Date Received
Semester Assessment Report Form: Fall 2008 Data
DUE March 31, 2008
Directions: Please complete a form for each of the programs within your department. This
form was designed to provide a format for assessment reporting and should not be used to limit
the amount of information provided. Each box that is attached to each of the sections is designed
to adjust to varying lengths. If you have any questions, please contact Dr. Bea Babbitt at x51506
or via email at: bea.babbitt@unlv.edu.
***Please submit the report electronically to bea.babbitt@unlv.edu
1. Program Information:
Program Ph.D.
Department History
College Liberal Arts
Program Elspeth Whitney
Assessment
Coordinator
Semester Data Fall 2008
Collected
Report Elspeth Whitney, with assistance from Lynette Weber,
Submitted by Administrative Assistant, History Department
Phone/email 895-3350, elspeth@unlv.nevada.edu
Date Submitted April 11, 2007
2. According to the Assessment Plan for this program, what were the planned assessments to be
conducted during the Spring 2008 semester? You may want to copy and paste from this
program’s assessment plan.
Which outcomes for How did you measure What results did you expect? If the
this program were the outcomes? students performed well what would
measured? their performance look like, i.e.
percentages, means, or comparisons to
a national standard?
__1__outcome out of a total of __3__ outcomes evaluated this semester.
1. Demonstrate an
in-depth Pass the qualifying All students would pass the
knowledge of an exams on the first qualifying exams on the first attempt.
extensive body of attempt.
scholarly material
in a defined
historical period,
on a particular
geographic region
or regions, or on a Student professional Students would find opportunities to
particular theme, activities make use of their graduate training
e.g. History and through employment, publishing and
Memory. other activities.
A. Demonstrate an
in-depth
knowledge of the
content of a body
of scholarly
material of a
particular field 700-level course work would
B. Demonstrate emphasize historiography and
knowledge of the historiographical analysis and students
historical literature would complete this course work
and historiography successfully. All students would pass
of a particular field the qualifying exams, which
from the field’s emphasize historiography, on the first
earliest beginnings attempt.
to its most recent
developments.
C. Demonstrate an
awareness of the
role of historians
in the construction
of the past and the
role of
contemporary
context in shaping
the perspectives of
historians.
3. Results. What are the results of the planned assessments listed above? Describe below or
attach to the form.
Results
All 700-level courses have a strong historiographical component in order to give
students adequate preparation. In addition, all Ph. D. students are required to take nine
credits of historiography courses (HIST 740a, e, f, g, h) and encouraged to take more
than the minimum number of credits.
Three students took and passed the qualifying exams on the first try. One of these
passed with honors and a second with a strong pass.
Several of our recent graduates who were hired in full-time but temporary positions in
the History Department have obtained tenure-track university positions.
4. Conclusions and Discoveries. What conclusions or discoveries were made from these
results? Describe below or attach to the form.
Conclusions and Discoveries
Many students have family and work responsibilities which slow their progress
through the program. The Department has grown increasingly concerned bout the
number of students taking six credits or fewer in one semester. The Department has
responded by scheduling more courses in the late afternoon and evening and by
instituting a requirement that all students take at least 9 credits a semester.
.
Overall, the performance of Ph. D. students in 700 level courses and on qualifying
exams has continued to improve compared to previous semesters.
Continuing departmental initiatives. The Department has been working for some
time on ways to strengthen the performance of Ph.D. students, especially on qualifying
exams. Several initiatives developed during the Fall 07 and Spring 08 semesters as a
result of assessment have been implemented. The new form for comparative
assessment of student performance on comprehensive exams is being used. This has
already had the effect of highlighting specific aspects of student performance which
could be improved. The handbook for students laying out the relationship between
the comprehensive exams and coursework, dissertation research and teaching has been
completed and given out to students. This handbook also includes a clear timeline for
preparation for the exams. A booklet of sample exam questions and sample book lists
is in the process of being developed. The new policy of flagging students who do
poorly in Historiography courses has been implemented. In addition, HIST 710, a new
required course, has been developed and improved (described below).
Student professional activities. The Department is doing an excellent job in helping
students succeed professionally.
5. Use of Results. What program changes are indicated? How will they be implemented? If
none, describe why changes were not needed.
Program change. A new course, HIST 710: The Professional Historian, has been
developed and approved.. This 1-credit course is designed to introduce students to
various aspects of the history profession including: effective teaching strategies and
syllabus construction, thinking historiographically, applying for grants internal and
external research grants, submitting conference paper abstracts, navigating the job
market, etc. This course will be required of all students in the program (MA and Ph.D.).
The course will be co-taught by the faculty in a workshop format, with 6-8 workshops
per semester, and will be graded on a Pass/Fail basis.
The course was approved by the college and university curriculum committees in Fall
2008 and will be taught beginning in Fall 09.
Program change. 700-level historiography courses, required of all Ph.D. students, now
require a mid-term or major exam to give students practice in writing exam essays
comparable to the comprehensive exams and to assess comprehension. Students with a
weak performance are flagged and additional preparatory work recommended to them
prior to the taking of the comprehensive exams.
Program change. The structure of the program of study for the Ph.D. was changed in
order to clarify program objectives and better fit student needs. Rather than simply
choosing between an American West track and a Cultural/Intellectual track, Ph. D.
students majoring in United States History now must choose to concentrate in either the
North American West or North American Culture and Society.. Ph. D. students majoring
in European History must concentrate in European Culture and Society. Examination
fields were modified accordingly. In addition, students must now formally present a
prospectus for their proposed dissertation research to their advisory committee before
taking thesis credits. The prospectus must be accepted for the student for the student to
have ABD status in the History Department.
6. Dissemination of Results, Conclusions, and Discoveries. How and with whom were the
results shared?
The assessment report will be shared with the Chair immediately and with the faculty in
electronic form during the Fall 08 semester. As discoveries result from the use of the
new form, these discoveries will be shared with Ph.D. students through the Graduate
Committee and Graduate Coordinator..
Date Received
Fall 2008 Semester Assessment Report Form
DUE March 31, 2009
Directions: Please complete a form for each of the programs within your department. This
form was designed to provide a format for assessment reporting and should not be used to limit
the amount of information provided. Each box that is attached to each of the sections is designed
to adjust to varying lengths. If you have any questions, please contact Dr. Bea Babbitt at x51506
or via email at: bea.babbitt@unlv.edu.
1. Program Information:
Program Masters in Hispanic Studies
Department Foreign Languages
College Liberal Arts
Program Catherine G. Bellver
Assessment
Coordinator
Semester Data Fall 2008
Collected
Report Catherine G. Bellver
Submitted by
Phone/email 895-3464 catherine.bellver@unlv.edu
Date Submitted March 30, 2009
2. According to the Assessment Plan for this program, what were the planned assessments to be
conducted during the Fall 2008 Academic Semester? You may want to copy and paste from this
program’s assessment plan.
Which outcomes for How did you measure What results did you expect? If the
this program were the outcomes? students performed well what would
measured? their performance look like, i.e.
percentages, means, or comparisons to
a national standard?
__2__outcomes out of a total of ___2_ outcomes evaluated this semester.
#2 SPAN 740 Modern #2 Students were required to read a
Spanish Drama play for each week. Because the
series of works of theater were
Preparation 10% arranged by topics that traced the
Brief written evolution of Spanish sociopolitical
assignments 15% history through the course of the
Semester project 35% twentieth century, students were
2 exams 40% expect to appreciate the context within
which each work was written.
Additionally they were exposed to the
basic elements of theater through
lectures, outside readings, and
comparison to film in order that they
might learn how to analyze a play as a
piece of literature. If students
performed well they would be able to
identify and analyze dramas critically
and relate them to the environment in
which they were created.
#3 SPAN 760 #3
Analytical skills and a) They students are expected to make
content knowledge: Class participation--5% connections between theoretical
Written assignments-- aspects of second language acquisition
a) Students should be 10% and the use of computer in language
able to discuss recent Web page--10% learning.
trends in foreign Lesson Plan and
language technologies presentation--5% b) The students are expected to use
Software Review and computers in classrooms (common
b) In addition, students presentation--10% applications, software evaluation,
should develop Journal article home page creation and creation of
advanced proficiency presentation with materials using video, audio and
level in the design of handout and slide graphics
electronic teaching show--5%
materials for the CALL Assignments (3)
foreign language 15%
classroom. Final Project --20%
Final Exam--20%
3. Results, conclusions, and discoveries. What are the results of the planned assessments listed
above? What conclusions or discoveries were made from these results? Describe below or
attach to the form.
Results, conclusions, and discoveries
#2
The end results of the class as calibrated by the final grades in the course were varied,
but satisfactory: A =22%; A- =11%; B+ =33.3 %; B =22%, and B- =11%.
The two exams, one in the middle of the course and the other at end gave the
following results: A =22%; A- =11%; and B = 66.6%. The proportion of grades in
the A categories (33.3%) and those in the B categories (66.6%) was identical to those
of the final grade.
The semester project yielded a slightly different profile: a =33.3%; A- =22%, B+
=11%; B =22%; and B- =11%. The entire amount of As was 55.3% and all of the Bs
constituted 44.7%.
The greater percentage of A on the semester project than on the exams might reflect a
failure of students to assimilate pertinent knowledge on the various works read. It
may also indicate that by the end of the semester had acquired the necessary skills to
discuss, analyze, and interpret drama with sufficient critical insight of a graduate
student on the Masters’ level. Their assignment was to apply what they had learned
throughout the semester to a play from the recent era, which was not covered in class
and to consider what social reality was transformed into literature and how it was
represented through textual discourse into theatrical form.
#3
-Most of the students were able to integrate second language theories and computer
assisted language learning issues, and to reflect critically about abstract concepts.
-After the creation of many projects, the students were able:
• to create second language learning materials using computer common
applications
• to decide critically the advantages or disadvantages of a second language
learning software
• to create a web page
• to create computer assisted language learning (CALL) materials using video,
audio and graphics
4. Use of Results. What program changes are indicated? How will they be implemented? If
none, describe why changes were not needed.
#2
The results will be reviewed the next time this topic is given. Changes will probably not
be made because, although the intellectual sophistication and academic background of the
students in the class varied, most of them improved both their analytical skills and their
knowledge of Spanish literature
#3
The results will be discussed with the Spanish graduate coordinator and the Spanish
graduate faculty
5. Dissemination of results, conclusions, and discoveries. How and with whom were the results
shared?
#2 The professor in the course will retain a copy of the present assessment.
#3 The graduate coordinator will distribute the Assessment Report Form to all graduate
faculty of Spanish.
Date Received
Semester Assessment Report Form: Fall 2008 Data
DUE March 31, 2009
Directions: Please complete a form for each of the programs within your department. This
form was designed to provide a format for assessment reporting and should not be used to limit
the amount of information provided. Each box that is attached to each of the sections is designed
to adjust to varying lengths. If you have any questions, please contact Dr. Bea Babbitt at x51506
or via email at: bea.babbitt@unlv.edu.
***Please submit the report electronically to bea.babbitt@unlv.edu
1. Program Information:
Program Graduate Programs PhD, M.A., EPS
Department Political Science
College Liberal Arts
Program Dr. Kenneth E. Fernandez
Assessment
Coordinator
Semester Data Fall 2009
Collected
Report Dr. Kenneth E. Fernandez
Submitted by
Phone/email 702-895-4029/kenneth.fernandez@unlv.edu
Date Submitted March 31, 2009
2. According to the Assessment Plan for this program, what were the planned assessments to be
conducted during the Fall 2008 semester? You may want to copy and paste from this program’s
assessment plan.
Which outcomes for How did you measure the What results did you expect? If
this program were outcomes? the students performed well
measured? what would their performance
look like, i.e. percentages,
means, or comparisons to a
national standard?
7 outcomes were evaluated this semester.
1. Development of Instructor course grades of student Passing grades in core
critical thinking skills performances. Student comments research methods and
necessary for the and evaluation of course in related courses. Positive
evaluation of social teaching evaluations. Interviews evaluations of course by
science concepts. with graduate students. students.
2. Knowledge of the Instructor course grades of student Passing Grades in core
research process in the performances. Student comments research methods and
social sciences. and evaluation of course in related courses. Positive
teaching evaluations. Interviews evaluations of course by
with graduate students. students.
3. Development of the Instructor course grades of student Passing grades in core
skills and knowledge performances. Student comments research methods and
needed for informed and evaluation of course in related courses. Positive
information teaching evaluations. Interviews evaluations of course by
consumption. with graduate students. students.
4. Development of Instructor course grades of student Passing Grades in core
knowledge of the performances. Student comments research methods and
multiple motivations and evaluation of course in related courses. Positive
and constraints teaching evaluations. Interviews evaluations of course by
underlying political with graduate students. students.
behavior.
5. Development of an Instructor course grades of student Passing grades in core
understanding of the performances. Student comments research methods and
multi-causal nature and evaluation of course in related courses. Positive
that characterizes the teaching evaluations. Interviews evaluations of course by
social world. with graduate students. students.
6. Application of the Instructor course grades of student Passing Grades in core
social science research performances. Student comments research methods and
process. and evaluation of course in related courses. Positive
teaching evaluations. Interview evaluations of course by
with graduate students. students. Students
expressing a positive
understanding of the
application of course
objectives and assignments
to the research process (i.e.
M.A. thesis)
7. Upon completion Completion of thesis or written Positive (Passing)
of the program and oral exam. evaluation of thesis or
students will have exam committee.
knowledge of the
theoretical and
methodological
development and
controversies within
the discipline.
3. Results. What are the results of the planned assessments listed above? Describe below or
attach to the form.
Results
I. Student Grades
The courses that were offered in the Fall of 2008 were:
PSC701; PSC723; PSC760; EPS712
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
A 21 42.0 42.0 42.0
A- 11 22.0 22.0 64.0
B+ 12 24.0 24.0 96.0
B 4 8.0 8.0 72.0
WD 1 2.0 2.0 98.0
WH 1 2.0 2.0 100.0
Total 50 100.0 100.0
II. Student Course Evaluations
The overall course evaluation averages for the graduate classes were above average to
high: 3.81, 3.80, 3.52, 3.42
III. Comments of students in teaching evaluations.
Generally, the student comments on the graduate courses were very strong. This report
will focus on the critical comments for future improvement of the curriculum. One of
the most common comments was that the amount of assigned reading was too much.
• Tie readings and course to current events
• Encourage more discussion
• Provide more/better feedback on assignment so student have better idea of
their performance
• Smaller classes
IV. Comments of Students in Interviews
Generally, the comments received in the focus groups and individual interviews were
not about any courses or course material, but rather about the graduate program itself.
• Students felt that course assignments and assessments were appropriate and
provided the needed structure, incentives and opportunity to consume and analyze
the course material, but they would appreciate more detailed feedback on these
assignments and assessments when handed back to students.
• Most critical comments were not about curriculum content but rather on recent
changes to degree requirements
• Similarly, students wished there was better communications regarding the thesis
and examination process
• Students wanted more courses offered and at better and more various times
• Students suggested smaller courses; 16 students in a course is too large
• Students suggested access to a graduate student computer lab with SPSS and
STATA so that students can work together on projects.
• Student felt the courses in the political science courses were similar in structure
and rigor to graduate courses taken in other departments.
• Students appreciated being required to discuss or present their own research
projects or papers in class. Such a requirement allowed them to get immediate
feedback and get ideas from other student’s comments and presentations.
• Students suggested that students be reminded about the requirement that students
form their advisory committed before completing sixteen credits of work.
4. Conclusions and Discoveries. What conclusions or discoveries were made from these results?
Describe below or attach to the form.
Conclusions and Discoveries
The main goal of the assessment of the graduate program is to assess whether our
graduate students are making adequate progress through the program and that the
program and its curriculum are preparing students to begin work on their thesis.
Overall students expressed through their evaluations and comments that they were
satisfied with the program and felt that the courses were challenging. Students felt the
courses and course material met their expectations and provided them with a better
understanding of the particular field.
5. Use of Results. What program changes are indicated? How will they be implemented? If
none, describe why changes were not needed.
At the present time, the Department of Political Science does not plan to make any
major changes to the program. The assessment did not show that any curriculum or
programmatic changes were needed. Instead, the dissemination of this report will allow
individual faculty to consider the information and determine how to best address any
identified issues. For example, not all courses had comments recommending more class
discussion or the need to better feedback on assignments, so a program change is not
necessary. Instead, faculty can incorporate relevant information into their course
changes or revisions.
6. Dissemination of Results, Conclusions, and Discoveries. How and with whom were the
results shared?
The information was distributed to all full time faculty members in the Department of
Political Science. In addition, the report is posted on the Department of Political Science
web page.
Assessment plan for clinical doctoral program in psychology for Fall, 2008
The student learning outcomes for the clinical doctoral program include the
following:
• Students should possess a broad knowledge of psychological science.
• Students should understand and be able to implement the methods of psychological
science.
• Students should have the knowledge and skills necessary to intervene in a range of
psychological concerns.
• Students should possess the skills and knowledge necessary to confront novel
challenges.
• Students should be able to present their knowledge to relevant parties through clear
written and verbal communication.
These outcomes were assessed in several key ways during the Fall, 2008 semester:
With respect to all of these outcomes, the American Psychological Association
conducted its site visit of the clinical doctoral program in October, 2008. This two-day
visit involved a thorough review of policies and procedures, theses, dissertations, practicum
opportunities and outcomes, student evaluations, and interviews with clinical and
experimental faculty members as well as several administrators. The site visit team issued
a report in November that was highly complimentary of the clinical doctoral program and
that was supported by President Ashley. The APA Commission on Accreditation will issue
its recommendation regarding accreditation (and length of accreditation) in April, 2009.
This evaluation of clinical graduate students and the clinical program thus involved a
thorough review of whether students possess a broad knowledge of psychological
science, whether they can implement methods of psychological science in their
practicum and research work, whether they have the skills necessary to provide
intervention and confront novel challenges, and whether they can communicate their
ideas via classroom presentations, conference presentations, publications, and theses
and dissertations.
With respect to all of these outcomes, clinical faculty met regularly in Fall, 2008
to evaluate clinical graduate students with respect to grades, practicum standing, and thesis
and dissertation status. These meetings were held either by a small clinical steering
committee or by the clinical faculty as a whole. Although the large majority of students are
progressing satisfactorily in our graduate program, 2/44 students had problems related to
grades, practicum, or thesis or dissertation timelines that required substantial attention,
mentoring, and remediation. In addition, all students received a satisfactory or better rating
from their supervisors for their clinical work and 15/44 (34.1%) active clinical students
proposed or defended their thesis or dissertation in Summer/Fall, 2008. Also, 83.7% of
current clinical graduate students (excepting first-year students) have at least one
publication and 86.0% have at least one conference presentation. Specific plans were
outlined for these students so their progression toward the doctorate remains within reach
during the timeline set by the Graduate College. The ongoing evaluation of clinical
graduate students thus involved a thorough review of whether students possess a
broad knowledge of psychological science, whether they can implement methods of
psychological science in their practicum and research work, whether they have the
skills necessary to provide intervention and confront novel challenges, and whether
they can communicate their ideas via classroom presentations, conference
presentations, publications, and theses and dissertations.
With respect to possessing a broad knowledge of psychological science, ability
to communicate knowledge through clear written communication, and ability to
confront novel challenges, Comprehensive Examinations taken by graduate students were
rated by clinical faculty in Fall, 2008. The Comprehensive Examination is a thorough
evaluation process in which students must answer broad questions pertaining to
psychopathology, assessment and treatment, ethics, diversity, and research methods and
statistics. These questions are unknown to the student until the day they are given the
examination, which further evaluates their ability to confront novel challenges. Students
who took this examination in 2008 received passing scores in 35/36 questions. Upon
subsequent reexamination for one student, 100% of students passed the examination.
These comprehensive examinations thus involved a thorough review of whether
students possess a broad knowledge of psychological science, whether they can
communicate their ideas in a clear fashion, and whether they can confront novel
challenges.
With respect to possessing a broad knowledge of psychological science, the
Director of Clinical Training and clinical faculty met regularly with clinical graduate
students with respect to issues of policy, diversity, and ethics. The student handbook given
to students underwent revision in accordance with policy changes by the clinical faculty.
In addition, those students applying for internship were provided with special information
in workshop format about the application process as well as considerable mentoring about
choosing potential internship sites and interviewing at these sites. These meetings,
materials, and workshops also involved a thorough review of whether students possess
a broad knowledge of psychological science.
Date Received
Fall 2008 Semester Assessment Report Form
DUE March 31, 2009
Directions: Please complete a form for each of the programs within your department. This
form was designed to provide a format for assessment reporting and should not be used to limit
the amount of information provided. Each box that is attached to each of the sections is designed
to adjust to varying lengths. If you have any questions, please contact Dr. Bea Babbitt at x51506
or via email at: bea.babbitt@unlv.edu.
1. Program Information:
Program Experimental Psychology Doctoral Program
Department Psychology
College Liberal Arts
Program Murray Millar
Assessment
Coordinator
Semester Data Fall 2008
Collected
Report Murray Millar
Submitted by
Phone/email 702-895-0179/ millar@unlv.nevada.edu
Date Submitted 03.25.09
2. According to the Assessment Plan for this program, what were the planned assessments to be
conducted during the 2008 Academic Year? You may want to copy and paste from this
program’s assessment plan.
Which outcomes for How did you measure What results did you expect? If the
this program were the outcomes? students performed well what would
measured? their performance look like, i.e.,
percentages, means, or comparisons to
a national standard?
__2__outcomes out of a total of __5__ outcomes evaluated this semester.
#1. Students should 1) Completion of major It is expected that 100% of students
possess skills and review paper will successfully complete and present
knowledge necessary review paper which reflects a broad
to confront novel understanding of a topic in psychology
challenges. by the end their fourth year of study.
2) Successful It is expected that 100% of the students
completions of thesis or will demonstrate in their defense of
dissertation. their degree work that they understand
how to design, analyze, and present
scientific information.
#2. Students should 1) Successful and It is expected that all students will
understand and be able timely completion of complete the three required
to implement the required methodology methodology courses with a grade of
methods of courses. B- or better in the first two years of
psychological science study. These courses are Psych 707,
Research Methods; Psych 708,
Statistics I; Psych 709, Statistics II.
2) Passing Thesis and It is expected that 100% of the students
Dissertation Defenses will demonstrate in their defense of
their degree work that they understand
how to design, analyze, and present
scientific information.
3. Results, conclusions, and discoveries. What are the results of the planned assessments listed
above? What conclusions or discoveries were made from these results? Describe below or
attach to the form.
Results, conclusions, and discoveries
Program Outcome #1. Students should possess skills and knowledge necessary to
confront novel challenges.
Student ability to confront novel challenges was assessed through the analysis of 1) in
presentation of major review paper and 2) performance of students in the formal defense
meetings of their degree research
1) Completion of major review paper: None of the experimental students during the
evaluation period defended their major review paper by the end of their third year as
required by the program. Further, 20% of the students that did defend the major review
paper were required to conduct a major rewrite of the paper.
