcome
·
Students
demonstrate the ability to use knowledge obtained from the classroom curriculum
in their clinical practicum.
Indicator of Success
·
90% of
clinical supervisors report on student evaluation forms that students provide
treatment based on evidence-based practices, and theoretical as well as
physical applications.
·
90% of
students surveyed report that their classroom experiences prepared them
sufficiently for their clinical experience.
Strategies
1. By 2011, the department chair will be responsible
for ensuring that academic faculty and clinic staff continue
to remain current in best practices, policies and procedures via continuing
education units.
·
Results:
Implemented
·
Action:
Continue Implementation of strategies.
2.
By
2011, clinic staff will increase the utilization of academic faculty members in
clinic according to their specific clinical expertise.
·
Results:
Implemented via utilization of two academic faculty members in clinic according
to their specific clinical expertise.
·
Action:
Continue implementation of strategies.
3.
By
2011, the academic faculty members will increase the utilization of clinical
supervisors who have specific areas of expertise in subject matter in classroom
instruction to at least two occasions each semester.
·
Results:
Implemented via guest lectures by clinical supervisors in various courses at
least twice each semester.
·
Action:
Continue implementation of strategies.
4. By 2015, the clinic staff will develop and
implement focused discussion groups at least once per semester which will
include both class and clinic.
FOCUS AREA: Admissions Process
Issue: Students applying for admission may
choose to enroll in other programs if they are not informed early enough in the
process. Therefore, an earlier admission decision along with a statement of
financial support may increase the probability of recruiting outstanding
students that meet or exceed departmental and graduate school standards.
Baseline data:
Baseline data collection is currently
underway and will be completed by the end of 2011. For the years 2009-2010, of
those invited to the program, 30% of students who met departmental admissions
standards rejected their admission invitation. This resulted in students
admitted from the alternate list, 21% of whom did not meet departmental
admission standards. The majority of students who rejected their invitation
reported during interview that their decision was based on lack of financial
support and late admission acceptance dates. The data collection process will
require a complete survey of students rejecting admission to the program.
Outcome
·
Students
admitted to the program have the credentials necessary to meet departmental
standards for admission and which exceed graduate school requirements.
Indicator of Success
·
95% of
students admitted to the program meet the requirements for regular admission
status.
Strategies
·
By 2011,
the curriculum committee will put a plan in place to implement an earlier
admissions decision date to the program.
·
Results:
Implemented.
·
Action:
Continue implementation of strategies.
·
By 2011,
the curriculum committee will ensure that 85% of the Graduate Record
Examination test scores of admitted students will fall in the 50th
percentile or above on quantitative and verbal sections.
·
Results: 72%
of admitted students scored in the 50th percentile or above on the
GRE.
·
Action:
Continue implementation of strategies to raise this percentage.
·
By 2011,
the curriculum committee will ensure that the grade point average of 85% of
admitted students meets regular admission status.
·
Results:
Implemented.
·
Action:
Continue implementation of strategies.
·
By 2013,
the curriculum committee will ensure that 90% of the Graduate Record
Examination test scores of admitted students will be a minimum of 900.
·
By 2013,
the curriculum committee will ensure that the grade point average of 90% of
admitted students meets regular admission status.
·
By 2013,
the department will develop a plan to work in conjunction with funding sources
to provide an increase in student financial support.
·
By 2014,
the curriculum committee will ensure that 95% of the Graduate Record
Examination test scores of admitted students will be a minimum of 900.
·
By 2014,
the curriculum committee will ensure that the grade point average of 95% of
admitted students meets regular admission status.
FOCUS AREA: Curriculum
Issue: To ensure that the curriculum and
educational opportunities provide adequate breadth, depth, and relevance of
information for outstanding graduate education and support the scope of
practice. Newly hired faculty bring with them new and diverse perspectives and
innovative teaching methods in their areas of expertise. Therefore,
restructuring the curriculum will result in faculty teaching and/or supervising
in their areas of expertise. This will, in turn, result in preparing
outstanding graduates with the competencies to serve individuals with
communication disorders.