2) Passing thesis and dissertation defenses: All experimental students who stood for their
Master’s thesis or dissertation defense received a passing grade. However, all students
were required to make at least minor revisions and in about 10% of the instances major
revisions were required of the student before the defense committee finally signed off
on the research to the graduate school. All of the major revision requests focused on
revising the statistical analyses used in the thesis or dissertation. The request for
revisions in the statistical analysis is consistent with past assessments of this outcome.
Program Outcome #2. Students should understand and be able to implement the
methods of psychological science.
Student utilization of the methodologies of psychological science was assessed through
analysis of 1) performance of students in required methodology courses and 2) performance
of students in the formal defense meetings of their degree research.
1) Successful and timely completion of the required methodology courses: The
expectation was that all students would successfully complete Psych 707, Research
Methods; Psych 708, Statistics I and Psych 709, Statistics II within the first two years
of graduate study in the experimental program. This expectation was fulfilled with all
of our students successfully completing all three courses with at or above a grade of B.
This component of the program has historically been the most difficult outcome to
accomplish and Fall 08 represents is the first time this outcome has been achieved.
This may be a result of the more selective recruiting practices implemented by the
Experimental Psychology Program.
2) Passing thesis and dissertation defenses: All experimental students who stood for
their Master’s thesis or dissertation defense received a passing grade. However, all
students were required to make at least minor revisions and in about 10% of the
instances major revisions were required of the student before the defense committee
finally signed off on the research to the graduate school. All of the major revision
requests focused on revising the statistical analyses used in the thesis or dissertation.
The request for revisions in the statistical analysis is consistent with past assessments
of this outcome.
4. Use of Results. What program changes are indicated? How will they be implemented? If
none, describe why changes were not needed.
Program Outcome #1. Students should possess skills and knowledge necessary to
confront novel challenges.
The successful completion of the major review paper is a significant stumbling block for
experimental psychology students. In response to this problem, the experimental
psychology faculty has begun to modify the procedures associated with the paper. A
number of possibilities are under consideration. These include replacing the review paper
with qualifying examinations, instituting writing mentorship for the students, or breaking
the process into a number of discrete steps. The modifications are expected to be
completed in Spring 2009 and be implemented in Fall 2009.
Program Outcome #2. Students should understand and be able to implement the methods
of psychological science.
Although all students were successful in completing the statistical and methodological
course work, the focus of revision requests for thesis and dissertations remained on
statistical analyses. In response to this repeated outcome, the experimental psychology
faculty has revised the statistical courses by placing more emphasis on basic statistical
concepts. The revised courses will be offered for the first time Fall 2009.
5. Dissemination of results, conclusions, and discoveries. How and with whom were the results
shared?
These results were shared with students and program faculty through the annual student
evaluation process and through meetings of the experimental program committee (with
student representation).
Regular communications between the program director and Department Chair and
between the Department Chair and the Dean of the College of Liberal Arts ensure that the
information gained through this assessment process is disseminated to the College and
presumably to the University.
Date Received
Fall 2008 Semester Assessment Report Form
DUE March 31st, 2009
Directions: Please complete a form for each of the programs within your department. This
form was designed to provide a format for assessment reporting and should not be used to limit
the amount of information provided. Each box that is attached to each of the sections is designed
to adjust to varying lengths. If you have any questions, please contact Dr. Bea Babbitt or via
email at: bea.babbitt@unlv.edu
***Please submit the report electronically to bea.babbitt@unlv.edu
1. Program Information:
Program MA
Department Sociology
College Liberal Arts
Program
Assessment
Coordinator
Semester Data Fall 2008
Collected
Report
Submitted by
Phone/email
Date Submitted
**NO STUDENTS CURRENTLY IN PROGRAM**
2. According to the Assessment Plan for this program, what were the planned assessments to be
conducted during the 2008-2009 Academic Year? You may want to copy and paste from this
program’s assessment plan.
Which outcomes for How did you measure What results did you expect? If the
this program were the outcomes? students performed well what would
measured? their performance look like, i.e.
percentages, means, or comparisons to
a national standard?
____outcomes out of a total of ____ outcomes evaluated this semester.
**NO STUDENTS
CURRENTLY IN
PROGRAM**
3. Results, conclusions, and discoveries. What are the results of the planned assessments listed
above? What conclusions or discoveries were made from these results? Describe below or
attach to the form.
Results, conclusions, and discoveries
**NO STUDENTS CURRENTLY IN PROGRAM**
4. Use of Results. What program changes are indicated? How will they be implemented? If
none, describe why changes were not needed.
**NO STUDENTS CURRENTLY IN PROGRAM**
5. Dissemination of results, conclusions, and discoveries. How and with whom were the results
shared?
**NO STUDENTS CURRENTLY IN PROGRAM**
Date Received
Semester Assessment Report Form: Fall 2008 Data
Directions: Please complete a form for each of the programs within your department. This
form was designed to provide a format for assessment reporting and should not be used to limit
the amount of information provided. Each box that is attached to each of the sections is designed
to adjust to varying lengths. If you have any questions, please contact Dr. Bea Babbitt at x51506
or via email at: bea.babbitt@unlv.edu.
***Please submit the report electronically to bea.babbitt@unlv.edu
1. Program Information:
Program BA-PhD Fast Track
Department Sociology
College Liberal Arts
Program Simon Gottschalk
Assessment
Coordinator
Semester Data Fall 2008
Collected
Report Simon Gottschalk
Submitted by
Phone/email 895-0266
Date Submitted March 27, 2009
2. According to the Assessment Plan for this program, what were the planned assessments to be
conducted during the Fall 2008 semester? You may want to copy and paste from this program’s
assessment plan.
Which outcomes for What results did you expect? If the
How did you measure
this program were the outcomes? students performed well what would
measured? their performance look like, i.e.
percentages, means, or comparisons to
a national standard?
____outcomes out of a total of ____ outcomes evaluated this semester.
a) Sophisticated Core, required coursework Of 3 students taking the Theory
understanding of in theories and paradigms comprehensive exam, all 3 passed.
sociological paradigms via SOC 701;
Comprehensive exams
b) disciplinary expertise in Core, required coursework 723: offered only in the Spring
classical, contemporary, in theories and paradigms 701:A:7; B:1; WD:1
modern and postmodern via SOC 701, 723, 724; 724: A:5
sociological theory Comprehensive exams Of 3 students taking the theory comprehensive
exam, all 3 passed. It is to be noted that
students taking the comprehensive exams in
the Fall 2008 are not those who have taken
SOC 701 or 724 in Fall 2008.
c) advanced understanding Core required coursework 704: offered only in the Spring
of research methods, via SOC 702, 704, 705; 702: A:7; B:5
research design and data Comprehensive exams; 705: A;3; B:1
analysis elective courses; field Of 4 students taking the methods
research courses; comprehensive exam, 2 passed. Students
internships, theses and taking field research courses and internships
professional papers involving the use of methods successfully
implement them, as is evidenced in their
professional papers, theses, dissertations, and
papers presented at professional conferences.
d) well developed Core, required coursework SOC 704 offered only in Spring.
quantitative and qualitative via SOC 702, 704, 705; Of 4 students taking methods comprehensive
research skills Comprehensive exams exams, 2 passed. It is to be noted that
students taking the comprehensive exams in
the Fall 2008 are not those who have taken
SOC 702 or 705 in Fall 2008.
e) the tools to creatively Elective coursework; Theses The majority of students in the four elective
deal with specific and professional papers; courses received passing grades. Good
substantive sociological Brown Bag lunches and student participation in several brown bag
issues Departmental lectures and lectures.100% pass rate for specialty area
seminars; specialty area comprehensive exams.
comprehensive exams
f) specialized expertise in at Elective coursework; Theses The majority of students in the four elective
least two of the DOS areas and Professional Papers; courses received passing grades. Good
of substantive Conference participation; student participation in conferences. 100%
specialization: Culture; publishing; community pass rate for specialty area comprehensive
Social Psychology, involvement; comprehensive exams
Symbolic Interactionism & exams
Deviance; Inequalities;
Politics, Urban and Social
Institutions
g) the analytical, research Theses and professional 100% specialty area pass rate.
and writing skills necessary papers; SOC 707, SOC 708 All students in SOC 707 received an A. SOC
to successfully author and Comprehensive Exams 708 is only offered in the Spring.
orally defend a dissertation
h) the opportunity to DOS Graduate teaching SOC 709 not offered in the Fall.
develop teaching skills and program: SOC 709 seminar Good teaching evaluations for TA’s and
pedagogical expertise in teaching; SOC 710 independent grad student teachers. SOC 710
teaching practicum; TA and teaching practicum was suspended due to
Independent teaching faculty shortages and will be taught again in
experiences Spring 2010.
i) the ability to present SOC 707 (Proseminar I) Several students invited to present papers at
research papers at SOC 708 (Proseminar II) professional meetings in Spring 09 and
conferences Conference participation Summer 09. SOC 708 offered in the Spring
only.
j) understanding and SOC 707 (Proseminar I) SOC 708 offered in Spring only; several
experience with scholarly SOC 708 (Proseminar II) students are preparing or are submitting
publishing conference participation; papers to journals; one paper acceptance
journal submissions
k) professional SOC 707 (Proseminar I) SOC 708 offered in Spring only; several
socialization into the SOC 708 (Proseminar II) students are preparing or are submitting
discipline of Sociology and Theses and professional papers to journals.
the ability to compete on papers; Required and
the academic job market elective coursework;
and in the profession conference presentations;
publications
l) adequate preparation for SOC 707 (Proseminar I) SOC 708 offered in Spring only; several
successfully negotiating the SOC 708 (Proseminar II) students are preparing or are submitting
transition into tenure track Theses and professional papers to journals; one paper submitted to a
academic positions papers; required and journal.
elective coursework;
conference presentations;
internships; field research
credits
3. Results. What are the results of the planned assessments listed above? Describe below or
attach to the form.
Results
DOS graduate students passed their core, required theory and methods courses during the Fall g 2008
with passing grades. This is indicative of successful teaching and learning.
Of 85 grades for graduate level core and elective seminars,66 students received an A, 19 received a B,
and none received a grade below a B.
• Contemporary Theory -- 8 students took SOC 724; 7 received an A, 1 received a B
• Quant Research Methods -- 12 students took SOC 702; 7 received an A, 5 received a B.
• Qual Research Methods – 4 students took SOC 705; 3 received an A, 1 received a B
• Four substantive seminars – 24 received an A, 11 received a B, and none received a grade
below a B
It should be noted that we are currently unable to distinguish PhD from MA students in these statistics at
this point.
10 students enrolled in directed readings or independent study.
Graduate students at UNLV made a good showing at professional conferences, particularly the Pacific
Sociological Association meetings and many presented good papers. One student presented in a
prestigious international conference.
Of the 3 students taking Theory comps in Fall 2008, all 3 passed. Of the 4 students taking the Methods
comps, 2 passed. This includes two who were retaking exams from Fall.
4. Conclusions and Discoveries. What conclusions or discoveries were made from these
results? Describe below or attach to the form.
Conclusions and Discoveries
Our graduate program seems to be thriving in terms of quality and activity. Our students are passing
required courses, succeeding on comprehensive exams, and becoming active member of the
department and the discipline. Students are getting papers accepted in professional journals and
presenting in prestigious conferences.
The quality of the most recent cohort has significantly improved and the recent hire of 3 new faculty has
solidified the main areas of specialization in our department, has generated more courses, a better
distribution of courses per faculty, a better distribution of students per faculty, more opportunities for
students’ involvement in research, co-authorship and co-presentation at professional conferences, and
increased applications to our program by quality students. Indeed, it seems that the proportion of high
performing students is reaching a critical mass in our department, a situation which is encouraging and
which calls for additional GA lines in order to keep these students in the program and to attract other high
quality students.
5. Use of Results. What program changes are indicated? How will they be implemented? If
none, describe why changes were not needed.
We have implemented more systematic measures to gather data on and measure current students’
progress throughout the program, including student presentations, and student awards.
Most students seem to be getting the mentorship they need. We need to offer more graduate seminars by
full time faculty members, and should be able to beginning in the Fall of 2009.
6. Dissemination of Results, Conclusions, and Discoveries. How and with whom were the
results shared?
We will share our results with faculty within the department.
Date Received
Spring 2008 Semester Assessment Report Form
DUE March 31, 2009
Directions: Please complete a form for each of the programs within your department. This
form was designed to provide a format for assessment reporting and should not be used to limit
the amount of information provided. Each box that is attached to each of the sections is designed
to adjust to varying lengths. If you have any questions, please contact Dr. Bea Babbitt at x51506
or via email at bea.babbitt@unlv.edu.
1. Program Information:
Program Anthropology Masters of Arts
Department Anthropology and Ethnic Studies
College Liberal Arts
Program Heidi Swank
Assessment
Coordinator
Semester Data Spring 2008
Collected
Report Heidi Swank
Submitted by
Phone/email 5-4085/heidi.swank@unlv.edu
Date Submitted 3/31/09
2. According to the Assessment Plan for this program, what were the planned assessments to be
conducted during the Fall 2008 Academic Semester? You may want to copy and paste from this
program’s assessment plan.
Which outcomes for How did you measure What results did you expect? If the
this program were the outcomes? students performed well what would
measured? their performance look like, i.e.
percentages, means, or comparisons to
a national standard?
__4__outcomes out of a total of __5__ outcomes evaluated this semester.
1. Outcome? Students will be able to identify, analyze and critically evaluate the
major theories and concepts in each of the four fields of anthropology.
a. How measured? Students were tested on their written knowledge of
physical/biological and archaeological anthropology after having
completed the core class in these two subfields.
b. Results Expected? The majority of the MA students are expected to pass
both of the subfields taught in our core course with at least a B-.
2. Outcome? Students will be able to effectively communicate (both orally and in
writing) regarding a range of anthropological topics.
a. How measured? Students complete oral and written exams at the end of
the Core course in physical/biological and archaeological anthropology. It
is also expected that students present papers at professional meetings.
b. Results expected? The majority of MA students will pass both oral and
written Core exams. They will also present at conferences.
3. Outcome? Students will have an understanding of a range of current
anthropological issues within the student’s subdiscipline area.
a. How measured? Students are expected to successfully complete courses in
their own subfield (archaeological, cultural, bio-physical or linguistic
anthropology).
b. Results expected? The majority of students will pass courses in their own
subfield with a B- or higher.
4. Outcome? Students will be able to complete and write up the results from a major
anthropological research project.
a. How measured? Students are expected to write a proposal for as well as
conduct anthropological research upon which they base their MA thesis.
b. Results expected? The majority of students will complete and write up
their theses, successfully defending it in front of a committee of faculty.
3. Results, conclusions, and discoveries. What are the results of the planned assessments listed
above? What conclusions or discoveries were made from these results? Describe below or
attach to the form.
Results, conclusions, and discoveries
1. Outcome? Students will be able to identify, analyze and critically evaluate the
major theories and concepts in each of the four fields of anthropology.
a. Results: Of the six students who took the Core course 17% passed with
an A, 17% with an A-, 33% with a B+, and 17% with a B. In total,
67% of the students in this course passed the exam. 33% of students
did not pass. However, these students passed the make up exams with
a B- or better.
b. Conclusions: With 67% of students passing the Core exam, there has
been a definite improvement over the 55% who achieved a passing
grade in spring 2007.
c. Discoveries: We believe this is a result of the higher caliber of students
we are attracting due to the reputation for rigor and thoroughness that
our MA program is developing nation-wide.
2. Outcome? Students will be able to effectively communicate (both orally and
in writing) regarding a range of anthropological topics.
a. Results: Of the students registered for the Core course, 67% passed the
written and oral exams. At least one MA student presented a paper
orally at a professional meeting.
b. Conclusions: These data demonstrate that our students’ ability to
communicate anthropological concepts orally and in writing is
improving.
c. Discoveries: We believe these data demonstrate that the department is
achieving its educational goals.
3. Outcome? Students will have an understanding of a range of current
anthropological issues within the student’s subdiscipline area.
a. Results: In this semester, MA students enrolled in four courses that are
specific to their subfield. Of these students, 50% achieved an A, 13%
and A-, 25% a B+, and 13% took a course Pass/Fail and received a
passing grade.
b. Conclusions: These data demonstrate that our students are successfully
becoming acquainted with current issues in their own subfield. 100%
of the students passed these courses.
c. Discoveries: We believe that these data demonstrate that the
department is achieving its educational goals.
4. Outcome? Students will be able to complete and write up the results from a
major anthropological research project.
a. Results: One student successfully completed and wrote up their results.
b. Conclusions: Our students are successfully completing the research the
program trains them do be able to undertake.
c. Discoveries: The department is reaching its educational goals.
4. Use of Results. What program changes are indicated? How will they be implemented? If
none, describe why changes were not needed.
These data indicate that overall the department is successful in achieving its educational
goals. While some students did fail in their first attempt at the Core class. The faculty
did provide these students with the additional support, making these students able to
make up for any lost ground and successfully complete the Core course on their second
attempt.
These data therefore indicate that no programmatic changes are required at this time.
5. Dissemination of results, conclusions, and discoveries. How and with whom were the results
shared?
Results are being disseminated to the department members by emailing each a copy of
this report. The administration is being presented with the results with the filing of this
report.
Date Received
Spring 2008 Semester Assessment Report Form
DUE March 31, 2009
Directions: Please complete a form for each of the programs within your department. This
form was designed to provide a format for assessment reporting and should not be used to limit
the amount of information provided. Each box that is attached to each of the sections is designed
to adjust to varying lengths. If you have any questions, please contact Dr. Bea Babbitt at x51506
or via email at: bea.babbitt@unlv.edu.
1. Program Information:
Program Anthropology Doctor of Philosophy
Department Anthropology and Ethnic Studies
College Liberal Arts
Program Heidi Swank
Assessment
Coordinator
Semester Data Spring 2008
Collected
Report Heidi Swank
Submitted by
Phone/email 5-4085/heidi.swank@unlv.edu
Date Submitted 3/31/09
2. According to the Assessment Plan for this program, what were the planned assessments to be
conducted during the Fall 2008 Academic Semester? You may want to copy and paste from this
program’s assessment plan.
Which outcomes for How did you measure What results did you expect? If the
this program were the outcomes? students performed well what would
measured? their performance look like, i.e.
percentages, means, or comparisons to
a national standard?
__3__outcomes out of a total of __6__ outcomes evaluated this semester.
1. Outcome? Students will be able to identify, analyze and critically evaluate the
major theories and concepts in each of the four fields of anthropology.
a. How measured? Students took courses both in and outside their subfield
specialty.
b. Results Expected? The majority of the Ph.D students are expected to pass
these classes with at least a B-.
2. Outcome? Students will be able to effectively communicate (both orally and in
writing) regarding a range of anthropological topics.
a. How measured? Students taking Core will pass the oral and written
exams. Students will present papers at professional meetings.
b. Results expected? The majority of our senior Ph.D. students (those who
have completed their course work) and a smaller number of our junior
Ph.D. students will present papers at professional meetings.
3. Outcome? Students will be able to demonstrate knowledge of statistical
techniques used in anthropology.
a. How measured? Students will enroll in a graduate level course in statistics
either in our department or in another appropriate department.
b. Results expected? The majority of students in this course will pass this
class with at least a B-.
3. Results, conclusions, and discoveries. What are the results of the planned assessments listed
above? What conclusions or discoveries were made from these results? Describe below or
attach to the form.
Results, conclusions, and discoveries
1. Outcome? Students will be able to identify, analyze and critically evaluate the
major theories and concepts in each of the four fields of anthropology.
a. Results: Ph.D. students were enrolled in five courses in and outside
their specific subfield. 60% of these students achieved an A in these
classes, 20% a B+, and 20% a B.
b. Conclusions: We find these data indicative of the ability of our
students to master the range of anthropological theory and knowledge.
c. Discoveries: We believe this is a result of the higher caliber of students
we are attracting due to the reputation for rigor and thoroughness that
our Ph.D. program is developing nation-wide.
2. Outcome? Students will be able to effectively communicate (both orally and
in writing) regarding a range of anthropological topics.
a. Results: One of our Ph.D. students elected to take the Core course.
This student achieved a B for the course. At least one Ph.D. student
presented a paper orally at a professional meeting.
b. Conclusions: These data demonstrate that our students’ ability to
communicate anthropological concepts orally and in writing is
improving.
c. Discoveries: We believe these data demonstrate that the department is
achieving its educational goals.
3. Outcome? Students will be able to demonstrate knowledge of statistical
techniques used in anthropology.
a. Results: Of the two Ph.D. students enrolled in a statistics course this
semester, 50% achieved an A and 50% a B+.
b. Conclusions: These results demonstrate that our students are acquiring
knowledge of statistical techniques in anthropology.
c. Discoveries: The numbers are low for any significant discoveries.
However, we would like to see more of our students achieving an A in
statistics. Again, though, it is unclear if any real generalization can be
made at this time due to the small sample size.
4. Use of Results. What program changes are indicated? How will they be implemented? If
none, describe why changes were not needed.
These data indicate that overall the department is successful in achieving its educational
goals. We would like to see more students presenting at professional meetings and
conferences. However, this number does indicate an improvement in their participation
in this aspect of their professional development.
These data therefore indicate that no programmatic changes are required at this time.
5. Dissemination of results, conclusions, and discoveries. How and with whom were the results
shared?
Results are being disseminated to the department members by emailing each a copy of
this report. The administration is being presented with the results with the filing of this
report.
Spring 2008 Semester Assessment Report Form
DUE October 31st, 2008
Directions: Please complete a form for each of the programs within your department.
This form was designed to provide a format for assessment reporting and should not be
used to limit the amount of information provided. Each box that is attached to each of the
sections is designed to adjust to varying lengths. If you have any questions, please
contact Dr. Bea Babbitt at x51506 or via email at: bea.babbitt@unlv.edu.
1. Program Information:
Program English M.A. & Ph.D.
Department English
College Liberal Arts
Program
Assessment
Coordinator
Semester Data Spring 2008
Collected
Report Richard Harp
Submitted by
Phone/email
Date Submitted
ASSESSMENT REPORT
Spring 2008
The Graduate College completed in 2008 some interesting quantitative measurements of
university-wide graduate programs. An analysis of this report in relation to English will
compose this assessment report. It deals with data before spring 2008 (and some for fall,
2008 as well) but it provides one of the best overall quantitative assessments of the
department’s programs. We remain committed, of course, to providing qualitative
assessment as well; the final paragraph of this report concerns that.
Recruitment
For Fall, 2008, the department received during the previous two semesters 199
applications for its various graduate programs, the most of any department in the College
of Liberal Arts (and also more than, for example, the College of Nursing or Public Health
or Sciences). Of those 199 applicants the Department admitted 38 or 19%, the second
lowest acceptance rate in our College (Psychology, the department with the lowest [but
incomplete] rate, had 70 of their applications in the “Rout” category, whereas English
had only 1). These figures suggest the Department was being properly stringent in its
spring admission policies; The Department’s “yield” rate (the percentage of those
admitted who actually enroll) of nearly 66% was also one of the highest in our College.
Head Count and Graduation Trends
Graduate Programs Enrollment Headcount:
Fall 2003:
Masters 51
PhD 21
Non Degree Seeking (i.e., non admitted) 30
Women 22
Men 8
Minorities 1 (Unknown 3)
Fall 2004:
Masters 60
PhD 19
Non Degree Seeking 19
Women 14
Men 5
Minorities (Unknown 4)
Fall 2005
Masters 55
PhD 24
Non Degree Seeking 41
Women 24
Men 17
Minorities 5 (Unknown 4)
Fall 2006
Masters 61
PhD 30
Non Degree Seeking 41
Women 27
Men 14
Minorities 8 (Unknown 5)
Fall 2007
Masters 61
PhD 29
Non Degree Seeking 34
Women 24
Men 10
Minorities 8 (Unknown 14)
Fall 2008 (Preliminary)
Masters 56
PhD 33
Non Degree Seeking 52
Women 35
Men 17
Minorities 5 (Unknown 8)
Fall 2008 Admitted Students (not all enrolled and thus number is different from
headcount, above);
MA
Women 22
Men 11
MFA
Women 19
Men 21
Graduation Rates;
2004: MA, 5, MFA, 3, PhD, 7
2005: MA, 6, MFA 8, PhD 1
2006: MA, 13, MFA, 9, PhD, 5
2007: MA, 5, MFA, 13, PhD, 5
2008 MA, 6, MFA, 2, PhD 3
Enrollment trends:
These were stable from 2003 -2006, with upward movement in 2006, which remained
stable in 2007-2008. PhD numbers accounted for most of this (MFA enrollment capped
each year at 36).
Analysis: In general, numbers are about where we want them. We are probably now
(i.e., 2008) at the maximum number of Graduate Assistantships that the University can
possibly give us (62) and it will be difficult to expand the program further without more
assistantships. However, this is not necessarily negative: the job market in English is
still tight and we have about the number of students that can reasonably expect to find
employment in academia or related fields.
ACTION TAKEN IN FALL 2008 RELATED TO MISSION STATEMENT GOAL OF
IMPROVED WRITING FOR PHD STUDENTS:
Among our graduate programs’ most important goals is for our students’ to write good
critical essays. Assessments have consistently confronted and evaluated how well this
goal is being met. This goal has also led the Graduate Committee in fall, 2008 (based on
information from preceding semesters) to restrict the number of 600-level courses
(graduate and undergraduate courses) graduate students may take, as our assessment of
these courses discovered that faculty were sometimes not requiring adequate additional
writing of graduate students. PhD students now may not take 600-level courses (i.e.,
courses in which the vast majority of students are undergraduates). The Graduate
Committee believed that faculty simply could not tailor adequately the same course for
PhD students and for undergraduates.
Areas for Improvement
The Department could increase its numbers in certain ethnic groups. Amongst non-
degree seeking students (the only category for which these statistics are available) there
were, for example, two African American students enrolled in department degree
programs in Fall, 2005, three in Fall, 2006, and 1 in 2007 and 2008. One difficulty is
how few African American students apply for English programs; nonetheless, the
Graduate Director plans to be proactive and contact predominantly African American
schools to tell them of the department’s fellowship and assistantship opportunities. There
were two Latino students enrolled in 2005, three in 2006, three in 2007, 2 in 2008. There
were several Asian students enrolled in department programs during these years. Gender
balance was good; 24 female students, 17 male.
Date Received
Spring 2008 Semester Assessment Report Form
DUE October 31st, 2008
Directions: Please complete a form for each of the programs within your department. This
form was designed to provide a format for assessment reporting and should not be used to limit
the amount of information provided. Each box that is attached to each of the sections is designed
to adjust to varying lengths. If you have any questions, please contact Dr. Bea Babbitt at x51506
or via email at: bea.babbitt@unlv.edu.
1. Program Information:
Program Masters in Hispanic Studies
Department Foreign Languages
College Liberal Arts
Program Catherine G. Bellver
Assessment
Coordinator
Semester Data Spring 2008
Collected
Report Catherine Bellver
Submitted by
Phone/email 895-3464 catherine.bellver@unlv.edu
Date Submitted October 30, 2008
2. According to the Assessment Plan for this program, what were the planned assessments to be
conducted during the 2007-2008 Academic Year? You may want to copy and paste from this
program’s assessment plan.
Which outcomes for How did you measure What results did you expect? If the
this program were the outcomes? students performed well what would
measured? their performance look like, i.e.
percentages, means, or comparisons to
a national standard?
____outcomes out of a total of ____ outcomes evaluated this semester.
# 2 Analytical skills SPAN 740: Students were expected to read several
and content knowledge Representation of novels, short-stories, and a poetry
Spanish Civil War. selection to observe the representation
of the Civil War: in relationship to the
--Abstract and differences of the authors’ ideology
bibliography (10%) and to the ways each writer
--Presentation (10%) emphasized different aspects of the
--Research analytical conflicts and its implications.
paper Students also read a brief historical
(40%) introduction at the beginning of the
--Final Exam (30%) course to familiarize themselves with
--Participation (10%) the facts of this event. They were
expected to discuss analytically and,
finally, to write from a scholarly
perspective.
3. Results, conclusions, and discoveries. What are the results of the planned assessments listed
above? What conclusions or discoveries were made from these results? Describe below or
attach to the form.
Results, conclusions, and discoveries
At the beginning of the semester the students’ knowledge of the topic varied a great
deal depending on their prior experience, such as studying in Spain. Throughout the
semester, they all learned, historically and literary, about this event that has marked
Spanish life at all levels during its occurrence and still today. This fact, in turn, helped
them understand some idiosyncrasies of Spanish culture and national identity.
The average schore on the research paper was 88.8%
4. Use of Results. What program changes are indicated? How will they be implemented? If
none, describe why changes were not needed.
Some of the students lacked the skills necessary to conduct advanced research, as seen in
their presentations and research papers. There were great differences among students with
regard to academic competency, but in some cases analytical skills improved as reflected
in class discussion. It was a challenge for the instructor to conduct a discussion involving
all of them. These differences were reflected in their final grades.
5. Dissemination of results, conclusions, and discoveries. How and with whom were the results
shared?
Date Received
Semester Assessment Report Form: Spring 2008 Data
DUE October 31, 2008
Directions: Please complete a form for each of the programs within your department. This
form was designed to provide a format for assessment reporting and should not be used to limit
the amount of information provided. Each box that is attached to each of the sections is designed
to adjust to varying lengths. If you have any questions, please contact Dr. Bea Babbitt at x51506
or via email at: bea.babbitt@unlv.edu.
***Please submit the report electronically to bea.babbitt@unlv.edu
1. Program Information:
Program M.A.
Department History
College Liberal Arts
Program Elspeth Whitney
Assessment
Coordinator
Semester Data Spring 2008
Collected
Report Elspeth Whitney, with assistance from the Teaching and Assessment
Submitted by Committee (Janet Ward and Elizabeth Fraterrgo) Lynette Weber,
Administrative Assistant, History Department
Phone/email 895-3350, elspeth@unlv.nevada.edu
Date Submitted March 31, 2007
2. According to the Assessment Plan for this program, what were the planned assessments to be
conducted during the Spring 2008 semester? You may want to copy and paste from this
program’s assessment plan.
Which outcomes for How did you measure What results did you expect? If the
this program were the outcomes? students performed well what would
measured? their performance look like, i.e.
percentages, means, or comparisons to
a national standard?
__1__outcome out of a total of __3__ outcomes evaluated this semester.
1. Demonstrate an Course grades. A- or above in all or most of 700 level
in-depth course work. This grade represents a
knowledge of an high standard of achievement for
extensive body of outcomes 1A, 1B, 1C.
scholarly material
in a defined
historical period,
on a particular
geographic region
or regions, or on a
particular theme, Pass the comprehensive All students would pass the
e.g. History and exams on the first comprehensive exams on the first
Memory. attempt. attempt. A pass represents a high
A. Demonstrate an standard of achievement on outcomes
in-depth 1A, 1B, 1C.
knowledge of the
content of a body
of scholarly
material of a
particular field Student professional Students would find opportunities to
B. Demonstrate activities make use of their graduate training
knowledge of the through employment, publishing and
historical literature other activities.
and historiography
of a particular field
from the field’s
earliest beginnings
to its most recent
developments.
C. Demonstrate an
awareness of the
role of historians
in the construction
of the past and the
role of
contemporary
context in shaping
the perspectives of
historians.
3. Results. What are the results of the planned assessments listed above? Describe below or
attach to the form.
Results
Of 29 grades awarded in 700 level classes (excluding incompletes or withdrawals due
to illness or family emergencies), to M.A. students, 25 or 86% were A or A-,
indicating excellent or very good performance. This percentage is the same as for
figures from the Fall 07 semester and significantly higher than figures for Spring 2007
(70%). This data may be reflective of the Department’s ongoing efforts to improve
student performance in the M.A. program as a whole. Two students received grades of
B+ and B, which are passing grades. One student received a B- and had to take
additional coursework and another student, who was not enrolled in the History
Department program received a failing grade.
All M. A. students (6) who took their comprehensive exams passed on the first try
and two received a ranking of High Pass.
One student who had graduated last year received a full-time position teaching AP
European and World history at a California high school and has had a second article
published in Southern California Quarterly. Another has published a book on
Japanese religion. A third student received the offer of a professional position at
Spring Preserve. One student was accepted into the doctoral program at the
University of California, Riverside with a full fellowship.
4. Conclusions and Discoveries. What conclusions or discoveries were made from these
results? Describe below or attach to the form.
Conclusions and Discoveries
Overall, the performance of M.A. students in 700 level courses and on comprehensive
exams has continued to improve compared to previous semesters.
Continuing departmental initiatives. The Department has been working for some
time on ways to strengthen the performance of M.A. students, especially on
comprehensive exams. Several initiatives developed during the Fall 07 and Spring 08
semesters as a result of assessment are in the process of being implemented. The new
form for comparative assessment of student performance on comprehensive exams is
being used. This has already had the effect of highlighting specific aspects of student
performance which could be improved. A new handout for students laying out the
relationship between the comprehensive exams and coursework, dissertation research
and teaching has been drafted. This handbook also includes a clear timeline for
preparation for the exams. A booklet of sample exam questions and sample book lists
is in the process of being developed. The new policy of flagging students who do
poorly in Historiography courses has been implemented.
Student professional activities. The Department is doing an excellent job in helping
students succeed professionally.
5. Use of Results. What program changes are indicated? How will they be implemented? If
none, describe why changes were not needed.
Program change. Program changes proposed during the Fall 08 semester have been
passed and have begun to be implemented by the Department. These involve New assessment tool
restructuring the fields covered by the Ph. D. program, tightening up coursework and ways to strengthen th
exam preparation for Ph. D. students, and restructuring fields covered in the exams. These efforts
comprehensive exams. It also involved creating a new course, HIST 710 Graduate developed more detai
Study in History, to introduce students to faculty and a broad range of professional to faculty. The use of
issues. The paperwork for approval of this course is being submitted this semester and the analysis of studen
the course will be taught beginning in Fall 09. be used to develop po
In addition, a handout for students laying out the relationship between the It should be noted tha
comprehensive exams, coursework, teaching and dissertation research, and making the Assistantship is instea
process of taking the exams more transparent is in the final stages of preparation. money through an ass
increasing the amoun
It should be noted that one admitted student choose to attend the University of Wyoming improving the gradua
instead because he received a better Graduate Assistantship package. This highlights the
need to improve the financial assistance we can offer promising students.
6. Dissemination of Results, Conclusions, and Discoveries. How and with whom were the
results shared?
The assessment report will be shared with the Chair immediately and with the faculty in
electronic form during the Fall 08 semester. As discoveries result from the use of the
new form, these discoveries will be shared with M. A. students through the Graduate
Committee and Graduate Coordinator..
Date Received
Semester Assessment Report Form: Spring 2008 Data
DUE October 31, 2008
Directions: Please complete a form for each of the programs within your department. This
form was designed to provide a format for assessment reporting and should not be used to limit
the amount of information provided. Each box that is attached to each of the sections is designed
to adjust to varying lengths. If you have any questions, please contact Dr. Bea Babbitt at x51506
or via email at: bea.babbitt@unlv.edu.
***Please submit the report electronically to bea.babbitt@unlv.edu
1. Program Information:
Program Ph.D. program
Department History
College Liberal Arts
Program Elspeth Whitney
Assessment
Coordinator
Semester Data Spring 2008
Collected
Report Elspeth Whitney
Submitted by With assistance from the Teaching and Assessment Committee (Janet
Ward, Elizabeth Fraterrigo), the Graduate Coordinator (Elizabeth
Nelson) and Lynette Weber, Administrative Assistant, History
Department
Phone/email 895-3350, elspeth@unlv.nevada.edu
Date Submitted October 31, 2008
2. According to the Assessment Plan for this program, what were the planned assessments to be
conducted during the Spring 2008 semester? You may want to copy and paste from this
program’s assessment plan.
Which outcomes for How did you measure What results did you expect? If the
this program were the outcomes? students performed well what would
measured? their performance look like, i.e.
percentages, means, or comparisons to
a national standard?
_1___outcome out of a total of __4__ outcomes evaluated this semester.
1. Demonstrate an in- Course grades A- or above in all or most of 700 level
depth knowledge of an course work. This grade represents a
extensive body of high standard of achievement for
scholarly material in a outcomes 1A, 1B, 1C and 3.
defined historical
period, on a particular
geographic region or
regions, or on a
particular theme, e.g.
History and Memory. Comprehensive exams All students would pass the
A. Demonstrate an in- comprehensive exams on the first
depth knowledge of attempt. A pass represents a high
the content of a body standard of achievement on outcomes
of scholarly material Student professional 1A, 1B, 1C.
of a particular field activities
B. Demonstrate
knowledge of the
historical literature and
historiography of a
particular field from
the field’s earliest
beginnings to its most
recent developments.
C. Demonstrate an At least one student will have
awareness of the role performed professionally (offered job
of historians in the in the profession, received grants,
construction of the awarded scholarships or grants, etc.)
past and the role of
contemporary context
in shaping the
perspectives of
historians
3. Results. What are the results of the planned assessments listed above? Describe below or
attach to the form.
Results
Course work. Of grades awarded in 700 level classes (excluding incompletes or
withdrawals due to illness or family emergencies), to Ph.D. students, 100% were A,
indicating excellent performance. The Department continues to make systematic
efforts to raise standards for graduate level work.
Comprehensive exams. All Ph. D. students (3) who took their comprehensive
exams passed on the first try and one received a ranking of Honors.
Student professional activities. Two Ph.D. graduates received full-time, tenure-
track positions at CSN and a third was offered a full-time position at the Autry
National Center after being a fellow for the past year.
4. Conclusions and Discoveries. What conclusions or discoveries were made from these
results? Describe below or attach to the form.
Conclusions and Discoveries
Overall, the performance of Ph.D. students in 700 level courses and on
comprehensive exams has continued to improve compared to previous semesters.
Continuing departmental initiatives. The Department has been working for some
time on ways to strengthen the performance of Ph. D. students, especially on
comprehensive exams. Several initiatives developed during the Fall 07 and Spring 08
semesters as a result of assessment are in the process of being implemented. The new
form for comparative assessment of student performance on comprehensive exams is
being used. This has already had the effect of highlighting specific aspects of student
performance which could be improved. A new handout for students laying out the
relationship between the comprehensive exams and coursework, dissertation research
and teaching has been drafted. This handbook also includes a clear timeline for
preparation for the exams. A booklet of sample exam questions and sample book lists
is in the process of being developed. The new policy of flagging students who do
poorly in Historiography courses has been implemented. The Department is also
exploring the possibility of requiring Ph. D. students to take their comprehensive
exams within a designated two week window in each semester. Implementation of this
policy will depend on finding adequate space and computer access. At present, the
Department is exploring possibilities with the Lied Library.
Student professional activities. The Department is doing an excellent job in helping
students succeed professionally.
5. Use of Results. What program changes are indicated? How will they be implemented? If
none, describe why changes were not needed.
Program change. Program changes proposed during the Fall 08 semester have been
passed and have begun to be implemented by the Department. These involve
restructuring the fields covered by the Ph. D. program, tightening up coursework and
exam preparation for Ph. D. students, and restructuring fields covered in the
comprehensive exams. It also involved creating a new course, HIST 710 Graduate
Study in History, to introduce students to faculty and a broad range of professional
issues. The paperwork for approval of this course is being submitted this semester and
the course will be taught beginning in Fall 09.
In addition, a handout for students laying out the relationship between the
comprehensive exams, coursework, teaching and dissertation research, and making the
process of taking the exams more transparent is in the final stages of preparation.
6. Dissemination of Results, Conclusions, and Discoveries. How and with whom were the
results shared?
The Results, Conclusions, and Discoveries were shared first within the Graduate
Committee and then with the whole Department during the early part of the Fall
semester. The program changes were disseminated to students during the Fall 08 and
will continue to be disseminated during the Spring 09 semester through email and face to
face discussion by the Graduate Coordinator and faculty and at meetings with old and
new graduate students.
The assessment reports will be e-mailed to the chair immediately and to the faculty as a
whole during the fall semester.
Date Received
Semester Assessment Report Form: Spring 2008 Data
DUE October 31, 2008
Directions: Please complete a form for each of the programs within your department. This
form was designed to provide a format for assessment reporting and should not be used to limit
the amount of information provided. Each box that is attached to each of the sections is designed
to adjust to varying lengths. If you have any questions, please contact Dr. Bea Babbitt at x51506
or via email at: bea.babbitt@unlv.edu.
***Please submit the report electronically to bea.babbitt@unlv.edu
1. Program Information:
Program Masters of Arts in Political Science
Department Political Science
College Liberal Arts
Program Dr. Kenneth E. Fernandez
Assessment
Coordinator
Semester Data Spring 2008
Collected
Report Dr. Kenneth E. Fernandez
Submitted by
Phone/email 702-895-4029/kenneth.fernandez@unlv.edu
Date Submitted October 30, 2008
2. According to the Assessment Plan for this program, what were the planned assessments to be
conducted during the Spring 2008 semester? You may want to copy and paste from this
program’s assessment plan.
Which outcomes for How did you measure the What results did you expect? If
this program were outcomes? the students performed well
measured? what would their performance
look like, i.e. percentages,
means, or comparisons to a
national standard?
7 outcomes were evaluated this semester.
1. Development of Instructor course grades of student Passing grades in core
critical thinking skills performances. Student comments research methods and
necessary for the and evaluation of course in related courses. Positive
evaluation of social teaching evaluations. Interviews evaluations of course by
science concepts. with graduate students. students.
2. Knowledge of the Instructor course grades of student Passing Grades in core
research process in the performances. Student comments research methods and
social sciences. and evaluation of course in related courses. Positive
teaching evaluations. Interviews evaluations of course by
with graduate students. students.
3. Development of the Instructor course grades of student Passing grades in core
skills and knowledge performances. Student comments research methods and
needed for informed and evaluation of course in related courses. Positive
information teaching evaluations. Interviews evaluations of course by
consumption. with graduate students. students.
4. Development of Instructor course grades of student Passing Grades in core
knowledge of the performances. Student comments research methods and
multiple motivations and evaluation of course in related courses. Positive
and constraints teaching evaluations. Interviews evaluations of course by
underlying political with graduate students. students.
behavior.
5. Development of an Instructor course grades of student Passing grades in core
understanding of the performances. Student comments research methods and
multi-causal nature and evaluation of course in related courses. Positive
that characterizes the teaching evaluations. Interviews evaluations of course by
social world. with graduate students. students.
6. Application of the Instructor course grades of student Passing Grades in core
social science research performances. Student comments research methods and
process. and evaluation of course in related courses. Positive
teaching evaluations. Interview evaluations of course by
with graduate students. students. Students
expressing a positive
understanding of the
application of course
objectives and assignments
to the research process (i.e.
M.A. thesis)
7. Upon completion Completion of thesis or written Positive (Passing)
of the program and oral exam. evaluation of thesis or
students will have exam committee.
knowledge of the
theoretical and
methodological
development and
controversies within
the discipline.
3. Results. What are the results of the planned assessments listed above? Describe below or
attach to the form.
Results
I. Student Grades
Frequency Percent
Valid A 18 48.6
A- 5 13.5
B 2 5.4
B- 1 2.7
B+ 8 21.6
F 2 5.4
WH 1 2.7
Total 37 100.0
II. Student Course Evaluations
The overall course evaluation averages for the graduate classes were above average to
high: 3.12; 3.29; 3.34; 3.72
III. Comments of students in teaching evaluations.
Generally, the student comments on the graduate courses were very strong. This report
will focus on the critical comments for future improvement of the curriculum. The
most common criticism was the amount of work (being too much). In looking at the
syllabi of the graduate courses in the Spring of 2008 I do not think that too much work
is being assigned. Other comments include:
• Clear expectations on assignments
• Stronger organization of the course
• Provide more modern, contemporary, or timely material or examples
• More explanation of SPSS statistical software
• Teach more than one statistical software package in research method courses
• More material on the application of research in the real world
IV. Comments of Students in Focus Group and Interviews
Generally, the comments received in the focus groups and individual interviews were
not about any courses or course material, but rather about the graduate program itself.
• Students wish there was better communication (formal or informal) about the
career options and career guidance in fields relevant to political science and/or
Ethics and Policy Studies. This could include training in interviews, creation of
curriculum vitaes, and even internship opportunities.
• Similarly, students wished there was a better mentoring process (formal or
informal) between the faculty and students.
• Students wanted more courses offered.
• Students suggested that if limits in faculty size prevent more courses then hybrid
or online courses may allow the department to offer more courses in more fields.
• Political Science M.A. students stated they would like a little more information
and guidance about the written and oral examinations option for the M.A. degree.
4. Conclusions and Discoveries. What conclusions or discoveries were made from these results?
Describe below or attach to the form.
Conclusions and Discoveries
The main goal of the assessment of the graduate program is to assess whether our
graduate students are making adequate progress through the program and that the
program and its curriculum are preparing students to begin work on their thesis.
Overall students expressed through their evaluations and comments that they were
satisfied with the program and felt that the courses were challenging. The most
common suggestion was better communication between faculty and graduate students
and a stronger mentoring relationship to provide opportunities to ask questions about
research projects, the field, and careers.
5. Use of Results. What program changes are indicated? How will they be implemented? If
none, describe why changes were not needed.
At the present time, the Department of Political Science does not plan to make any
major changes to the program. The reason for this is that the department has recently
created a PhD. Program in political science that just began in the Fall of 2008. The
department will wait until future assessment reports can incorporate information from
the new PhD program before making any programmatic changes. One modest change
proposed for the graduate program is to have better rotation in the faculty teaching
graduate classes. This will expose graduate students to more faculty and increase
opportunities for faculty/student interaction and mentoring.
6. Dissemination of Results, Conclusions, and Discoveries. How and with whom were the
results shared?
The information was distributed to all full time faculty members in the Department of
Political Science. In addition, the report is posted on the Department of Political Science
web page.
Assessment plan for clinical doctoral program in psychology for Spring, 2008
The student learning outcomes for the clinical doctoral program include the following:
• Students should possess a broad knowledge of psychological science.