Baseline data
Baseline data collection is currently
underway and will be completed by 2011. Data collection will continue on a
regular basis as a means of measuring and monitoring progress toward the
outcomes listed below. This data collection process will require faculty
members to provide current syllabi as well as report additional professional
training.
Outcome
·
Syllabi
are consistent with KASA requirements.
·
Each
course is taught by faculty with greatest expertise in the course area.
Indicator of Success
·
100% of
the syllabi contain appropriate KASA indicators.
·
90% of
the courses are taught by faculty who have
demonstrated experience and expertise in their area of instruction.
Strategies
·
By 2011
and ongoing, the faculty will meet annually in May to review and confirm
currency of core requirements for the curriculum.
·
Results:
Implemented.
·
Action:
Continue implementation of strategies.
·
By 2011,
the teaching faculty will compile information regarding course content.
·
Results:
Implemented.
·
Action:
Continue implementation of strategies.
·
By 2012,
the faculty will present syllabi that demonstrate that all core requirements
have been incorporated into the curriculum.
·
Results:
Implemented.
·
Action:
Continue implementation of strategies.
·
By 2013,
the curriculum committee will meet to ensure that the curriculum is taught by
faculty and clinical supervisors with the appropriate experience and areas of
expertise.
·
By 2014,
the chairperson will continually monitor and assure that
faculty are assigned courses according to areas of expertise.
FOCUS AREA: Research
Issue: Research is an essential
component of the Mission statement for the University, College of Health, and
the Department of Speech and Hearing Sciences. In order to advance to a higher
level of research activity, the speech-language pathology program will build an
environmental foundation for research activities that will yield increased
research productivity in the near future and will form a lasting academic
culture of conducting research, presenting professional papers, publishing
journal articles, and submitting competitive grants. Additionally, research within the program is
essential to providing students with a reference for evidence-based
practice. In order to advance, faculty
members will need release time, laboratory space, and a program structure that
encourages and enhances research productivity.
Baseline Data:
Baseline data collection is currently underway and will be completed by
end of the fall 2010 semester. Data
collection will continue on a regular basis as a means of measuring and
monitoring progress toward the outcomes listed below. This data collection process will require faculty
members to provide research activity information on a routine basis to a
coordinator of research. The data to be
collected from each faculty member are:
1. Number of presentations at state, regional,
and national meetings per year for the last five years.
2. Number of peer-reviewed publications per
year for the last five years.
3. Number of current active research projects
that will lead to presentation(s) and/or publication(s).
4. Number of competitive research grants
submitted in the last five years.
5. Number of competitive research grants
awarded in the last five years.
Outcomes
1. The number of faculty members involved in
research will increase.
2. The number of research presentations at
national meetings and the number of articles published in peer-reviewed journals
will increase.
3. The number of competitive grant requests to
conduct research will increase.
4. The number of competitive research grants
awarded will increase.
Indicators of Success
1. Effective Fall
2011, the number of faculty members involved in presentations and publications
in research will increase by 10 percent per year until a criterion of 90% is
reached.
2. Beginning in 2011, the number of
presentations at national professional meetings and the number of articles
published in peer reviewed journals will increase by one per year (relative to
the baseline) until a ratio of 1:1 presentation or publication per faculty
member per year is reached.
3. By 2012, at least two faculty members per
year will be involved in submitting competitive grants to fund research
projects.
4. By 2014, one or more faculty members will
be awarded grants for research projects.
Strategies
1. By Fall 2011, the
Department Chair will be responsible for providing research laboratory space
for each faculty member actively involved in research within one year of their
joining the USM faculty.
·
Results:
Implemented.
·
Action:
Continue implementation of strategies.