• Students should understand and be able to implement the methods of psychological
science.
• Students should have the knowledge and skills necessary to intervene in a range of
psychological concerns.
• Students should possess the skills and knowledge necessary to confront novel
challenges.
• Students should be able to present their knowledge to relevant parties through clear
written and verbal communication.
These outcomes were assessed in several key ways during the Spring, 2008 semester:
With respect to all of these outcomes, the American Psychological Association Office of
Accreditation requested information about several aspects of the clinical program for their online
report of nationwide clinical programs. This information included admission credentials for all
clinical students, internship preparation and placement, and demographics. The American
Psychological Association Office of Accreditation also requested information regarding student
outcome to be posted on the department website:
http://psychology.unlv.edu/html/performance_and_outcome_data.html. This website contains
information about number of admissions, characteristics and credentials of those admitted,
program attrition, internship placement, time to graduation, and program costs. The Director of
Clinical Training, in conjunction with clinical and other faculty in the department, prepared
materials in response to these requests. These ongoing APA requirements involve a thorough
review of whether students possess a broad knowledge of psychological science, whether they
can implement methods of psychological science in their practicum and research work,
whether they have the skills necessary to provide intervention and confront novel challenges,
and whether they can communicate their ideas via classroom presentations, conference
presentations, publications, and theses and dissertations.
With respect to all of these outcomes, clinical faculty met regularly in Spring, 2008 to evaluate
clinical graduate students with respect to grades, practicum standing, and thesis and dissertation
status. These meetings were held either by a small clinical steering committee or by the clinical
faculty as a whole. Although the large majority of students are progressing satisfactorily in our
graduate program, approximately 10% have problems related to grades, practicum, or thesis or
dissertation timelines that require substantial attention, mentoring, and remediation. In addition,
students generally received a satisfactory or better rating from their supervisors for their clinical
work and several proposed or defended their thesis or dissertation in Spring, 2008. Among
current clinical students, including first-year students, median number of conference
presentations was 5, median number of first-author conference presentations was 2, median
number of publications was 2.5, and 38% of students had a first-author publication. Students
have recently published first-author articles in impressive journals such as Journal of Nervous
and Mental Disease, Behavior Therapy, Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, and Archives of
1
Sexual Behavior. Excluding first-year students, 64.3% of clinical students had at least one
publication/presentation (in press material was not counted). Overall, a very large portion of
current clinical students in years 2+ have at least one publication (83.7%) and/or at least one
conference presentation (86.0%). These numbers rise slightly for current clinical students in
years 3+ (84.2%; 89.5%). With respect to data available for 16 graduates, mean number of
conference presentations at graduation was 8.6 (range 2-20) and mean number of publications at
graduation was 3.4 (range 0-10). Specific plans were outlined for these students so that their
progression toward the doctorate remains within reach during the timeline set by the Graduate
College. The ongoing evaluation of clinical graduate students thus involved a thorough
review of whether students possess a broad knowledge of psychological science, whether
they can implement methods of psychological science in their practicum and research
work, whether they have the skills necessary to provide intervention and confront novel
challenges, and whether they can communicate their ideas via classroom presentations,
conference presentations, publications, and theses and dissertations.
With respect to all of these outcomes, the clinical program embarked on the re-
accreditation process as required by the American Psychological Association. The process in
Spring, 2008 involved a comprehensive review of the program with respect to curriculum,
diversity, goals, competencies, requirements, and relationships with the university. A copy of the
APA self-study accompanies this report. These ongoing APA requirements involve a thorough
review of whether students possess a broad knowledge of psychological science, whether they
can implement methods of psychological science in their practicum and research work,
whether they have the skills necessary to provide intervention and confront novel challenges,
and whether they can communicate their ideas via classroom presentations, conference
presentations, publications, and theses and dissertations.
With respect to possessing a broad knowledge of psychological science, ability to
communicate knowledge through clear written communication, and ability to confront novel
challenges, comprehensive examinations taken by graduate students were prepared by clinical
faculty in Spring, 2008. The comprehensive examination is a thorough evaluation process in
which students must answer broad questions pertaining to psychopathology, assessment and
treatment, ethics, diversity, and research methods and statistics. These questions are unknown to
the student until the day they are given the examination, which further evaluates their ability to
confront novel challenges. These comprehensive examinations thus involved a thorough
review of whether students possess a broad knowledge of psychological science, whether they
can communicate their ideas in a clear fashion, and whether they can confront novel
challenges.
With respect to possessing a broad knowledge of psychological science, the Director of
Clinical Training and clinical faculty met regularly with clinical graduate students with respect to
issues of policy, diversity, and ethics. The student handbook given to students was revised as well.
In addition, those students applying for internship were provided with special information in
workshop format about the application process as well as considerable mentoring about choosing
potential internship sites and interviewing at these sites. These meetings, materials, and
workshops also involved a thorough review of whether students possess a broad knowledge
of psychological science.
2
UNLV Department of Psychology
Clinical Psychology Doctoral Program Self-Study
Prepared for APA Accreditation Review
Domain A: Eligibility
A1. Offers Doctoral Education and Training in Psychology
The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) Clinical Psychology Doctoral Program provides
students with doctoral level education in psychology that is intended to prepare students for
practice and/or research careers in clinical/professional psychology.
A2. Sponsored by Institution of Higher Education
The UNLV Clinical Psychology Doctoral Program is sponsored by the University of Nevada,
Las Vegas, which is accredited by the Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities
(NWCCU). UNLV received a full accreditation review by the NWCCU in 2000, underwent its
mid-review visit in 2005, underwent a focused interim visit regarding assessment procedures in
2007, and is scheduled for another full accreditation review in 2010.
A3. Program is an Integral Part of its Institution; Administrative Structure
The UNLV Clinical Psychology Doctoral Program (henceforth referred to as the “Program”) is
located in the Department of Psychology. The mission of the Department is to generate and
disseminate psychological knowledge and promote the development of professional conduct
through original scholarly research, publishing, mentorship, and teaching. Central to achieving
this mission are the Department’s doctoral programs in clinical and experimental psychology.
The Program began in 1999 and was formally accredited by APA in October, 2005. This is the
first reaccreditation process for the Program. The Program currently has 49 active clinical
students.
The Department is currently represented in the University budget with 23 full-time faculty lines,
plus one new hire who will begin in August, 2008. These lines include Dr. Carro as an Assistant
Professor in Residence and Associate Director of Clinical Training. Since the APA site visit in
October, 2005, 2 experimental faculty members retired, 6 experimental faculty members were
hired, the previous Dean of the College of Liberal Arts (Dr. Shoben, an experimental
psychologist) returned to the Department, and 1 clinical faculty member specializing in
multicultural psychology and eating disorders was hired. Dr. Shoben announced his retirement
effective the end of the 2007-2008 academic year.
One clinical faculty member (Dr. Heavey) accepted an administrative assignment as Associate
Dean of the College of Liberal Arts in January, 2008 but continues to be an active participant in
the Program. No clinical faculty members have departed the Program since accreditation. A
search for a clinical geropsychologist was unsuccessful in 2006-2007. The Department hopes to
search for at least one clinical psychology faculty position next year.
The Department has 3 full-time administrative assistants, an annual operating budget to cover
recurring expenses, and 50 state-funded research and teaching assistantships assigned to the
3
Department to provide support and training to doctoral students. The research and teaching
assistantships are nearly equally shared with the experimental psychology doctoral program.
Additionally, the Department is allocated office and research space as well as an on-campus
community mental health clinic (UNLV Center for Individual, Couple, and Family Counseling)
that the Program uses as a practicum training site in a joint relationship with the Department of
Marriage and Family Therapy. The University provides other support and facilities such as the
Lied Library, Graduate College, Disability Resource Center, Campus Life/Housing, Division of
Research and Graduate Studies, Student Financial Services, Student Health Services, Student
Counseling and Psychological Services, and Writing Center, among others.
The Department is led administratively by the Chair (Dr. Ashcraft) who works with the Director
of Clinical Training, the Associate Director of Clinical Training, and the Experimental Program
Director. The Department typically operates as a committee of the whole when allocating major
resources, making policy decisions, and issuing recommendations for new hiring priorities, new
program emphases and courses, and tenure and promotion applications. A subcommittee
structure is in place to make personnel recommendations to the general faculty and Chair and
merit recommendations to the Chair. Implementation of routine allocation and budget decisions
is handled by the Chair. The Department as a whole retains responsibility for general oversight
of the clinical and experimental doctoral programs.
The Program is led administratively by the Director of Clinical Training (DCT) (Dr. Kearney)
and Associate Director of Clinical Training (ADCT) (Dr. Carro). The ADCT oversees practicum
training, mentors students through internship application and interview processes, currently
serves as chair of the CICFC operating board (see below), operates the Program’s Assessment
Clinic, and teaches practicum, supervision, and child assessment courses within the Program.
The DCT manages student evaluations, admissions/Interview Day logistics, Clinical Program
Subcommittee (CPS) functions, funding, Program requirements, UNLV and APA assessment
reports, student grievances and petitions, Comprehensive Examinations, and interactions with the
UNLV Graduate College, APA, and APPIC. Policy, admission, curriculum, and evaluation
decisions are handled by the Clinical Program Committee comprised primarily of core faculty.
The Clinical Program Committee meets regularly to conduct business and to review the Program
and students. The CPS exists to review student petitions and handle transfer/waiver requests.
The Department is housed within the College of Liberal Arts, which is led administratively by
the Dean of the College. The Dean, in consultation with the College Executive Committee
comprised primarily of department chairs, is responsible for allocating operating monies,
providing additional faculty and graduate student support lines, making personnel decisions, and
conducting other administrative matters. The clinical Program is also affiliated with the
Graduate College, which oversees admissions, degree conferment, contracts for graduate student
support, theses and dissertations, scholarships and fellowships, and grievance procedures.
The Program shares an on-campus training facility, the Center for Individual, Couple, and
Family Counseling (CICFC) with the Department of Marriage and Family Therapy. The CICFC
is administratively housed within the College of Urban Affairs, which contains the Department
of Marriage and Family Therapy. Daily CICFC operations are administered by Dr. Colleen
Peterson, an Associate Professor in Residence in the Department of Marriage and Family
Therapy, and overseen by an operating board comprised of two faculty members from the
Department of Psychology (typically the DCT and ADCT), two faculty members from the
Department of Marriage and Family Therapy, and the director of UNLV Student Counseling and
4
Psychological Services. The ADCT has served as the chair of the CICFC operating board for the
past nine years (including Dr. Carro since 2004). The operating board is overseen by the Dean
of the College of Liberal Arts and the Dean of the College of Urban Affairs.
The Program is consistent with, and complementary to, the 8 current goals of UNLV
(http://www.unlv.edu/pubs/planning/goals.html). The Program directly contributes to the first
five of these goals, most notably goals of increasing scholarly research, serving the region, and
fostering an environment that respects diversity and free expression. Furthermore, UNLV is
currently classified as a “Research University – High Research” by the Carnegie Foundation.
A4. Length of Program and Residency Requirement
The Program requires a minimum of 96 semester credits divided as follows: (1) 18 3-credit
courses for 54 credits, (2) 6 semesters of practicum for 18 credits, (3) 2 semesters of thesis for 6
credits, (4) 4 semesters of dissertation for 12 credits, and (5) 2 semesters of internship for 6
credits. Incoming students can request a waiver or transfer of credits toward the Master’s degree
under one of three scenarios in Appendix A. Requests for waiver/transfer credit are evaluated
individually based on procedures specified in the Program Handbook (Appendix B, p. 10).
Students entering without a Master’s degree are awarded a Master’s degree after they have
completed the first two years of coursework, one year of practicum, and a thesis.
Students are expected to enroll full-time and be present on campus for courses, research, and
practicum, as applicable. These requirements lead to a minimum of four years of residency in
the Program for students without prior graduate work and a minimum of two years of residency
for a student with a prior Master’s degree who waives/transfers maximum allowed credits. The
degree requirements are designed so they can be completed in five years with no prior graduate
work/transfer credit, but we inform potential and incoming students about the current mean and
median time to degree for the Program, including internship (currently 6.2 years).
A5. Diversity
The Psychology Department and its programs have a set of policies and procedures designed to
create a diverse learning environment, to foster respect for cultural and individual differences in
all aspects of our activity, and to engender multicultural competence in our students to prepare
them for research and practice in an increasingly multicultural society. In our efforts to create a
diverse learning environment, we seek cultural and individual diversity when hiring faculty and
admitting students. We model respect for diversity in all of our activities and we engage in a
coordinated series of activities to train multicultural competence in our students. Our efforts are
consistent with, and complementary to, the University’s Planning Goal #5:
Continue to Foster a Campus Environment that Respects Diversity and Free Expression:
UNLV will be characterized by a civil, inclusive campus climate that demonstrates a respect
for individual differences and a commitment to equity and free expression. That climate will
create an environment where members of the campus community have increased awareness
of diversity and the opportunity it presents.
Moreover, the University and the Department adhere to a nondiscrimination policy in hiring and
admission, which reads in part:
The University of Nevada, Las Vegas is a campus that values difference and supports
cultural diversity. Our primary goal is to lead by example, and to create a model campus
community that values, nurtures and celebrates collegiality, diversity, pluralism, and
5
individualism. As an Affirmative Action/Equal Employment Opportunity employer and
educator, the University of Nevada, Las Vegas is committed to the principles of equal
opportunity for all of its students, faculty, employees, and applicants for admission and
employment. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas will not tolerate discrimination based on
race, color, religion, age, sex, national origin, ancestry, sexual orientation, disability, or
Vietnam-era and/or disabled veteran status, in any of its programs, organizations, and/or
conditions of employment and admission. To ensure equality in employment, personnel
actions are monitored and tracked by the Office of Diversity Initiatives (policy:
http://hr.unlv.edu/Diversity/Policy_Statements/EEO_ Policy.html).
We have worked to create an increasingly diverse environment, and highly value diversity in
hiring and admissions decisions, but we have not yet fully realized our goal of a diverse faculty.
We have achieved good success in increasing student diversity, but more progress is needed. In
addition to our efforts to create a diverse learning environment, our Program is designed to
develop multicultural competence in students via didactic, practicum, and research experiences.
A fuller explanation of the steps we have taken with respect to promoting diversity and
multicultural competencies, as well as progress in this area, are presented in Domains D and F.
A6. Policies and Procedures
The following policies and procedures guide our actions and are available to all interested parties
via the Web, the UNLV Graduate College Catalog, or the UNLV Clinical Psychology Doctoral
Program Handbook, which is given to all finalists during the application process, to all students
upon matriculation, and to all matriculated clinical students when the Handbook is updated.
Guide to Additional Documentation Requested
Appendix B: UNLV Clinical Psychology Doctoral Program Handbook (Program Handbook)
(http://psychology.unlv.edu/Clinical_Program_Handbook_October_17__2007.pdf)
Appendix C: UNLV Graduate College Catalog (Graduate Catalog)
(http://www.unlv.edu/pubs/catalogs/graduate)
Appendix D: UNLV Clinical Psychology Doctoral Program Website (Program Website)
(http://psychology.unlv.edu/html/clinical_program.html)
Student selection
• Program Handbook pp. 9-10
• Program Website (overview of program, course of study, Program Handbook and
timeline, degree requirements, performance and outcome data, application instructions)
• Graduate Catalog pp. 23-27
Academic preparation and admission and degree requirements
• Program Handbook pp. 9-12
• Graduate Catalog pp. 23-27, 37-44, 288-294
Administrative and financial assistance
• Program Handbook pp. 13-14
• Graduate Catalog pp. 9-10, 18-22, 34-36, 37-44
Student performance evaluation, feedback, advisement, retention
6
• Program Handbook pp. 16-17, 21-23
• Graduate Catalog pp. 19, 37-44
Student termination
• Program Handbook pp. 16-17
• Graduate Catalog pp. 37-38, 42
Due process
• Program Handbook pp. 14-17
• Graduate Catalog p. 42
Grievance policies for students and faculty
• Program Handbook pp. 14-16
• Graduate Catalog p. 42
• Grievance policies for faculty are at http://facultysenate.unlv.edu (see Appendix E)
Domain B: Program Philosophy, Objectives, and Curriculum Plan
B1. Educational Philosophy and Training Model
Mission Statement
The Program adheres to a scientist-practitioner model of training as first conceived at the
Boulder conference and later explicated by Belar and Perry (1992). Consistent with this
scientist-practitioner orientation, we adhere to the following mission statement:
The UNLV Clinical Psychology Doctoral Program, in the scientist-practitioner tradition,
prepares students to address psychological concerns through both scholarly research and the
application of psychological knowledge and skills in practice. We recognize psychology as
an empirical science and expect students to have a broad understanding of existing
psychological knowledge and methods. We train students to base their scholarly and
professional activity on the scientific foundation of psychology, including an understanding
of, and attention to, human diversity. We train students as generalists who are prepared to
conduct ethically appropriate scientific research and clinical interventions with children and
adults in an increasingly multicultural society. We provide an integration of didactic study,
supervised clinical activity, and mentored scholarly research. This mission is consistent
with, and complementary to, the mission of our sponsoring Department and University.
The Program prepares students for entry level practice of clinical psychology in a wide range of
research and practice-oriented settings. We promote an environment in which students are
treated as junior colleagues engaged collaboratively in the training process. We expose students
to different viewpoints regarding important issues in psychology and model the thoughtful and
respectful interchange that lies at the foundation of the scientific process. We consider the
mentorship process central to our Program and therefore each student must have a mentor by the
end of the first semester. In fact, most students enter the Program having already identified their
mentor. Students work closely with mentors to develop research skills and knowledge of chosen
areas of clinical psychology. Students may request to change mentors if their interests and
research directions change, but cannot be without a mentor after the first semester.
7
The sequence of training activities – including courses, practicum, and research – is designed to
provide a graded, sequential, and cumulative corpus of knowledge and skill and attendant
attitudes and values. Specifically, Year One focuses on instruction in basics of clinical
psychology. Students complete 9 courses (27 credit hours) that cover psychopathology, child/
adult assessment and intervention, foundations and history of clinical psychology, ethics of
professional practice and research in psychology, and statistics (the ethics course is taken in the
summer session immediately after Year One). Year One is laden with coursework and involves
students beginning their research. At a minimum, students are expected to identify a research
mentor and choose a thesis topic. Students are encouraged to complete the entire thesis proposal
by the end of the summer following Year One (see Representative Course of Study below).
Year Two brings a substantial reduction in formal coursework, with students completing only 3-
4 traditional courses during this year of study. This reduction in coursework is accompanied by
initiation of clinical practice in the Practicum I sequence and advancement of thesis research.
The Practicum I sequence (two semesters) introduces students to clinical practice by having them
conduct assessment and intervention at CICFC under Program faculty supervision.
During Year Three and Year Four, students participate in Practica II and III, respectively. These
practica are more specialized and supervision is usually provided by community-based
professionals. These practica typically occur off-campus and build upon basic experiences in
Practicum I. During these years, students complete theses and advance to more independent
dissertation research. Students also complete remaining required courses during this time.
Students commonly take electives that address more advanced topics in a focused way and
complete their breadth courses (e.g., developmental, social, cognitive, and biological bases of
behavior). In the summer after Year Three, students complete the Comprehensive Examination.
This take-home examination consists of 4 questions, of which students must answer 3. The
questions are integrative in nature and often present novel situations that the students must
research to develop an appropriate response. The Comprehensive Examination is discussed in
more detail in this section, in Domain F, and in the Program Handbook, Appendix B, pp. 24-25.
Representative Course of Study
Year One: Fall Year One: Spring
PSY 708: Statistics for Psychologists I PSY 709: Statistics for Psychologists II
PSY 736: Psychopathology PSY 716: Assessment of Adults
PSY 715: Assessment of Children PSY 726: Intervention with Adults
PSY 725: Intervention with Children PSY 714: History and Foundations of
Clinical Psychology
Summer after Year One
May: PSY 755: Ethics and Professional Issues
Year Two: Fall Year Two: Spring
PSY 707: Research Methods PSY 712: Standardized Tests and
Measurements
PSY 750: Diversity in Professional PSY 767: Practicum I
Psychology
PSY 767: Practicum I PSY 769: Thesis
PSY 769: Thesis Elective or Open
8
Year Three: Fall Year Three: Spring
Breadth Course Selection* Breadth Course Selection*
Elective or Open Elective or Open
PSY 767: Practicum II PSY 767: Practicum II
PSY 770: Dissertation PSY 770: Dissertation
Summer after Year Three
August: Comprehensive Examination
Year Four: Fall Year Four: Spring
Breadth Course Selection* Breadth Course Selection*
PSY 767: Practicum III PSY 767: Practicum III
PSY 770: Dissertation PSY 770: Dissertation
Year Five: Fall Year Five: Spring
PSY 771: Professional Internship PSY 771: Professional Internship
*
Breadth courses currently include PSY 701: Physiological Foundations of Behavior; PSY 703:
Cognitive Psychology; PSY 704: Social Psychology; and PSY 705: Developmental Psychology.
Integrating science and practice is central to our training model. In the Program’s didactic
component, basic and applied clinical courses are centered on extant material and the scientific
foundation of psychology. Students’ clinical work is similarly expected to be based on
scientifically supported principles and practices. This clinical activity can then serve as fodder
for scientific discussion and indicate areas in which additional knowledge and inquiry are
needed. The Program does not adhere to a unitary scientific or theoretical view of the discipline,
clinical processes, or methodology. Students are exposed to different views on important issues
and challenged to think scientifically for themselves. The ability of students to integrate science
and practice is evaluated in courses, theses and dissertations, and integrative Comprehensive
Examination questions. Furthermore, diversity is considered central to a thoughtful approach to
empirically informed practice and research. Diversity is thus taught and reinforced (1) in a
course devoted specifically to impact and importance of diversity and multicultural competence
and (2) via infusion in other courses and Program elements (see also Domains D and F).
Program Unique Within the Institution
The Program is unique at UNLV in that it is the only doctoral-level degree program focusing on
simultaneous training in scientific methods and provision of psychological services. Doctoral-
level programs in the UNLV Educational Psychology Department focus on practice of
psychology in schools (doctorates in Learning and Technology and Educational Psychology).
UNLV Masters-level degree programs for mental health practitioners – such as Masters in Social
Work, Masters in Marriage and Family Therapy, and Masters in Community Health Counseling
– do not follow the scientist-practitioner model and do not stress scholarship.
B2. Central Educational Goal, Objectives, and Competencies
Our central Program goal is to train psychological scientist-practitioners who possess (1) a broad
foundation of psychological knowledge, (2) an ability to design and implement scientific
investigations, and (3) skills necessary to intervene in psychological concerns. This central goal
leads directly to our primary objectives, which are further delineated into specific competencies.
9
Objective 1: To provide students with broad knowledge of the discipline of psychology.
Students should possess a broad foundation of psychological knowledge including an
understanding of basic areas of psychological science, individual differences and human
diversity, and ethical and professional behavior in psychology. This knowledge should be
accompanied by skills and values necessary to maintain currency in the evolving knowledge base
of our discipline.
Competency 1.1: A foundation of current knowledge in the area of biological basis of behavior.
Competency 1.2: A foundation of current knowledge in the area of human cognition.
Competency 1.3: A foundation of current knowledge in the area of principles of social influence
and social interaction.
Competency 1.4: A foundation of current knowledge in the area of human development.
Competency 1.5: An understanding of the history of psychology.
Competency 1.6: A foundation of current knowledge of the principles of psychological
measurement.
Competency 1.7: A foundation of current knowledge of human diversity and its relevance to
psychological functioning and professional practice in psychology.
Competency 1.8: A foundation of current knowledge in the area of psychopathology.
Competency 1.9: A foundation of current knowledge of the ethical, legal, and professional
standards relevant to practice and research in psychology.
Competency 1.10: Ability and commitment to maintain currency in the evolving knowledge base
of our discipline.
Objective 2: To teach students the methods of psychological science and the ability to
employ these methods to develop new knowledge. Students should understand psychological
methods including being able to design, implement, and evaluate scientific research.
Competency 2.1: Ability to survey, review, and evaluate extant psychological knowledge
relevant to an empirical topic in psychology.
Competency 2.2: Ability to design and implement empirical research projects relevant to
psychology.
Competency 2.3: Ability to collect and analyze empirical data.
Competency 2.4: Ability to synthesize, interpret, and convey the resulting psychological
knowledge.
Objective 3: To give students the knowledge and skills necessary to address psychological
problems. Students should have the knowledge and skills necessary to intervene in a range of
psychological concerns with both children and adults.
Competency 3.1: Ability to conceptualize psychological problems including conducting an
appropriate assessment.
Competency 3.2: Ability to develop and implement a coherent and empirically justifiable
intervention for psychological difficulties.
10
Competency 3.3: Ability to evaluate and monitor the efficacy of a psychological intervention.
Competency 3.4: Ability to identify and conform to relevant ethical, legal, and professional
standards for psychological practice.
Competency 3.5: Ability to understand and demonstrate competence with respect to issues of
cultural and individual diversity.
Competency 3.6: Ability to use consultation and supervision as necessary to guide professional
activity and to provide consultation and supervision regarding professional behavior to others.
Objective 4: To train students to integrate their science and practice knowledge and skills
in addressing familiar and novel professional challenges. Students should be able to integrate
their psychological knowledge, understanding of the scientific method, and intervention skills to
address familiar and novel professional challenges.
Competency 4.1: Ability to confront novel professional and scientific questions systematically
by identifying psychological principles and psychological knowledge that can provide guidance.
Competency 4.2: Ability to identify remaining questions and possible scientific strategies for
answering such questions.
Competency 4.3: Ability and commitment to continue to learn throughout one’s professional life
to remain informed regarding emerging psychological knowledge.
Objective 5: To give students skills necessary to communicate effectively with others
verbally and in writing. Students should have robust verbal and written communication skills.
Competency 5.1: Ability to communicate psychological knowledge and other relevant
information via oral presentations including teaching or presentations.
Competency 5.2: Ability to communicate psychological knowledge and other relevant
information in writing.
B3. Areas of Competence and Understanding as Specified in Guidelines and Principles
Below is a listing of how areas of understanding and competence specified in the Guidelines and
Principles for Accreditation of Programs in Professional Psychology (2007) overlay our Program
competencies as well as discussion of how we achieve each of these areas of competence and
understanding. Many of these competencies are aligned with courses. When this is the case,
students must earn a B- or better in the course to apply it to their degree. Syllabi for all courses
are in Appendix F. All courses are required unless otherwise noted as an elective.
(a) The breadth of scientific psychology, its history of thought and development, its research
methods, and its applications including exposure to current body of knowledge in at least the
following:
• Biological aspects of behavior. Our competency 1.1. Achieved via completion of PSY 701:
Physiological Foundations of Behavior.
• Cognitive and affective aspects of behavior. Our competency 1.2. Achieved via completion
of PSY 703: Cognitive Psychology as well as infusion in other courses such as PSY 715:
Assessment of Children, PSY 716: Assessment of Adults, PSY 725: Intervention with
Children, PSY 726: Intervention with Adults, PSY 736: Psychopathology (cognitive and
emotional disorders), and PSY 744: Neuropsychology (elective).
11
• Social aspects of behavior. Our competency 1.3. Achieved via completion of PSY 704:
Social Psychology.
• History and systems of psychology. Our competency 1.5. Achieved via completion of PSY
714: History and Foundations of Clinical Psychology, student learning about history of
various areas of psychology including their specialty areas of study chosen for thesis and
dissertation, and the history of other areas of study addressed in other courses (e.g., PSY 703,
705, 712).
• Psychological measurement. Our competency 1.6. Achieved via completion of PSY 712:
Standardized Tests and Measurements, PSY 715: Assessment of Children, and PSY 716:
Assessment of Adults.
• Research methodology. Our competencies 2.1, 2.2, and 2.4. Achieved via completion of
PSY 707: Research Methods, thesis, and dissertation.
• Techniques of data analysis. Our competency 2.3. Achieved via completion of PSY 708:
Statistics for Psychologists I, PSY 709: Statistics for Psychologists II, thesis, and dissertation.
(b) The scientific, methodological, and theoretical foundations of practice in the substantive area
of professional psychology, including current body of knowledge in at least the following areas:
• Individual differences in behavior. Our competencies 1.7 and 3.5. PSY 750: Diversity in
Professional Psychology focuses directly on this topic. Other courses address the topic (PSY
703: Cognitive Psychology, PSY 704: Social Psychology, PSY 705: Developmental
Psychology, and PSY 736: Psychopathology) as well as practicum experience and thesis and
dissertation.
• Human development. Our competency 1.4. Achieved via completion of PSY 705:
Developmental Psychology.
• Psychopathology. Our competency 1.8. Achieved via completion of PSY 736:
Psychopathology, practicum experience, and infusion in assessment and intervention courses
(PSY 715, 716, 725, 726).
• Professional standards and ethics. Our competency 1.9. Achieved via completion of PSY
755: Ethics and Professional Issues, practicum experience, and infusion in assessment and
intervention courses (PSY 715, 716, 725, 726).
(c) Diagnosing or defining problems through psychological assessment and measurement and
formulating and implementing intervention strategies, including current body of knowledge in at
least the following areas:
• Theories and methods of assessment and diagnosis. Our competencies 1.6 and 3.1.
Achieved via completion of PSY 712: Standardized Tests and Measurements, PSY 715:
Assessment of Children, PSY 716: Assessment of Adults, PSY 736: Psychopathology, and
practicum.
• Effective intervention. Our competency 3.2. Achieved via completion of PSY 714: History
and Foundations of Clinical Psychology, PSY 725: Intervention with Children, PSY 726:
Intervention with Adults, and practicum.
12
• Consultation and supervision. Our competency 3.6. Achieved via completion of PSY 714:
History and Foundations of Clinical Psychology, practicum, and PSY 762: Introduction to
Clinical Supervision (elective).
• Evaluating the efficacy of interventions. Our competency 3.3. Achieved via completion of
PSY 707: Research Methods, assessment and intervention courses (PSY 715, 716, 725, 726),
and practicum.
(d) Issues of cultural and individual diversity relevant to all of the above.
• Our competencies 1.7 and 3.5. Achieved via completion of PSY 750: Diversity in
Professional Psychology as well as infusion of diversity across many courses in the
curriculum (PSY 704, 705, 714, 715, 716, 725, 726, 736, 743, 744), practicum experience,
and, in many cases, theses and dissertations.
(e) Attitudes essential for life-long learning, scholarly inquiry, and professional problem-solving
as psychologists in the context of an evolving body of scientific and professional knowledge.
• Our competencies 1.10 and 4.3. Achieved via teaching students skills necessary to develop
and maintain expertise in areas of psychology via course presentations, continued
involvement in research, conference presentations and publishing, thesis, dissertation,
outcomes of graduates (see Domain F), and modeling of these values by mentors. This
competency is also assessed directly via our Practicum Competencies Review form
completed each semester by practicum supervisors (see Domain F, p. 30).
B4: Practicum Training
The didactic preparation for practicum training begins in Year One when students complete 7
courses that lay the foundation for clinical practice. Consistent with our scientist-practitioner
philosophy, each course emphasizes empirical foundations of professional activity in
psychology.
Formal practicum training occurs for a minimum of 3 years (9 months/year) and begins in Year
Two. The ADCT, Dr. Carro, coordinates and supervises practicum training. Each student is
required to take 18 credits of PSY 767: Practicum (3 credits per semester for 3 years). In
addition to the 9-month practicum assignments, students may opt to take either a summer or
secondary practicum opportunity. Students often elect to extend their work to 12 months at their
assigned site. All practicum opportunities must be approved by the ADCT and students must be
enrolled in Practicum 767 to be engaged in clinical activity.
Students are assigned to the same site for the fall and spring semester. Each student is expected
to obtain a minimum of 50 direct assessment and intervention hours per semester leading to a
minimum of 300 total direct hours overall (50 x 6 practicum semesters). However, students
generally accrue many more hours than this minimum. In our most recent cohort of 9 students to
apply for internship, for example, the median number of accrued direct assessment and
intervention hours was 1027 (range 639.5-1884; see also Domain F). Students are expected as
well to engage in indirect client contact, supervision, preparation, record keeping, and other
clinical work for several hours per week. The ADCT collects students’ practicum hour logs at
each mid-semester and end of semester to ensure that students meet minimum requirements.
Students in Year Two – that is, first-year practicum students – are assigned to the UNLV Center
for Individual, Couple, and Family Counseling (CICFC). Students maintain caseloads of 5-6
13
carefully screened clients throughout the year and must complete 3 comprehensive psychological
assessments and integrated reports during this year. Core clinical faculty members provide
individual supervision. Approximately 3 students per year are assigned to each faculty
supervisor. Supervisors must provide a minimum of two hours of direct face-to-face supervision
each week, at least one being individual supervision. In addition, faculty supervisors devote
approximately two additional hours per week per student to indirect supervisory functions (e.g.,
observing videotapes, in-session modeling, co-therapy). First- and second-year practicum
students are also required to attend two hours of practicum seminar per week. The seminar
involves clinical case presentations and didactic instruction with an emphasis on further
enhancing competencies related to interpersonal and relationship building skills, ethical
awareness and conduct, response to supervision, theoretical knowledge, assessment and
intervention skills, individual and cultural differences, and professional development.
Since the APA site visit in October, 2005, we established a formal Assessment Clinic within the
Department that is linked to CICFC. The Assessment Clinic provides low-cost services to the
community and was partly established to ensure that students achieve a minimum number of
assessment hours and completed integrated reports. The ADCT (Dr. Carro) founded the Clinic
with an initial $5000 grant from the Department. The Clinic now generates approximately
$5000/year, some of which is transferred to CICFC, and receives approximately $2000/year from
the Department to maintain its instrument library. Dr. Carro currently supervises assessments
made via the Clinic and CICFC. Dr. Carro has also developed several new outside practicum
sites that emphasize assessment training (see practicum descriptions below).
Students in Years Three and Four – that is, second- and third-year practicum students – are
assigned to Program-approved training sites in the Las Vegas/Clark County area. These practica
are unfunded, with some exceptions: (1) the UNLV Student Counseling and Psychological
Services has funded two, 20 hour/week positions at the doctoral level Graduate Assistant rate
($12,000/9 month stipend plus benefits, see C3, p. 17) and pays each 10-hour per week
practicum student $100/month, (2) the Achievement Center has funded practicum students at the
doctoral level Graduate Assistant rate ($12,000/9 month stipend plus tuition), (3) some senior
(Year 5+) students requesting a fourth year of practicum at two local neuropsychology private
practices (both practicum sites) have received compensation for working 10 hours/week ($15-
23/hour), and (4) some senior (Year 5+) students requesting a fourth year of practicum at two on-
campus, child-based practicum sites have been funded via University-based awards at the
doctoral level Graduate Assistant rate ($12,000/9 month stipend).
As the Program has developed, we have cultivated relationships with several sites at which
various opportunities are provided for students to further develop and refine their clinical skills
and interests. Students may choose sites offering training in consultation, assessment, and/or
intervention with child, adolescent, or adult populations in outpatient, inpatient, or forensic
settings. The majority of sites also offer opportunities to work in a multidisciplinary setting with
diverse populations in which individual and cultural differences are well represented. All student
practicum hours are currently supervised by a licensed clinical psychologist.
Appendix G provides brief descriptions of the 16 practicum opportunities for 2008-2009 (see
also Table 2). Four sites provide advanced training in neuropsychological assessment in a
private practice setting in which child, adolescent, and/or young and older adults, as well as
clinical and forensic (criminal and civil) referral questions, are represented. Four sites are state
treatment agencies for youths or adults with serious emotional disturbances or developmental,
14
learning, and other mental disorders. Two sites offer experience in a juvenile justice/clinical
setting. Two sites are University counseling facilities. Two sites are on-campus specialized
child treatment facilities. One site is a nonprofit community clinic providing services to
children, adults, and indigent persons. One site is a youth- and family-based private practice.
Each practicum site is initially reviewed and subsequently monitored by the ADCT. The criteria
for sites to be approved for practicum training include (1) clear commitment to student training,
(2) ability to provide appropriate on-site supervision, and (3) opportunity for practicum students
to provide services appropriate to their level of training in psychological assessment,
intervention, and other areas. We do not accept training sites where students serve primarily as
observers of others providing services. On-site supervisors agree to train students in the
activities of a psychologist and provide, at a minimum, weekly supervision. Supervisors provide
feedback to the Program regarding student performance at mid-year and end of year. The ADCT
meets regularly with practicum supervisors throughout the year to monitor quality of supervision
provided to students.
Students also provide feedback regarding their supervisor and assigned site at these times (see
Appendix H for clinical supervisor and student evaluation forms). One pertinent item is
“Overall this is an excellent supervisor and I would recommend him/her to my peers,” scored on
a 1-5 scale where 1=strongly agree and 5=strongly disagree. Mean ratings on this item were
strong for Spring 2007 (1.11) and Fall 2007 (1.59). Most students (92.7%) agreed or strongly
agreed their supervisor was excellent overall. A second pertinent item is “Overall, this is an
excellent training experience and I would recommend it to my peers,” scored on the same 1-5
scale. Mean ratings on this item were strong for Spring 2007 (1.43) and Fall 2007 (2.00). Most
students (81.1%) agreed or strongly agreed their practicum site was excellent overall.
Required Achievement Level
Required achievement levels can be considered for courses, theses and dissertations, clinical
practica, Comprehensive Examinations, ethical and professional behavior, and adequate progress
in the Program. Students must earn a passing grade (B- or better) in each course taken for the
degree program. A student receiving a grade of C+ or lower is immediately placed on formal
academic (Graduate College-level) probation. Students on such probation due to a non-passing
course grade are informed in writing that they must retake the course and earn a passing grade
during the next 12 months and that they must not receive any other non-passing grade while on
such probation or they may be separated from the Program. Once the student successfully
retakes the course, he/she is removed from such probation. Students may be placed on formal
academic probation twice. Once a student has been on such probation twice, any non-passing
grade or other adverse event may lead to the student being separated from the Program.
Thesis and dissertation requirements are central pillars of our scientist-practitioner training
model. Each student must complete and defend a Master’s thesis. The thesis must be empirical,
supervised by a primary advisor, and overseen by two other committee members from the
Department and one Graduate College representative from outside the Department. Students
must present a formal written proposal to the committee that includes (1) an introduction that
reviews relevant scholarly literature and provides the study rationale, and (2) a method section
involving a detailed description of the method to be employed and of data analytic strategies.
The completed thesis proposal and final thesis must be provided to all committee members and
then orally defended. The committee awards a Satisfactory grade for an acceptable thesis. The
15
student then files the completed thesis with the Graduate College for final approval. The
dissertation follows the same procedures with the expectation that the research project is more
substantial and independent than the thesis. Theses and dissertations are made available to all
faculty members for review, and all faculty members may attend and ask questions at defenses.
Votes regarding the satisfactory nature of a thesis or dissertation are reserved only for committee
members. Beyond thesis and dissertation requirements, students are expected to maintain
continuous involvement in research and are strongly encouraged to present scholarly work at
conferences and in publications (see also Domain F).
Student practicum performance is monitored by clinical supervisors and formally evaluated at
end of each semester, at which time supervisors complete an evaluation form for each student.
The ADCT collects and reviews all evaluation forms. The ADCT is responsible for the course
grade, which is informed by the supervisor evaluation and the student’s performance in the
practicum course/case conference meeting. Students having difficulty developing their
practicum skills can be counseled or required to gain additional practicum experience. The
Program models its practicum evaluation process according to competencies outlined by Hatcher
and Lassiter (2005) and endorsed by ADPTC and APPIC.
Students must pass the Comprehensive Examination (CE) and defend their dissertation proposal
before applying for internship. The CE is designed to evaluate and reinforce student
competencies as emerging scientist-practitioners. The CE is a 2-week, take-home test given in
August each year. Our Program’s goals and objectives guide CE construction. Students choose
3/4 questions to answer. Answers are limited to 10 double-spaced pages plus references.
Questions are integrative, addressing key areas of clinical psychology: psychopathology, ethics,
assessment and intervention, diversity, research methods and statistics. The CEs are scored by
two Program faculty members. An average score of 75+ is a passing score (see also Domain F,
p. 30).
Students are expected to maintain appropriate ethical and professional behavior in their Program-
related activities. This is reviewed during the annual evaluation process (see Program
Handbook, Appendix B, pp. 16-17). Adequate progress is defined by the program timeline
given to all students at time of matriculation (see Appendix I). Students failing to make
adequate progress are placed on probation. The terms of probation for the student delineate what
he/she must complete during a specified time period to be removed from probation. Students
failing to meet the terms of their probation may be separated from the Program.
Guide to Additional Documentation Requested
Appendix F: Syllabi for Relevant Psychology Graduate Courses
Appendix G: 2008-2009 Practicum Site Descriptions
Appendix H: Clinical Supervisor Evaluation/Practicum Competency Review Forms
Student Evaluation/Practicum Site and Supervisor Evaluation Form
Appendix I: Program Timeline
Appendix J: Full Curriculum Vitae for DCT and ADCT
16
Domain C: Program Resources
C1a-e: Core Faculty (as defined by IR C-18)
The Department of Psychology currently has 23 full-time faculty members, 10 of whom are core
clinical faculty members. Seven clinical faculty members are licensed to practice in Nevada, 2
are unlicensed (Drs. Allen and Warren), and 1 is licensed in another state but holds an ASPPB
Certificate of Professional Qualifications in Psychology under their mobility program of
interstate licensing (Dr. Ferraro). The vacancy created by the loss of one clinical faculty member
(Dr. Floyd) just prior to the Program’s accreditation (October, 2005) was unfilled and converted
into a now-filled experimental position. However, one additional core clinical faculty member
was hired in February, 2006 (Dr. Warren). Thus, the current number of core clinical faculty
members is unchanged since the previous self-study. Our core faculty membership is typical for
like programs. The 2006 Annual Report of the Committee on Accreditation revealed a mean of
9 and a median of 8 core clinical faculty members for accredited programs.
Nine of our core clinical faculty are tenured or tenure track and thus have full voting privileges
in all matters of departmental governance. One core clinical faculty member, the ADCT, is an
Assistant Professor in Residence. This is a non-tenure-track faculty designation. Dr. Carro was
hired specifically into this role. Her position does not include research expectations, but hers is
an ongoing, state-funded faculty line that allows for promotion. She has voting privileges for all
governance matters except promotion and tenure. Core faculty members regularly attend and
participate in clinical and full-faculty meetings (see also Domain F). An exception is the current
Associate Dean (Dr. Heavey) who attends clinical but not full-faculty meetings at this time, but
who remains an active participant in the Program.
Our faculty members have strong credentials and expertise relevant to training scientist-
practitioner psychologists. All 10 core clinical faculty members have doctoral degrees from
APA-accredited programs and 9/10 completed APA-accredited internships. All core clinical
faculty members have published scholarly research in the past 5 years and all maintain active
research programs. All core clinical faculty members maintain memberships in professional
organizations and all present scholarly work at regional and national conferences. Many faculty
members routinely co-author scholarly works with students.
Associated Program Faculty (as defined by IR C-18)
We also have 13 faculty members (plus one to start August, 2008) with training in various areas
of experimental psychology. All are full-time tenure track or tenured Department members and
hold doctoral degrees in psychology. They serve as collaborators and members of student
committees and provide instruction in breadth, statistics, and methods courses. These faculty
members belong to relevant professional organizations and most are active researchers and
publishers. We also have a group of outside supervisors who provide on-site supervision for
advanced practicum placements and a part-time instructor, Dr. Wayne Weiten, who teaches a
course to prepare graduate students for teaching: PSY 757: Teaching of Psychology. Dr. Weiten
is well-known in the field as a best-selling textbook author.
C2: Students
We currently have 49 students in the Clinical Psychology Doctoral Program (median number of
students in APA-accredited doctoral programs: 46). When deciding upon number of students to
admit each year, we consider several factors: sufficient number to ensure meaningful peer
17
interaction and ample class size, number of students faculty members can effectively mentor, and
applicant quality and diversity. Our incoming classes have ranged from 5-11 since 1999 and 5-6
since accreditation in 2005. Two students left the Program from 1999-2005: one pursued a
degree in England with the hope of living there permanently and one followed her mentor, who
accepted a position elsewhere. Two students left the Program from 2006-2008: one was
separated from the Program and one pursued a degree in our experimental psychology program.
In reviewing students for the Program, we consider a combination of academic qualifications,
including GPA and GRE scores, relevant experience, letters of recommendation and intent, fit
with Program goals including the goal of diversity, and fit with a mentor. Each applicant’s letter
of intent is reviewed during the admissions process to evaluate fit with the Program. Finalists
during this process are invited to campus for our Interview Day. During this day, the philosophy
of the Program, including our scientist-practitioner orientation and importance of a genuine
interest in research and scientific training, is presented to and explored with finalists with the
hope of creating a good match between our expectations and offerings and incoming students’
interests and goals. Although we accept and acknowledge that many students will seek careers
that involve predominantly practice-related activities, we want students to share our interest in
the value of integrated science and practice training. We also hope some of our students will
share our commitment to research sufficiently to pursue primarily research or academic careers.
We do not have rigid cutoffs for GPA and GRE scores, but generally admit students with a 3.5
undergraduate GPA or better and GRE subscale scores averaging above 550. We have made
exceptions to this, particularly in cases where we did not believe GRE scores reflected ability,
such as in applicants from non-traditional or diverse backgrounds. Our 2005-2007 cohorts
entered with a combined mean GPA of 3.73 and strong GRE scale means for verbal (593),
quantitative (631), and psychology (659).
Since accreditation in 2005, we admitted smaller incoming classes of 5-6 students to allow closer
faculty mentorship and to allow us to fund all students, including senior students, who requested
funding. In subsequent years, we expect to accept 5-8 students per year. To date, 18 students
have fulfilled all Program requirements and have graduated (see Domain F). Eleven students are
currently on internship; 5 of these have already defended their dissertation and will graduate in
2008. Four other students have a high likelihood of graduating in 2008, needing only to
complete internship and/or defend their dissertation. Eight students will enter internship in 2008.