2. Effective Fall
2010, the Department Chair will finalize a plan for providing release time to
conduct research.
·
Results:
Implemented.
·
Action:
Continue implementation of strategies.
3. By Fall 2011, the
Department Chair or designee will organize a “journal club” type meeting of
faculty and students on a regular basis.
The purposes of the “journal club” are to initiate, facilitate, enhance
and disseminate research activities.
·
Results:
Implemented.
·
Action:
Continue implementation of strategies.
4. By Fall 2011, no fewer than 25% of course
syllabi will have options for student participation in research activities such
as writing literature reviews or formal papers, and conducting surveys or
experimental research projects.
·
Results:
Implemented.
·
Action:
Continue implementation of strategies.
5. By Fall 2011,
students who have a thesis option will be advised by the research coordinator
of the advantages and opportunities for learning that are commensurate with
completing a thesis.
·
Results:
Implemented.
·
Action:
Continue implementation of strategies.
6. By Spring 2011, the Department Chair will
appoint and charge a coordinator of research activities whose duties will
include but are not limited to collecting data regarding faculty research
activity, to serve as an advocate for research productivity and to submit
status reports to the Chair on a regular basis.
·
Results:
Implemented.
·
Action:
Continue implementation of strategies.
FOCUS AREA: Resource Allocations
Issue: The need for systematic assessment of adequacy of current
resources and anticipated needs is critical for ensuring that the quality of
the program is maintained and future goals are met. The program receives income
from both university and self-generated sources such as clinic fees and grants;
therefore, evaluating income and spending is paramount to prudent usage of
funds.
Baseline Data: By Spring 2013, baseline data will be
collected. Collected data will include monthly detailed reports on expenditures
documented via accounting software and detailed monthly reports on acquisitions
documented via QuickBooks.
Outcomes
1. Clinic funding will increase.
2. Resources for academic and clinical use
will increase.
3. New funding sources will be identified.
Indicators of Success
1. Beginning in fall 2013, reports summarizing
income and expenditure details will be completed by the end of each semester.
2. Beginning in fall 2013, recommendations
regarding budget changes will have been reported by the end of each semester.
Strategies
1. By fall 2013, the office manager will
conduct monthly monitoring of reports concerning income and expenditures of the
department to ensure best utilization of funds.
·
Computer
software has been purchased and set up.
2. By fall 2013, clinical staff will conduct
monthly monitoring of reports concerning income and expenditures of the clinic
to ensure best utilization of funds.
·
Computer
software has been purchased and set up.
3. By 2014, the department chair will make
recommendations for budgetary changes and identification of any additional
funding sources based on these reports from the office manager and clinical
staff in light of program needs.
Mechanism for Regular Evaluation of the
Plan
·
Review
the mission, strategic goals, and strategic objectives annually and update as
necessary.
Mechanism for Regular Evaluation of
Progress in Meeting the Plan’s Objectives
·
Academic
and clinical faculty feedback (e.g., semester course and clinic evaluations by
students, survey of employers who hire prior students, exit surveys by
graduating students) will be provided by the university and clinic director and
will then be reviewed annually by the department chair.
·
The curriculum
committee will review the curriculum annually by May 31st.
·
Progress
across all objectives will be reviewed by faculty members annually by May 31st.
·
Progress
will be discussed and documented in the department chair’s annual meeting with
the college dean.
·
Progress
will be summarized and reported in the annual report due to the Council on
Academic Accreditation in Audiology and Speech-Language Pathology by February
1st.
·
Annual
reports will be posted as a link on the departmental website for dissemination
to all interested parties by August 31st.
This
plan has been reviewed by departmental faculty members, as well as outside
sources such as off-site clinical supervisors and university alumni. Any
suggested changes, additions, subtractions, or comments are encouraged. Please
see Mary Schaub(Mary.Schaub@usm.edu) or
Jennifer Salgo Corie (Jennifer.Salgo@usm.edu).