C3: Other Resources
Financial Support for Training and Educational Activities
During Years One and Two of study, the primary form of student support is state-funded
Graduate Assistantship (GA) positions. GA positions carry a waiver of out-of-state tuition, pay
77.5% of per-credit registration fees up to 10 credits per semester, and pay a 9-month stipend of
$12,000. The GA position does not cover student fees but does cover 67.2% of the $1489 cost
for optional student health insurance. Student fees and the non-covered portion of a typical 12-
credit semester load total approximately $500 per semester. In return for this compensation,
students are expected to work 20 hours per week in support of faculty research or teaching.
The Department currently has an allocation of 24 GA positions. Most of these GA positions
have been used traditionally to fund clinical students. In recent years, the Department increased
the number of positions allocated to the experimental program to assist that program in recruiting
18
students. We thus expect the number of future GA positions for clinical students to be
approximately 11-13 per year (current number is 11). This is one reason we recently admitted
smaller cohorts – to more closely align number of admitted students with available funding.
In Years Three and Four, students are typically funded through positions that require teaching
two sections of a course; these positions are Part-Time Instructor GAs, or PTI-GAs. Students
initially teach introductory psychology and, concurrent with their first semester of teaching, take
a course to prepare and assist them with this initial teaching experience (PSY 757: Teaching of
Psychology). PTI-GA positions are compensated at the same rate as a GA. The Department
currently has an allocation of 26 PTI-GA positions; 17 are currently assigned to clinical students.
We have had some students funded with grant money and we hope to increase the number of
students funded with extramural grants in coming years. Grants and scholarships are also
offered by the Graduate College on a competitive basis. Our students have been successful in
receiving these funds. In 2007, for example, a clinical student was awarded the UNLV Ferguson
Fellowship ($20,000 plus fees paid), two were awarded a Nevada Stars scholarship ($18,000 plus
tuition remission), one was awarded a Barrick Fellowship ($14,000 plus fees paid), 6 were
awarded a GREAT Assistantship for summer ($6000), 3 were awarded a Summer Scholarship
($2000), one was awarded an Alumni Scholarship ($1000), and one was awarded an Adams
Scholarship ($1000). In three previous years, a clinical student was awarded the UNLV
Foundation President’s Fellowship (currently $20,000 plus fees paid). Additional financial
assistance is available through UNLV Student Financial Services.
Our goal is to fund all students who request funding. All students who requested funding in
2006 and 2007, including students in Year Five and beyond, received funding. This has been
possible due to smaller incoming cohorts, student and Department success in securing
University-based funding sources for graduate students, and available grant positions offered by
faculty members. We anticipate that all clinical students requesting funding for 2008-2009 will
receive funding.
In addition to student funding, the Department has an operating budget sufficient for ongoing
expenses and to purchase training equipment. As mentioned earlier, the Department continues to
contribute funds for the Assessment Clinic. We have also allocated funds to cover costs of some
students and faculty who wished to attend conferences on multicultural competence. Faculty
members are provided $1,000 per year for professional travel, and several internal grant
programs are available to fund faculty research. Graduate students can apply for research and
travel grants of up to $750 from the Graduate and Professional Student Association.
The University also supports the Program by providing 12-month contracts for the DCT and
ADCT and a reduced teaching load for the DCT. Clinical supervision and mentorship of
doctoral students are also counted in the teaching load. Mentoring multiple doctoral students,
providing practicum supervision, and maintaining an active research program typically account
for course reassignments. Practicum supervision for 3 clinical students at CICFC counts as one
teaching course per semester. The DCT currently teaches one course per semester; this course
may be practicum supervision.
Clerical and Technical Support
The Department has 3 full-time administrative assistants. None are assigned to the Program for a
fixed percentage of time, but all are available to support Program activities such as admissions,
19
evaluations, and internship applications. The DCT works with the Department Chair and the
office manager to determine which staff person will assist with various administrative tasks.
Technical support for all computer and electronic equipment is provided via the Office of
Information Technology (OIT). Students and faculty members have access to computer help
lines and technical consulting. Audiovisual equipment is also available via OIT.
Training Materials and Equipment
The ADCT maintains an extensive library of assessment materials for evaluations performed at
CICFC or for courses. Instructors of the assessment courses also have been given several sets of
psychological assessment instruments they use in the courses. The assessment library contains
69 measures that include a wide range of intelligence, achievement, personality, behavioral,
memory, symptom, and other assessments for children, adolescents, and adults.
The Department maintains a computer lab (shared with the Department of Sociology) that is
accessible to all graduate students. Computers in the lab are equipped with SPSS, EQS,
Microsoft Office, and Adobe Creative Suite, including Dreamweaver, among other programs.
The Department also has a site license for E-Prime for research activities.
The University has an extensive library. The physical structure provides ample space for
students to read or study, and a large graduate student lounge with computers, printers, and study
space is available. The journal and book holdings of the library are good, and the ability to
retrieve articles, books, or documents not held by the library is excellent. Faculty and students
have remote access to various databases, including PsycINFO, PsycARTICLES, Academic
Search Premier, IRIS, Scopus, and JSTOR, among others. Document Delivery Services can
typically provide copies of articles not held by the library within a very short period of time.
Physical Facilities
The Psychology Department is housed in the Classroom Building Complex, Building B (CBC-
B), where most Psychology graduate courses are held. Each faculty member has an office and
all research-active faculty members have lab space. Graduate students often have office space in
their professor’s research laboratories or utilize the Graduate Student lounge in the library, which
is adjacent to CBC-B. A reorganization of CBC-B space this year is anticipated to produce
additional office space for graduate students; specific details will likely be available in
September, 2008. Graduate students who are teaching have a shared office with computers and
telephone. All physical facilities are handicapped accessible.
Student Support Services
Our students have access to the Student Health Center for physical health needs and UNLV
Student Counseling and Psychological Services (CAPS) for mental health needs. We also
maintain a network of local psychologists willing to provide services to students and their family
members on a sliding-scale fee basis. Students are professionally insured by the University
while they perform practicum work and must maintain malpractice insurance when engaged in
practicum work. Graduate students do not have access to additional University-based legal
services. Other University-based units that provide student support were listed in A3, p. 2.
Practicum Training Facilities
Second-year students participate in practicum at our on-campus training clinic under supervision
of core program faculty. Third- and fourth-year students participate in practicum either at on-
20
campus but primarily off-campus training sites. These were described in greater detail in B4 and
Table 2. We have ample practicum sites for our students and excellent collaborative
relationships with each site. The sites are aware of our training model and goals and maintain
ongoing communication with the ADCT. The ADCT also conducts an annual workshop for
practicum supervisors and an annual Practicum Fair in which clinical students meet with
supervisors at existing practicum sites to help determine their preferences for further training.
C4. Consortium
The program is not part of a consortium.
Domain D: Cultural and Individual Differences and Diversity
The Department’s and Program’s policies and intent regarding diversity and multiculturalism
match UNLV’s commitment to “foster a campus environment that respects diversity and free
expression,” currently codified as a key University planning goal. Our internal commitment to
diversity is partly manifested by active, rotating service of experimental and clinical faculty,
including the DCT, on our Department Diversity Committee as well as formal articulation in the
following Program Handbook statement (p. 8): “Multicultural competence is an integral part of
the program’s research and clinical training mission. The curriculum instructs students in
multicultural competencies at all levels of the research enterprise (critical evaluation of existing
literature, design, methodology, interpretation of findings) and of clinical activity (assessment,
intervention, program development, consultation, program evaluation). Additionally, we value,
seek and support diversity among faculty and students with regard to age, sex, sexual
orientation, ableness, socio-economic status, race, culture, and other forms of diversity.”
Students
We currently have 49 clinical students, 12 of whom (24.5%) are members of ethnic minority
groups. This is an increase since our 2005 self-study (18.9%) and slightly above the median of
23.0% in APA-accredited doctoral programs. Five students are Hispanic, three are African-
American, one is Eastern Indian, one is biracial Eastern Indian, one is biracial Pakistani, and one
is Israeli. We continue to seek greater cultural diversity in our program, but the current ethnic
composition is somewhat aligned with regional demographics. Among our last three incoming
cohorts since accreditation, 4/16 students (25.0%) are members of ethnic minority groups.
Several of our students are bilingual in Spanish and others are fluent in French, Norwegian,
Hindu, Gujarati, and Farsi. No students of ethnic minority status have prematurely departed the
Program.
The current gender ratio is heavily skewed toward female admissions, as is the case nationally in
the profession. Our current student body is 16.3% male, which is similar to the 18.0% we had in
2005 but somewhat below the median of 22.0% in APA-accredited doctoral programs. Among
our last three incoming cohorts since accreditation, 3/16 students (18.8%) are male. The age
range of our students is 23-49 years with some well-qualified non-traditional students making
career changes or returning to school after raising families. We currently have no students with
documented disabilities and have no knowledge of having received any such applicants. We
have several mechanisms in place for minority student recruitment and retention:
1. Admissions process that takes culture into account, including culturally appropriate
consideration of scores as well as examination of other measures of potential success.
21
2. Department policy allowing funding for applicants from diverse backgrounds to interview
with our Program.
3. Department policy to prioritize funding for minority students.
4. Minority student recruitment is a mandate of the Department Diversity Committee.
5. Graduate Assistant tasked to the Diversity Committee to maintain a “pipeline” program to
prepare local minority students to compete for admission to our and other graduate programs.
6. Accessing minority student associations at UNLV to identify qualified potential minority
candidates for our program.
7. Mentoring program whereby existing students are matched, taking into consideration aspects
of diversity, with incoming students to provide support and assistance in the Program and
community.
8. Meetings between the DCT and minority students and cohorts to discuss concerns.
9. Recruitment efforts directed to minority students at non-UNLV institutions via listserves,
graduate program and CUDCP events, APA recruitment fairs, and direct mail.
10. Faculty attendance at multicultural and other conferences to recruit minority students.
11. As the diversity of our faculty membership hopefully grows, an increased matching of
minority students to minority faculty members.
12. Maintain multicultural coverage throughout the curriculum and in practica.
13. Student orientation to relevant campus organizations advancing multicultural issues.
Faculty
The Department currently has 23 faculty members, plus one who will join us in August, 2008.
Of these 24 total persons, 9 are women (37.5%), one of whom represents an ethnic minority
(Hispanic). The percentage of female faculty is a substantial increase since 2000 (12.5%) and
2002 (29.0%) but the current percentage of faculty representing an ethnic minority (4.2%) has
declined since 2000 (5.0%) and 2002 (9.0%). This latter change was due to the departure of an
African-American faculty member in 2004 and a since expanded faculty. The lone professor
currently representing a cultural minority is a core clinical faculty member. Four faculty
members (3 clinical, 1 experimental) left the Department in 2004-2005 (all prior to accreditation)
and two experimental faculty members retired in 2007. The Department has, however, expanded
since 2005 by hiring six faculty members in experimental psychology, hiring one faculty
member in clinical psychology, and welcoming the return of the previous Dean of the College of
Liberal Arts (Dr. Shoben, an experimental psychologist) to the Department (see also A3, p. 1).
Dr. Shoben has announced his retirement effective at the end of the 2007-2008 academic year.
Although we remain highly committed to multiculturalism, attempts to increase the ethnic
diversity of our faculty during recent hiring cycles have been unsuccessful. During an
unsuccessful search for a clinical geropsychologist, for example, the search committee actively
researched the qualifications of diverse applicants. Unfortunately, few viable candidates
emerged for the position; one woman accepted another offer prior to our interview stage and one
Hispanic woman had no publications. An offer was made to a third candidate but he declined.
This position was subsequently converted to a cognitive psychology position, and a female was
22
hired and will join our faculty in August, 2008. No viable candidates for the experimental
psychology positions included ethnic minorities, though 3/6 new hires in this area were female.
As mentioned earlier, we did hire a core clinical faculty member (Dr. Warren) in February, 2006
who specializes in multicultural psychology and eating disorders. We hope to increase the ethnic
diversity of our faculty through upcoming hires, including clinical hires, in 2009 and beyond.
Despite our limited success in increasing faculty ethnic diversity, our faculty members remain
committed to principles of multiculturalism as central to our Department culture and the
Program’s training mission. This was partly reflected in a series of diversity workshops for
faculty and students sponsored by the Department Diversity Committee via University funding in
2006. Dr. Patricia Arredondo from Arizona State University presented a workshop on enhancing
diversity and multicultural competency within a psychology department. Dr. Kathryn Quina
from the University of Rhode Island presented workshops related to multicultural curricular
transformation, changing department climate vis-à-vis multiculturalism, and teaching critical
thinking through multiculturalism. Dr. Gordon Nagayama Hall of the University of Oregon and
Dr. Robert Sellers of the University of Michigan provided presentations related to diversity in
research, the APA Minority Fellowship Program, and a multidimensional model of racial
diversity. As further evidence of its commitment to multiculturalism, the Department has several
mechanisms in place for minority faculty recruitment and retention:
1. Prioritizing qualified minority candidates in faculty searches and hiring advertisements.
2. Openness to non-traditional backgrounds such as community work that may be less academic
in nature.
3. Matching new faculty to faculty mentors sharing a significant cultural dimension.
4. Introduction of faculty member to campus organizations and colleagues with shared cultures.
5. Departmental support and encouragement for developing courses specific to cultural
concerns.
6. Mailings to the Directory of the Office of Ethnic Minority Affairs.
7. New faculty orientation to address issues of concern to new faculty, such as faculty
governance, committees, campus-wide cultural organizations, promotion, and tenure.
8. Regularly scheduled meetings with mentor, graduate program directors, and Chair to discuss
existing concerns.
9. Reduced emphasis on impact factor of journals that minority faculty members may publish in
to allow for publication in ethnic studies journals as well as utilization of qualitative and non-
traditional methodologies.
10. Climate survey conducted by the Chair regarding quality of work environment for faculty.
11. Parental leave initiatives developed by the Diversity Committee.
Efforts to educate students about diversity and test cultural competencies
Integrating multicultural competencies in our curriculum has been a developmental and
incrementally successful process. Since our Program began, faculty members have been actively
encouraged to incorporate individual and cultural differences into all coursework to provide
students with the diversity knowledge, skills, and attitudes they require to work in a multicultural
23
society. To build faculty skills by which to achieve multicultural infusion, the Department has
also purchased materials to help individual professors with this integration. Faculty members
have worked to increase the explicit incorporation of cultural competencies into syllabi, and the
Diversity Committee has been tasked with reviewing syllabi from all relevant graduate courses
to boost new reading and other materials pertinent to diversity topics.
The program also makes liberal use of guest lecturers from the community on issues related to
cultural competencies. Recent lectures include Dr. Luis Guevara, a Latino psychologist, who
spoke of incorporating information about Mexican-American worldviews and assumptions into
therapy for diverse adolescents and Dr. Dudley Luke, a Chinese-American psychologist, who
discussed Asian worldviews and assumptions vis-à-vis case conceptualization and treatment.
The ADCT is currently arranging for a speaker on gay/lesbian/transgender issues.
Clinical students are required to take PSY 750: Diversity in Professional Psychology, which is
designed specifically to instruct in cultural competencies. This is an intensive course that
students describe as informative. Competencies are very specifically tested in this course via
active and engaged participation, reaction papers to assigned readings, and a course project
involving a written review of a topic of direct relevance to the practice of culturally competent
clinical practice, research, or teaching.
Practicum placements are another way we educate our students about diversity. Sites providing
the greatest degree of diversity include Desert Willow Treatment Center, Summit View
Correctional Facility, UNLV CAPS, Office of Juvenile Public Defender, and our child-oriented
and neuropsychological training sites (see descriptions in Appendix G). At CICFC, the site for
Practicum I, students see clients representing all major minority and lower-income groups in our
community. Ethnic minority supervisors include two Latinos, two African-Americans, and one
Asian. Dr. Meana of our core clinical faculty also supervises Spanish-speaking students with
Spanish-speaking clients. We continue to develop sites that expose our students to diversity.
Supervisor evaluations of our students’ interactions with diverse clients are also an important
way we test cultural competencies and assess outcomes vis-à-vis our diversity training.
Advanced students are also tested on cultural competencies in their Comprehensive Examination.
In addition to the expectation that diversity issues will be properly addressed in all research
projects, students are encouraged to address multiculturalism in their theses and dissertations.
We currently have a number of students directly researching culture as it relates to assessment,
child maltreatment and disorders, parenting attitudes, disparities in mental health services,
sexuality, inner experience, bodily perceptions, and eating disorders, among other areas.
Overall, we have several mechanisms in place for instructing cultural competencies:
1. Diversity in Professional Psychology (PSY 750); required course.
2. Infusion of multicultural issues in all courses and practica.
3. Guest lecturers from the community with multicultural expertise.
4. Multicultural workshops for students and faculty.
5. Provision of relevant didactic materials for faculty.
6. Departmental sponsorship of faculty attendance at multicultural conferences.
7. Practica exposing students to diverse populations and culturally informed assessment and
interventions.
24
8. Inclusion of multicultural issues and topics in the Comprehensive Examination.
9. Encouragement to include multicultural issues in theses and dissertations and other research.
10. Diversity Committee review of syllabi for better integration of cultural competencies.
11. Workshops for faculty on integrating multicultural competencies across topic areas.
Guide to Additional Documentation Requested
Appendix K: Equal Employment Opportunity Policy Statement
Learning Enhancement and Disability Services
Samples of recent position announcements
Domain E: Student-Faculty Relations
E1: Student Rights and Grievance Procedures
See Appendix B, Program Handbook, p. 6 for program philosophy related to student-faculty
relations and pp. 14-16 for conflict resolution and grievance procedures.
See Appendix C, UNLV Graduate Catalog, pp. 37-44 for academic policies
See Appendix C, UNLV Graduate Catalog, p. 42 for appeal and grievance procedures.
E2 and 3: Faculty accessibility and guidance
We have dedicated clinical faculty members who serve as scholars, teachers, clinical supervisors,
mentors, and models of the best characteristics of the scientist-practitioner clinical psychologist.
Clinical faculty members generally schedule office hours and regular “lab” meetings to discuss
research with graduate students. Faculty members meet regularly with students they are advising
to guide them through the research process and discuss professional issues that may arise.
Prior to accreditation, some students expressed concern about variability in faculty availability
with respect to mentoring. We thus admitted smaller cohorts of 5-6 students in the past 3 years
to meet our target of reducing the overall clinical student body size to below 50 (currently 49).
This has allowed more time for each clinical faculty member to mentor each student. The DCT
meets regularly with the Clinical Student Committee and its chair to discuss issues of student
concern. In the past 3 years, several changes were made at the request of students, including
more timely written annual evaluation feedback, enhanced mentor contact, a clearer delineation
of Department- and Graduate College-level probation (see Program Timeline, Appendix I),
enhanced practicum opportunities, establishment of a Practicum Fair (see p. 19), and initiation of
a faculty evaluation process by students. The DCT also meets regularly with individual student
cohorts and diverse students to address more specific concerns they may have.
E4: Performance Expectations and Student Evaluations
All students are given a copy of the Program Handbook, Program Timeline, and the APA Code
of Ethics when they interview for the Program and again during Program orientation when they
matriculate (see Appendix B for a copy of Program Handbook and Appendix I for a copy of
Program Timeline). Program requirements are outlined on pp. 10-12 of the Program Handbook.
Students are formally evaluated annually in five areas: (1) academic performance, (2) scholarly
research activity, (3) clinical knowledge and skill, (4) ethical knowledge and functioning, and (5)
25
assistantship performance, if applicable. The evaluation process partly involves collecting
statements from students and advisors and the ADCT, reviewing information at a Program
meeting, and distilling evaluative material into a written letter presented to the student and
placed in the student’s file (see the Program Handbook in Appendix B, pp. 16-17 for more
detailed discussion of evaluation procedures). Mentors and students meet subsequent to this
process and regularly to discuss the evaluation and implement a remediation plan if applicable.
Students are placed on formal Graduate College-level academic probation if they receive a grade
lower than a B- in any course, if they fail to defend their thesis proposal by November 15 of Year
Three, if they fail to defend their thesis by November 15 of Year Four, or if they fail to defend
their dissertation proposal by November 15 of Year Six. Students may petition for extensions
when special circumstances exist. From 1999-2005, 9 students were placed on formal probation.
Of these, 4 were placed on probation for receiving a grade lower than B- and 5 were placed on
probation for failure to complete the thesis in timely fashion. From 2006-2008, 5 students were
placed on formal probation. Of these, 1 was placed on probation for a grade lower than B- (since
rectified), 1 was placed on probation for a grade lower than B- and for failure to defend the thesis
proposal by November 15 of Year Three (grade since rectified but thesis issue remains), 1 was
placed on probation for failure to defend thesis by November 15 of Year Four (since rectified),
and 2 were placed on probation for failure to defend dissertation proposal by November 15 of
Year Six (one since rectified, one separated from Program; see below).
Students are given written warning well in advance of being placed on probation for lack of
adequate progress. Students placed on formal Graduate College-level probation are informed in
writing what they must do to be removed from such probation and the period during which they
must complete required activities, such as retake a course or finish a thesis. Students failing to
meet the terms of probation may be separated from the Program. One student was separated
from the Program in September, 2006 for failure to complete her dissertation proposal and other
problems despite repeated warnings and extensions. Examples of annual evaluation and
probation letters, with identifiers removed, are in Appendix L.
E5: Student Complaints and Grievances
Since the inception of our program, no formal complaints or grievances have been filed by
students. Student concerns have occasionally been raised and addressed through informal
conflict resolutions mechanisms described in the Program Handbook. The Clinical Student
Committee is helpful in bringing student concerns to the DCT and ADCT and Program faculty
members have been receptive to these concerns. Procedures for filing a formal grievance are
specified in the Program Handbook (pp. 14-16).
Guide to Additional Documentation Requested
Appendix L: Sample annual evaluation and probation letters
Appendix M: Graduate Assistant Policy from Graduate College Policy Manual
UNLV Student Conduct Code
26
Domain F: Program Self-Assessment and Quality Enhancement
F1: Self-assessment
Self-assessment has been an ongoing process within our Program since its inception in 1999.
Our Program began with a framework and set of goals conforming to the Guidelines and
Principles for Accreditation of Programs in Professional Psychology. As we have developed our
Program each year, we have engaged in nearly continuous reflection on all aspects of training,
policies, and procedures to build a high-quality program and culture that embodies our values.
Our self-assessment process most regularly occurs via clinical faculty meetings. We have
functioned largely as a committee of the whole because of the precedent-setting nature of many
of our decisions. We currently average approximately 4-5 formal meetings per academic year.
During these meetings, we perform or review various required tasks such as admissions, student
evaluations, practicum assignments or concerns, student probation and petition determinations,
and funding priorities as pertinent. In addition, these tasks often serve as a springboard for
complex discussion of Program issues and goals, or the DCT and ADCT will raise special issues
following consultation with Program or associated faculty members, Clinical Student Committee
members, practicum supervisors, or Graduate College and other relevant personnel.
Clinical faculty meetings are also designed to discuss the development and state of the Program
more broadly. Recent examples of important programmatic issues reviewed during meetings
include faculty and student diversity, course coverage of diversity and history, practicum
competencies, procedures for student evaluations, delineation of probationary timelines,
regularity of student-faculty communication, types of projects and length suitable for theses and
dissertations, and schedule and material regarding our 2008 accreditation review. As mentioned
earlier (see A3, p.2), a Clinical Program Subcommittee (CPS) of the DCT and 3 core faculty
members is specifically entrusted to handle credit transfer/waiver requests from incoming
students and to review student petitions for extra employment, waiver or alteration of a Program
requirement, or other routine matter. Oftentimes, special issues arise from this process and are
brought to the full clinical faculty for discussion and resolution. During the 2007 transfer/waiver
request process, for example, the issue of whether to exempt our ethics course from transfer/
waiver was initiated at the CPS level and eventually ratified at the clinical Program level.
Our self-assessment process has also included formal retreats at the Program or Department level
when major issues are identified. From 1999-2005 (before formal Program accreditation), 5
such retreats were held. In 1999, an initial retreat was held to establish basic governance and
structural issues as well as our mission, goals, and objectives. In 2001, a second retreat was held
to discuss and implement recommendations provided by Dr. Patricia Wisoki as part of her “mini-
site visit” to our Program and to revise procedures regarding grievance, the Comprehensive
Examination, practicum supervision, and certifying students as eligible for internships. In 2002,
a third retreat involved discussion of anonymous student survey input about our Program, a
review of the Program’s mission and goals/objectives, progress toward accreditation, and review
of comparative outcome data such as rates of publications and presentations among clinical
students. From this process, the ethics course was moved to the summer after Year One, our
now-operating Assessment Clinic was conceptualized, greater opportunities for student
supervision were implemented, and practicum supervision policies were revised.
In 2003, a fourth retreat also involved discussion of anonymous student input about aspects of
the Program, particularly the degree to which we were achieving our primary goals. Other
27
substantive issues included our mission and goal statements, desirability of providing training in
intervention and assessment for children and adults, and the possibility of adding concentrations.
In 2004, a fifth retreat involved discussion of diversity-related concerns about relations among
and between faculty members and students. The Department was then experiencing distress with
the departure of one male and three female faculty members, one of whom was African-
American. Dr. Richard Spates graciously served as an outside consultant regarding diversity and
provided feedback that raised our awareness and sensitivity to diversity issues in our Department
during a time of rapid change. This retreat partly involved a lengthy discussion about Dr.
Spates’ report and what we could learn from our colleagues’ departure. Faculty members agreed
to increase sensitivity to issues of power, gender, and diversity in our working relationships.
Faculty members also recommitted to enhancing our experimental doctoral program. An
increase in number of GA positions (see C3, pp. 16-17) allocated to the experimental program
was thus advocated. Our Department also participated in a 2004 UNLV Faculty Senate
mandated 5-year review of all new programs. This involved preparing a self-study addressing
various aspects of clinical and experimental program governance, resources, and functioning.
More recently, a Departmental retreat was held in August, 2007. Agenda items specific to the
clinical Program included upcoming accreditation tasks, course syllabi review, student office
space, and DCT election. The Program has also conducted several extended conferences in the
past two years. The Program has gravitated toward a system whereby the DCT and ADCT meet
regularly with clinical students in general and those elected to the Clinical Student Committee to
discuss issues of student concern. This is in addition to regular meetings between the DCT and
individual and diverse students, cohorts, and other relevant Department and University
personnel. Recent issues and changes from these interactions, including material advanced to
full clinical faculty meeting agendas, include mentor-student contact, timelines toward theses
and dissertations, probation, mentor evaluation, timeliness of student evaluations, and research
opportunities. This system has worked well and student and faculty morale appears to be good.
F1b. Detailed Outcome Data
We present here our five main objectives and associated competencies along with activities we
engage in to ensure we meet an objective and that students develop respective competencies. At
the conclusion of each objective and associated competencies, we discuss outcome data we have
used and will use to assess the extent to which we have met our goals.
Objective and Competencies Activity
1. To provide students with broad Courses, Conferences, Publications, Teaching
knowledge of the discipline of PSY 101, Comprehensive Examination
psychology.
1.1: Knowledge of biological basis of PSY 701: Physiological Foundations of
behavior Behavior
1.2: Knowledge of human cognition. PSY 703: Cognitive Psychology and diffusion
across courses (e.g., 715, 716, 725, 726, 736,
744)
1.3: Knowledge of principles of social PSY 704: Social Psychology
influence and social interaction.
28
1.4: Knowledge of human development. PSY 705: Developmental Psychology
1.5: An understanding of the history of PSY 714: History and Foundations of Clinical
psychology. Psychology and diffusion across courses (e.g.,
703, 705, 712), thesis, dissertation, mentorship
1.6: Knowledge of principles of PSY 712: Standardized Tests and
psychological measurement. Measurements, PSY 715: Assessment of
Children, PSY 716: Assessment of Adults
1.7: Knowledge of human diversity and its PSY 750: Diversity in Professional Psychology,
relevance to psychological functioning diffusion across courses (e.g., 704, 705, 714,
and professional practice in psychology. 715, 716, 725, 726, 736, 743, 744), practicum
1.8: Knowledge in the area of PSY 736: Psychopathology, practicum, and
psychopathology. infusion in clinical courses (715, 716, 725, 726)
1.9: Knowledge of ethical/legal/professional PSY 755: Ethics and Professional Issues,
standards relevant to practice and practicum, and infusion in clinical courses (715,
research in psychology. 716, 725, 726)
1.10: Ability and commitment to maintain Courses, mentorship, practicum, thesis,
currency in the evolving knowledge base dissertation, other research, conferences, and
of our discipline. outcome of graduates
Outcome Data for Objective 1 and Related Competencies: Broad Knowledge
The first assessment of competencies related to Objective 1 is course grades. All competencies
except 1.10 are covered in specific courses and so student achievement of requisite knowledge is
measured directly via grades. Students must earn a grade of B- or better in all courses. Our
courses are rigorous and student achievement is generally high. The mean cumulative GPA of
our doctoral students at end of 2007 was 3.91 (4-point scale). Competencies 1.7 to 1.9 entail
knowledge of issues related to professional practice and therefore are assessed via practicum and
internship performance (see practicum and internship outcome data in Objective 3).
Objective 1.10 (life-long learning) may be assessed to some extent while students are in our
Program and after they have graduated. While in our Program, students are expected to engage
in several activities that impress upon them the need for life-long learning and to show evidence
of skills necessary to maintain currency of knowledge in the discipline. Examples include oral
and written presentations in classes, thesis and dissertation proposals and final defenses,
Comprehensive Examinations, practicum case presentations, and continued involvement in
research that includes conference presentations and publications. Almost all of our students are
members of professional organizations and the large majority of students have conference
presentations and publications (see below). Our Program mentors are also quite active in
scholarly work and publication (see vitas and C1, p. 15) and therefore model this competency for
our students.
Graduates from our Program also provide evidence of competency in life-long learning.
Eighteen (18) students have graduated from our Program and we expect 7-9 of our current
students to graduate in 2008 (see also C2, p. 16). Of our 18 graduates, 3 have become licensed
with a mean EPPP score of 651.3. Our graduates are currently employed in hospitals (4),
29
behavioral health facilities (3), postdoctoral positions (3), private practice (2), as psychological
assistants in private practice (2), a community mental health center (1), a state agency for male
juvenile offenders (1), and a research program at Johns Hopkins (1); one (1) other student just
graduated and relocated and is currently seeking employment in her new locale. We will
continue to track our success in achieving Objective 1 in part by monitoring students’ EPPP
scores and success with respect to professional employment.
Graduates from our Program were also briefly surveyed about (1) the overall quality of their
UNLV graduate education and (2) the degree to which their UNLV graduate education prepared
them for their current employment position. Graduates were asked to rate these variables on a 1-
10 scale where 1=little or not at all and 10=very well. Responses from 17 graduates produced
means of 8.91 and 7.74 for these two variables, respectively.
Objective and Competencies Activity
2. To teach students the methods of Courses, Comprehensive Examination, mentorship,
psychological science and the ability to thesis, dissertation, presentations, and publications
employ these methods to develop new
knowledge.
2.1: Ability to survey, review, and evaluate PSY 707: Research Methods, Comprehensive
extant psychological knowledge relevant Examination, mentorship, thesis, dissertation
to an empirical topic in psychology.
2.2: Ability to design and implement PSY 707: Research Methods, mentorship, thesis,
empirical research projects relevant to dissertation
psychology.
2.3: Ability to collect and analyze empirical PSY 708: Statistics for Psychologists I, PSY 709:
data. Statistics for Psychologists II, mentorship, thesis,
dissertation
2.4: Ability to synthesize, interpret, and PSY 707: Research Methods, Comprehensive
convey the resulting psychological Examination, mentorship, thesis, dissertation
knowledge.
Outcome Data for Objective 2 and Related Competencies: Research Skills
The first assessment of competencies related to Objective 2 is course grades. Research skills are
the primary focus of a 3-course sequence in statistics and research methods. The Comprehensive
Examination (CE) also addresses research methods and statistics (see Appendix N, Question #1
of the 2007 CE for an example).
Research skills are practiced under the guidance of a research mentor when students complete
theses and dissertations. During Summer/Fall, 2007, for example, 2 students proposed their
thesis, 8 students defended their thesis, 4 students proposed their dissertation, and 7 students
defended their dissertation (21/49 active students). Sample topics from theses and dissertations
from this period include school absenteeism, child perfectionism, selective mutism, traumatic
brain injury, MMPI-2, inner experience, and psychopathy and violence. Recent research work
by our students has resulted in prestigious awards. For example, one student received an APA
30
2007 Dissertation Award and an APF 2007 Ruth G. and Joseph D. Matarazzo Scholarship for her
dissertation research. Our students have also won several University-based fellowships and
scholarships based partly on their extensive research work (see C3, pp. 18-19).
Another indication of success regarding Objective 2 is scholarly publications and presentations
by students. The DCT audited student vitas in January, 2007. Among current clinical students,
including first-year students, median number of conference presentations was 5, median number
of first-author conference presentations was 2, median number of publications was 2.5, and 38%
of students had a first-author publication. Students have recently published first-author articles
in impressive journals such as Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, Behavior Therapy,
Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, and Archives of Sexual Behavior.
In a brief audit of student annual evaluation material for calendar year 2007, excluding first-year
students, 64.3% of clinical students had at least one publication/presentation in 2007 (in press
material was not counted). Overall, a very large portion of current clinical students in years 2+
have at least one publication (83.7%) and/or at least one conference presentation (86.0%). These
numbers rise slightly for current clinical students in years 3+ (84.2%; 89.5%). With respect to
data available for 16 graduates, mean number of conference presentations at graduation was 8.6
(range 2-20) and mean number of publications at graduation was 3.4 (range 0-10). We will
continue to track the presentation and publication activity of our students, and are hopeful that
some current students will successfully pursue academic or research positions.
Objective and Competencies Activity
3. To give students the knowledge and Courses, practicum, Comprehensive Examination,
skills necessary to address internship, clinical research
psychological problems.
3.1: Ability to diagnose or define PSY 712: Standardized Tests and Measurements, PSY
psychological problems including 715: Assessment of Children, PSY 716: Assessment of
conducting an appropriate assessment. Adults, PSY 736: Psychopathology, practicum
3.2: Ability to develop and implement a PSY 714: History and Foundations of Clinical
coherent and empirically justifiable Psychology, PSY 725: Intervention with Children, PSY
intervention for psychological 726: Intervention with Adults, practicum
difficulties.
3.3: Ability to evaluate and monitor the PSY 707: Research Methods, assessment and
efficacy of a psychological intervention. intervention courses (715, 716, 725, 726)
Comprehensive Examination, practicum
3.4: Ability to identify and conform to PSY 755: Ethics and Professional Issues, assessment
relevant ethical, legal, and professional and intervention courses (715, 716, 725, 726),
standards for psychological practice. Comprehensive Examination, practicum
3.5: Ability to understand and demonstrate PSY 750: Diversity in Professional Psychology,
competence with regard to issues of diffusion across clinical skills courses (e.g., 714, 725,
cultural and individual diversity. 726, 736), Comprehensive Examination, practicum,
thesis, dissertation
31
3.6: Ability to use consultation and PSY 714: History and Foundations of Clinical
supervision as necessary to guide Psychology, PSY 762: Introduction to Clinical
professional activity and to provide Supervision, practicum
consultation and supervision regarding
professional behavior to others.
Outcome Data for Objective 3 and Related Competencies: Clinical Skills
The first assessment of competencies related to Objective 3 is course grades. Clinical skills are
the primary focus of a sequence involving assessment, intervention, ethics, and other courses.
The diversity course emphasizes multicultural competence. Skills and knowledge addressed in
this objective are also covered in the Comprehensive Examination (CE), which addresses
psychopathology, assessment and intervention, diversity, ethics, and research methods and
statistics. For example, remaining questions on the 2007 CE, with sample student responses, are
in Appendix N. Students must answer 3/4 questions and receive an average score of 75+ for
each item to pass the examination.
In 2006, 8 students completed the CE; 6 passed, 1 passed two questions but failed one, and 1
passed one question but failed two. Subsequent revisions of answers to the failed questions were
scored in the passing range and these students thus passed. Original mean scores are presented
here for Questions 1 (84.4), 2 (85.8), 3 (85.5), and 4 (86.2). In 2007, 5 students completed the
CE; 4 passed and 1 passed two questions but failed one. A subsequent revision of the answer to
this failed question was scored in the passing range and this student thus passed. Original mean
scores are presented here for Questions 1 (85.5), 2 (85.0), 3 (88.7), and 4 (87.4).
Clinical skills are put into practice during 6 semesters of practicum. Students receive detailed
performance evaluations from their practicum supervisors at the end of each fall and spring
semester. These evaluations, in combination with the practicum activity log and case conference
performance, are considered by the ADCT to determine practicum course grade. Students are
given additional feedback regarding practicum performance in their annual evaluation letter.
Practicum training outcomes are also evaluated via cumulative adequacy of hours and
experiences, competencies, the internship match process, and internship performance. Prior to
accreditation in 2005, 13 students applied for internship via the match process. These students
completed a mean of 1065 intervention and assessment hours. Moreover, students gained
experience with diverse populations: racial/ethnic diversity was represented in 32.6% of clients
and sexual orientation difference was represented in 18.0% of clients. Students also worked with
individuals with a wide variety of disabilities and mental disorders. Of these 13 students, 11
(84.6%) matched with an APA-accredited internship, 1 received an APPIC internship via the
Clearinghouse, and 1 did not match and re-entered the match process in 2006 and was matched.
Since accreditation, direct client contact hours and competencies continue to be emphasized as
practicum evaluation methods for our students. In 2006, mean number of total intervention and
assessment hours for students applying for internship (for 2007) was 1006.5 (range 307.75-2288;
national mean, 766). These students also gained experience with diverse populations: racial/
ethnic diversity was represented in 44.6% of clients and sexual orientation difference was
represented in 7.5% of clients. Students also worked with individuals with a wide variety of
disabilities and mental disorders. Based on Practicum Competency Review forms (see
32
Appendix H), only 1/29 students in 2006-2007 received ratings of “below expectations” from a
supervisor.
In 2007, mean number of total intervention and assessment hours for students applying for
internship (for 2008) was 1101 (range 639.5-1884). These students also gained experience with
diverse populations: racial/ethnic diversity was represented in 36.8% of clients and sexual
orientation difference was represented in 4.5% of clients. Students also worked with individuals
with a wide variety of disabilities and mental disorders. Based on Practicum Competency
Review forms (see Appendix H), only 1/28 students in 2007-2008 received ratings of “below
expectations” from a supervisor.
With respect to internship match, 7 students entered the APPIC match process in 2006; 6 were
matched on Match Day and one matched after Match Day. One other student pursued a local,
non-APA-accredited internship. In 2007, 13 students pursued internship; 11 entered the APPIC
match process and 2 chose to pursue a local, non-APA-accredited internship. Of those 11, 1
withdrew from the match process to pursue an APPIC-member site, 7 were matched on Match
Day and 1 was matched after Match Day. Two students who did not match (one was a 4th-year
student) entered the match process the subsequent year and were matched. In 2008, 9 students
entered the APPIC match process and 8 were matched on Match Day. The other student, again a
4th-year student, did not match and will wait until next year. The mean number of internship
interviews for this most recent cohort of 9 students was 9.1 (national mean in 2007=6.3).
Since accreditation, therefore, 26 students entered and completed the APPIC match process; 21
(80.8%) were matched on Match Day and 2 (7.7%) were matched after Match Day (88.5% total).
These numbers compare quite favorably to national match rates (77% since 2005). In addition,
end-of-year evaluations for our students on internship have been excellent (see Appendix O for
sample of recent internship site evaluations). Internship supervisors generally consider our
students to be well-qualified and functioning at a very high level for their stage of training. As
mentioned earlier as well, some of our graduates have already become licensed and nearly all are
professionally employed. We will continue to monitor outcome data relevant to this objective
among our graduates, including EPPP scores, licensure, and type of and performance in
professional employment.
Objective and Competencies Activity
4. To train students to integrate their Courses, thesis, dissertation, other research,
scientific and practice knowledge and mentorship, Comprehensive Examination, conferences
skills in addressing familiar and novel
professional challenges.
4.1: Ability to systematically confront novel Thesis, dissertation, other research, mentorship,
professional/scientific questions by Comprehensive Examination
identifying psychological principles and
psychological knowledge that can
provide guidance.
4.2: Ability to identify remaining questions Thesis, dissertation, other research, mentorship,
and scientific strategies for answering Comprehensive Examination
such questions.
33
4.3: Ability and commitment to continue to Courses, thesis, dissertation, other research, practicum,
learn throughout one’s professional life mentorship, conferences
to remain informed about extant
psychological knowledge.
Outcome Data for Objective 4 and Related Competencies: Integration of Science and
Practice Knowledge/Skills
Objective 4 is an amorphous objective and therefore difficult to assess directly. Nonetheless, the
objective is a central pillar of our model and guides our activities. In the majority of courses,
students are expected to integrate scientific knowledge and clinical practice. Students are
routinely asked to give presentations for which they must study the scientific literature to
develop empirically grounded knowledge. We thus train our students to scientifically and
systematically address types of novel questions they will encounter after leaving the Program.
Student performance in these presentations is evaluated within the context of the courses.
Theses and dissertations follow this same basic model. Students choose a research topic,
typically one involving a clinical population (see p. 28 for examples) so they can address how
science can be used to build knowledge relevant to clinical practice. Through study of the
research literature and mentorship, students develop a deeper understanding of the topic and
formulate a research plan to develop new knowledge. Students collect data and work with their
mentors to draw appropriate conclusions from data. They must then enter a critical piece of the
scientific process by presenting and defending their work to a broader public of knowledgeable
individuals. This process is repeated for the dissertation with the expectation that students are
now more independent, needing only modest guidance before becoming established as a doctoral
level expert in their topic area. Performance in this process is evaluated via review of the thesis
and dissertation by the committee and performance during the oral defense of the project.
Students showcase these skills to the broader discipline when they attend internship and when
they present their work at scholarly conferences or in journal articles or other publications. As
discussed above, the large majority of our students have completed conference presentations and
scholarly publications by the time they reach senior status (84.2%; 89.5%) and our students have
done well in the internship match process and on internship. Future indications of these skills
will be found in success in professional employment, research and publications, and students
maintaining currency of knowledge. As our students move further away from graduation, we
will monitor their satisfaction with the Program, perceptions of the quality of the training they
received, and employment and career paths.
34
Objective and Competencies Activity
5. To give students skills necessary to Courses, thesis, dissertation, other research, conference
communicate effectively with others presentations, publications, teaching, practicum
verbally and in writing.
5.1: Ability to communicate psychological Courses, thesis and dissertation proposal and defense
knowledge and other relevant meetings, conference presentations, teaching,
information via oral presentations such as practicum case presentations
teaching or presentations.
5.2: Ability to communicate psychological Courses, thesis, dissertation, other research,
knowledge and other relevant publications, assessment reports
information in writing.
Outcome Data for Objective 5 and Related Competencies: Written and Verbal
Communication Skills
Objective 5 is assessed via the wide array of professional written and oral presentations
required of our students. This begins in courses, which frequently require oral
presentations and papers. Students also receive detailed feedback on multiple drafts of
their theses and dissertations, allowing them to hone their writing skills. Students are
required to orally propose and defend the thesis and dissertation, which furthers their
practice in formal presentations. We also sponsor a yearly conference during which
third-year students present their research to faculty members and graduate students.
Finally, as noted, most students collaborate with their mentors to present at conferences
and publish.
Graduate students commonly teach introductory psychology. Concurrent with their first
semester of teaching, students take a course to help them be effective teachers (PSY 757:
Teaching of Psychology). Many advanced students also progress toward teaching upper-
division courses such as abnormal psychology and child behavior disorders. Most
(67.7%) current students in year 4+ have taught at least four sections of introductory
and/or upper-division psychology courses (note that exceptions often mean a student was
funded via a grant or University-based scholarship that precludes teaching). Teaching
effectiveness is evaluated via student course evaluations, which have generally been
excellent. Another indirect measure of communication skills involves the internship
interview and match data summarized earlier.
As mentioned earlier, our graduates have shown great success in securing professional
employment involving a wide array of communicative abilities and continued
professional writing and presenting. One final outcome-related issue is time to degree.
Regarding our 18 graduates to date, the mean number of years needed to complete all
Program requirements, including internship, has been 6.2 years, which closely mirrors the
national average.
F2: Review of Appropriateness of Training Model
As discussed in F1, we have engaged in frequent discussions about the appropriateness of
our training model and its fit with institutional, regional, and national standards.
Regarding fit with institutional goals, faculty members from our Department have been
35
active participants in the campus-wide planning process that develops and reviews goals.
These goals have then been incorporated into Department and Program policies. The
Program was initiated in 1999 due in part to a shortage of clinical psychologists in
southern Nevada. With the region growing rapidly, there continues to be substantial
unmet need for mental health services in the area.
We have remained informed about national standards and trends in professional practice
by joining the Council of University Directors of Clinical Psychology (CUDCP), sending
the DCT and ADCT to the annual CUDCP conference, and sending the ADCT to the
ADPTC conference annually and to the APPIC conference biannually. As an example,
we reformed our practicum evaluation process following a CUDCP focus on
competencies and not merely number of client contact hours. Several of our graduate
students have also served as APAGS representatives as well as UNLV campus
representatives to the Nevada State Psychological Association
Faculty members keep abreast of latest developments in their areas of expertise as part of
the ongoing process of updating courses and scholarship. Consistent with this, faculty
members belong to and hold offices in professional organizations, regularly attend other
professional conferences, and participate in Continuing Education for psychologists.
Additionally, the former DCT and a current core clinical faculty member (Dr. Heavey) is
currently president of the State Psychology Board and has represented Nevada at the
ASPPB meeting. The current ADCT (Dr. Carro) has served several terms as president of
the Nevada State Psychological Association. Our Program is thus well-informed about
national and state trends in professional psychology.
Response to Committee on Accreditation Concerns in 2006
In the April 25, 2006 letter from the Committee on Accreditation (CoA), several points
were raised to be addressed in this self-study. First, as requested, this self-study reserved
the term “internship” for the capstone requirement of a full-time, yearlong intensive
training experience. Second, the CoA was concerned about education of history within
our Program. In response, we substantially reworked our PSY 714 course (previously
Introduction to Clinical and Research Skills) to add a substantial amount of material on
pre-psychology influences, pioneers of psychology, history and systems of psychology,
and historical roots of clinical psychology. Our new PSY 714 course is entitled “History
and Foundations of Clinical Psychology” (see learning objectives and syllabus in
Appendix F). We continue as well to infuse historical information into other clinical
courses.
Third, the CoA requested an evaluation of our efforts to attract and retain students and
faculty from various backgrounds. Our overall efforts were detailed in Domain D and
have been effective for recruiting and retaining diverse students. Our student body is
more diversified since accreditation and no diverse clinical students have prematurely
departed our Program. Indeed, of our 18 graduates to date, 3 (16.7%) are members of
ethnic minorities. In addition, of our 19 students currently on internship or entering
internship in 2008, 5 (26.3%) are members of ethnic minorities. We have been less
successful at diversifying our faculty (see Domain D), but our priority for doing so
remains high. We are particularly hopeful that future lines will be clinical and that these
lines will yield a higher probability of attracting and securing diverse applicants. In
36
addition, we are hopeful the University’s recent appointment of a Vice President for
Diversity and Inclusion represents a broad commitment in this direction and will assist
the Department in our diversity efforts.
Fourth, the CoA noted that our Department experienced a period of turmoil at time of
accreditation, as some faculty members departed. Following this period, we secured
funding for several diversity training workshops (see Domain D) and implemented
practices to improve our working environment and to retain faculty. These practices
included a faculty climate survey conducted by the Chair, frequent Department and
Program meetings to assess and address individual faculty needs (particularly new faculty
and start-up costs), institution of specialized experimental program emphases, and
ongoing mentoring of younger faculty. We believe these practices have substantially
improved our Department’s overall working climate. Indeed, since accreditation, no
clinical faculty members have left the Program and only two senior members of the
experimental faculty retired. All 6 hires since 2005 remain as Department faculty.
Fifth, the CoA noted an increase in number of students mentored by clinical faculty as a
result of some faculty departures before accreditation. In response, we successfully
assimilated remaining students into our labs, reduced the number of incoming students
(16 total in past 3 years), and successfully transitioned many of our students to internship
and graduation. The CoA also wished to see a copy of the revised grievance procedure in
this self-study, and this is now available in the Program Handbook (Appendix B, pp. 14-
16).
Sixth, the CoA noted that one vexing issue regarding our student progress has been that
some students have taken substantially longer than expected to complete the Master’s
thesis. In response, we have attempted to match students to mentors more quickly before
and after matriculation, to encourage students to decide upon feasible thesis topics and
embark on literature reviews during Year One, and to provide students with a more
delineated yet flexible timeline with clear consequences attached to failure to complete
Program milestones in a timely manner (see Program Timeline in Appendix I). As
mentioned earlier (p. 24), only two students since accreditation have been placed on
formal probation for timeliness problems regarding the thesis, and one of these situations
has been rectified. We believe our changes have thus helped ameliorate the thesis
timeliness issue to some extent, though ongoing vigilance will continue.
Guide to Additional Documentation Requested
Appendix N: 2007 Comprehensive Examination and sample student responses
Appendix O: Sample of recent internship site evaluations
Domain G: Public Disclosure
In accordance with IR C-20, substantial information about our Program is available to
current and prospective students and to the public via our Department and Program
websites (http://psychology.unlv.edu and
http://psychology.unlv.edu/html/clinical_program.html). Information available to these
parties includes current accreditation status, Program philosophy and goals/objectives,
admission and graduation requirements, resources for students and faculty, administrative
37
policies and procedures, Program Handbook, practicum experiences, and performance
and outcome data. The address and telephone number of the APA Commission on
Accreditation is also provided. Website information is provided in a way to allow
potential applicants to make informed decisions about applying to, and entering, the
Program.
Current and prospective students are provided with updated copies of the Program
Handbook during Interview Day, at time of matriculation into the Program, and/or
following substantive changes to this living document. We do not distribute fliers or
advertisements about the Program but do participate in the APA Guide to Graduate Study
in Psychology. A copy of the Program Handbook is in Appendix B. A copy of relevant
web pages is in Appendix D.
Domain H: Relationship with Accrediting Body
The DCT (Dr. Kearney) has maintained intermittent contact with personnel in the APA
Office of Accreditation and Consultation and members of the APA Commission on
Accreditation. This includes telephone calls and emails to Dr. Zlotlow and Betsy
Horrocks regarding initial Program accreditation, new obligations such as annual report
participation, timing of the next self-study and site visit for the Program, and IR C-20
compliance. The DCT has also held discussions with Jeff Baker and Celiane Rey-
Casserly at CUDCP seminars regarding site visitor training and self-study preparation.
No substantive programmatic changes have occurred since 2005. The Program is in good
standing regarding fee payments associated with accreditation status.
List of Appendices
Appendix A Transfer/waiver credit policy
Appendix B UNLV Clinical Psychology Doctoral Program Handbook
Appendix C UNLV Graduate Catalog, 2007-2009
Appendix D UNLV Clinical Psychology Doctoral Program Website
Appendix E Grievance policies for UNLV faculty members
Appendix F Syllabi for Relevant Psychology Graduate Courses
Appendix G 2008-2009 Practicum Site Descriptions
Appendix H Clinical Supervisor Evaluation/Practicum Competency Review
Forms
Student Evaluation/Practicum Site and Supervisor Evaluation
Form
Appendix I Program Timeline
Appendix J Full Curriculum Vitae for DCT and ADCT
Appendix K Equal Employment Opportunity Policy Statement
Learning Enhancement Services
Samples of recent position announcements
Appendix L Sample annual evaluation and probation letters
Appendix M Graduate Assistant Policy from Graduate College Faculty
Advisor’s Guide
38
UNLV Student Conduct Code
Appendix N 2007 Comprehensive Examination and sample student responses
Appendix O Sample of recent internship site evaluations
39
Date Received
Spring 2008 Semester Assessment Report Form
DUE October 31st, 2008
Directions: Please complete a form for each of the programs within your department. This
form was designed to provide a format for assessment reporting and should not be used to limit
the amount of information provided. Each box that is attached to each of the sections is designed
to adjust to varying lengths. If you have any questions, please contact Dr. Bea Babbitt at x51506
or via email at: bea.babbitt@unlv.edu.
1. Program Information:
Program Experimental Psychology Doctoral Program
Department Psychology
College Liberal Arts
Program Douglas Ferraro
Assessment
Coordinator
Semester Data Spring 2008
Collected
Report Douglas Ferraro
Submitted by
Phone/email 702-895-0189/ Douglas.ferraro@unlv.edu
Date Submitted 10.15.08
2. According to the Assessment Plan for this program, what were the planned assessments to be
conducted during the 2007-2008 Academic Year? You may want to copy and paste from this
program’s assessment plan.
Which outcomes for How did you measure What results did you expect? If the
this program were the outcomes? students performed well what would
measured? their performance look like, i.e.
percentages, means, or comparisons to
a national standard?
__1__outcomes out of a total of __5__ outcomes evaluated this semester.
Students should be This outcome was It was expected that graduate student
able to present their measured by obtaining instructors would receive student
knowledge to relevant student evaluations of evaluations that were equivalent to
parties through clear graduate students who part-time faculty but somewhat less
written and verbal served as instructors of than those received by full-time
communication. psychology courses in faculty.
spring 2008.
3. Results, conclusions, and discoveries. What are the results of the planned assessments listed
above? What conclusions or discoveries were made from these results? Describe below or
attach to the form.
Results, conclusions, and discoveries
In the spring 2008 semester, there were 18 psychology course sections taught by
experimental psychology doctoral students. Of these, 10 were Introductory
Psychology 101, the beginning course in our undergraduate curriculum, which were
taught by experimental graduate students teaching for the first time. There were three
sections of Research Methods, Psychology 240, and three sections of Introduction to
Statistical Methods, Psychology 210, taught by experimental graduate students who
had taught the introductory psychology course in a previous semester. Finally, two
sections of Social Psychology, Psychology 460, were taught by a very advanced
experimental graduate student with prior experience teaching this course.
In each of these course sections the department teaching evaluation instrument was
administered in the last week of the semester and the mean and standard deviation on a
four-point Likert scale (where 4 indicated “excellent”) were computed for the global
question of “Overall how would you rate this instructor?” Inspection of the standard
deviations indicated that one of the obtained data points for a 200 level course was an
outlier, probably due to some students reverse scoring the question (a not uncommon
occurrence with this teaching evaluation instrument.) Accordingly, the data reported
here are for a total of 17 course sections.
In the spring 2008 semester 102 course sections were taught in the psychology
department with a grand mean across all sections on the global evaluation question of
3.67. The mean for full-time faculty was 3.65, for part-time faculty it was 3.71, and for
the experimental psychology graduate students it was also 3.71. All introductory
courses were taught by either clinical or experimental graduate students so it is not
possible to analyze these averages as a function of course level. However, the overall
mean for all instructors of 200 level courses was 3.43 while the experimental students
teaching 200 level courses averaged 3.47. Correspondingly at the 400 level, the overall
instructor average was 3.70 and the experimental graduate student instructor averaged
3.67.
It is concluded from these data that experimental graduate student instructors of
undergraduate psychology courses are rated relatively by their students to be at least
on a par with ratings obtained by part- and full-time faculty. Moreover, at an absolute
level the obtained rating of 3.71/4.00 indicates that the experimental students are
doing an excellent job in the classrooms that they teach. Said otherwise, the use of
experimental graduate students as undergraduate course instructors is a win-win
proposition for our students. The graduate students garner valuable teaching
experience and the undergraduate students seem to value highly the instruction that
they receive.
A more pointed conclusion is that the outcome goal that students in the experimental
program should be able to present their knowledge to relevant parties through clear
communication is being well met as measured by this outcome measure.
4. Use of Results. What program changes are indicated? How will they be implemented? If
none, describe why changes were not needed.
One interpretation of the teaching success of our experimental graduate students is that it
is, in part, attributable to the fact that the department provides the students with a
mentored learning to teach experience. Every student who is given a teaching assignment
for the first time is required to enroll in Psychology 757, Teaching of Psychology. This
course covers the preparation and presentation of teaching material, the grading process,
and solicitation of student feedback, among other variables. Also, each student gets
informal teaching mentoring from her/his faculty advisor. Accordingly, it is concluded
that no program changes are needed to continue to meet this outcome objective at this
time. The experimental program will, however, continue to monitor this objective so as to
insure that it continues to be met in the future.
5. Dissemination of results, conclusions, and discoveries. How and with whom were the results
shared?
These results were shared with students and program faculty through the annual student
evaluation process and through meetings of the experimental program committee (with
student representation).
Regular communications between the program director and Department Chair and
between the Department Chair and the Dean of the College of Liberal Arts ensure that the
information gained through this assessment process is disseminated to the College and
presumably to the University.
Date Received
Semester Assessment Report Form: Spring 2008 Data
Directions: Please complete a form for each of the programs within your department. This
form was designed to provide a format for assessment reporting and should not be used to limit
the amount of information provided. Each box that is attached to each of the sections is designed
to adjust to varying lengths. If you have any questions, please contact Dr. Bea Babbitt at x51506
or via email at: bea.babbitt@unlv.edu.
***Please submit the report electronically to bea.babbitt@unlv.edu
1. Program Information:
Program MA
Department Sociology
College Liberal Arts
Program Barb Brents
Assessment
Coordinator
Semester Data Spring 2008
Collected
Report Barb Brents
Submitted by
Phone/email 895-0261
Date Submitted Feb. 3, 2009
2. According to the Assessment Plan for this program, what were the planned assessments to be
conducted during the Spring 2008 semester? You may want to copy and paste from this
program’s assessment plan.
Which outcomes for How did you measureWhat results did you expect? If the
this program were the outcomes? students performed well what would
measured? their performance look like, i.e.
percentages, means, or comparisons to
a national standard?
____outcomes out of a total of ____ outcomes evaluated this semester.
a) understand the Core, required coursework Two of five students in SOC 723 earned an A,
foundations of sociological in theories and paradigms 3 received a B, all above the benchmark
paradigms in theory and via SOC 701,723, 724 passing grade. SOC 701 and 724 are only
methods offered in the Fall.
b) the tools to creatively Elective coursework; Theses The majority of students in the four elective
deal with specific and professional papers; courses received passing grades. Several
substantive sociological students passed professional papers during
issues the spring.
c) the tools to conduct and Core, required coursework All students in SOC 704 received an A. (SOC
analyze both quantitative via SOC 702, 704, 705 702 and 705 are only offered in the fall).
and qualitative research
d) specialized expertise in Elective coursework; Theses The majority of students in the three elective
at least one of the DOS and Professional Papers; courses received passing grades. Good
areas of substantive Brown bag lectures and student participation in several brown bag
specialization: Culture; seminars lectures.
Social Psychology,
Symbolic Interactionism &
Deviance; Inequalities;
Politics, Urban and Social
Institutions
e) develop a sociological Theses and professional Good participation in professional
imagination papers; conference conferences, including international
participation; journal conferences; some students are getting
submissions; community professional papers accepted for journals;
involvement several theses and professional papers
completed over the spring.
g) the analytical, research Theses and professional Proseminar I or II were not offered this time
and writing skills necessary papers; Pro-seminar I; around; several theses and professional
to successfully author and Proseminar I papers completed over the summer and fall.
orally defend a thesis or
professional paper
g) the skills necessary to Proseminar I and II; Theses Good student participation in conferences, one
matriculate in a doctoral and professional papers; student participated in an international
Sociology program, Required and elective conference; several theses and professional
including scholarly writing coursework; conference papers completed; all students received
skills, oral presentation presentations; publications passing grades in required coursework,
skills, independent research majority in electives.
skills, and advanced
understanding of
sociological theory and
methods
h) an array of professional Proseminar I and II; Theses Good student participation in conferences, one
and marketable skills and professional papers; student participated in an international
applicable in the job Required and elective conference; several theses and professional
market, including analytical coursework; conference papers completed; all students received
and critical thinking skills, presentations; publications passing grades in required coursework,
library research skills, majority in electives.
writing skills,
methodological
sophistication and research
skills
3. Results. What are the results of the planned assessments listed above? Describe below or
attach to the form.
Results
DOS graduate students passed their core, required theory and methods courses during the Spring 2008
with passing grades. This is indicative of successful teaching and learning.
Of 40 grades for graduate level core and elective seminars,33 students received an A, 6 received a B,
and 1 received a grade below a B.
• Theory -- Five students took SOC 723 Classical theory and 2 received an A, 3 received a B
• Research methods -- Four students took SOC 704 and all received an A.
• Four substantive seminars – 20 received an A, 3 received a B, and 1 received a grade
below a B
It should be noted that we are currently unable to distinguish PhD from MA students in these statistics at
this point.
11 students enrolled in directed readings or independent study.
Graduate students at UNLV made a good showing at professional conferences, particularly the Pacific
Sociological Association meetings and many presented good papers. One student presented in a
prestigious international conference.
4. Conclusions and Discoveries. What conclusions or discoveries were made from these
results? Describe below or attach to the form.
Conclusions and Discoveries
In spite of serious faculty shortages our graduate program seems to be thriving. Our students are
passing required courses, succeeding relatively well on comprehensive exams, becoming active member
of the department and the discipline. Students are getting papers accepted into journals and presenting
in prestigious conferences.
We brought in a smaller number of new graduate students because of faculty shortages, but the quality
seems to be excellent.
5. Use of Results. What program changes are indicated? How will they be implemented? If
none, describe why changes were not needed.
We still need to improve in gathering data on current students’ progress, including student presentations,
student awards.
While we continue to be operating at about half the number of regular faculty, most students seem to be
getting the mentorship they need. Two graduate seminars were offered by temporary faculty. We need to
offer more graduate seminars by full time faculty members, and should be able to beginning in the Fall of
2008.
6. Dissemination of Results, Conclusions, and Discoveries. How and with whom were the
results shared?
We will share our results with faculty within the department.
Date Received
Semester Assessment Report Form: Spring 2008 Data
Directions: Please complete a form for each of the programs within your department. This
form was designed to provide a format for assessment reporting and should not be used to limit
the amount of information provided. Each box that is attached to each of the sections is designed
to adjust to varying lengths. If you have any questions, please contact Dr. Bea Babbitt at x51506
or via email at: bea.babbitt@unlv.edu.
***Please submit the report electronically to bea.babbitt@unlv.edu
1. Program Information:
Program PhD
Department Sociology
College Liberal Arts
Program Barb Brents
Assessment
Coordinator
Semester Data Spring 2008
Collected
Report Barb Brents
Submitted by
Phone/email 895-0261
Date Submitted Feb. 3, 2009
2. According to the Assessment Plan for this program, what were the planned assessments to be
conducted during the Spring 2008 semester? You may want to copy and paste from this
program’s assessment plan.
Which outcomes for What results did you expect? If the
How did you measure
this program were the outcomes? students performed well what would
measured? their performance look like, i.e.
percentages, means, or comparisons to
a national standard?
____outcomes out of a total of ____ outcomes evaluated this semester.
a) Sophisticated Core, required coursework SOC 701 is only offered in the Fall. Of six
understanding of in theories and paradigms students taking theory and method
sociological paradigms via SOC 701; comprehensive exams, all six passed.
Comprehensive exams
b) disciplinary expertise in Core, required coursework Two of five students in SOC 723 earned an A,
classical, contemporary, in theories and paradigms 3 received a B, all above the benchmark
podern and postmodern via SOC 701, 723, 724; passing grade. SOC 701 and 724 are only
sociological theory Comprehensive exams offered in the Fall. Of two students taking
theory comprehensive exams, all passed.
c) advanced understanding Core required coursework All students in SOC 704 received an A. (SOC
of research methods, via SOC 702, 704, 705; 702 and 705 are only offered in the fall). Of
research design and data Comprehensive exams; four students taking methods comprehensive
analysis elective courses; field exams, all passed.
research courses;
internships, theses and
professional papers
d) well developed Core, required coursework All students in SOC 704 received an A. (SOC
quantitative and qualitative via SOC 702, 704, 705; 702 and 705 are only offered in the fall). Of
research skills Comprehensive exams four students taking methods comprehensive
exams, all passed.
e) the tools to creatively Elective coursework; Theses The majority of students in the four elective
deal with specific and professional papers; courses received passing grades. Good
substantive sociological Brown Bag lunches and student participation in several brown bag
issues Departmental lectures and lectures.100% pass rate for specialty area
seminars; specialty area comprehensive exams;
comprehensive exams
f) specialized expertise in at Elective coursework; Theses The majority of students in the four elective
least two of the DOS areas and Professional Papers; courses received passing grades. Good
of substantive Conference participation; student participation in conferences. 100%
specialization: Culture; publishing; community pass rate for specialty area comprehensive
Social Psychology, involvement; comprehensive exams
Symbolic Interactionism & exams
Deviance; Inequalities;
Politics, Urban and Social
Institutions
g) the analytical, research Theses and professional 100% specialty area pass rate. Proseminar I
and writing skills necessary papers; Pro-seminar I; and Proseminar II not offered in the Spring
to successfully author and Proseminar II;
orally defend a dissertation Comprehensive Exams
h) the opportunity to DOS Graduate teaching All six students in SOC 709 received passing
develop teaching skills and program: SOC 709 seminar grades; Good teaching evaluations for TA’s
pedagogical expertise in teaching; SOC 710 and independent grad student teachers; SOC
teaching practicum; TA and 710 teaching practicum was suspended due to
Independent teaching faculty shortages and is being re-evaluated
experiences
i) the ability to present Proseminar I and II; Good student participation in conferences, one
research papers at conference participation student participated in an international
conferences conference; Proseminar I; Proseminar not
offered
j) understanding and Proseminar I and II; Proseminar I and Proseminar not offered;
experience with scholarly conference participation; several students are preparing or are
publishing journal submissions submitting papers to journals; one paper
acceptance
k) professional Proseminar I and II; Theses Proseminar I and Proseminar II not offered;
socialization into the and professional papers; several students are preparing or are
discipline of Sociology and Required and elective submitting papers to journals; one paper
the ability to compete on coursework; conference acceptance
the academic job market presentations; publications
and in the profession
l) adequate preparation for Proseminar I and II; Theses Proseminar I and Proseminar II not offered in
successfully negotiating the and professional papers; the Fall; several students are preparing or are
transition into tenure track required and elective submitting papers to journals; one paper
academic positions coursework; conference acceptance
presentations; internships;
field research credits
3. Results. What are the results of the planned assessments listed above? Describe below or
attach to the form.
Results
DOS graduate students passed their core, required theory and methods courses during the Spring 2008
with passing grades. This is indicative of successful teaching and learning.
Of 40 grades for graduate level core and elective seminars,33 students received an A, 6 received a B,
and 1 received a grade below a B.
• Theory -- Five students took SOC 723 Classical theory and 2 received an A, 3 received a B
• Research methods -- Four students took SOC 704 and all received an A.
• Four substantive seminars – 20 received an A, 3 received a B, and 1 received a grade
below a B
It should be noted that we are currently unable to distinguish PhD from MA students in these statistics at
this point.
11 students enrolled in directed readings or independent study.
Graduate students at UNLV made a good showing at professional conferences, particularly the Pacific
Sociological Association meetings and many presented good papers. One student presented in a
prestigious international conference.
Of the 4 students taking methods and two taking theory comps Spring of 2008, all 6 students passed.
This includes two who were retaking exams from Fall.
4. Conclusions and Discoveries. What conclusions or discoveries were made from these
results? Describe below or attach to the form.
Conclusions and Discoveries
In spite of serious faculty shortages our graduate program seems to be surviving. Our students are
passing required courses, succeeding on comprehensive exams, becoming active member of the
department and the discipline. Students are getting papers accepted into journals and presenting in
prestigious conferences.
While a higher number of graduate students than normal failed their theory and methods comps on the
first attempt last Fall, we have not seen this repeated this Spring.
We brought in a smaller number of new graduate students because of faculty shortages, but the quality
seems to be excellent.
5. Use of Results. What program changes are indicated? How will they be implemented? If
none, describe why changes were not needed.
We still need to improve in gathering data on current students’ progress, including student presentations,
student awards.
While we continue to be operating at about half the number of regular faculty, most students seem to be
getting the mentorship they need, at least temporarily. Two graduate seminars were offered by temporary
faculty. We need to offer more graduate seminars by full time faculty members, and should be able to
beginning in the Fall of 2008.
6. Dissemination of Results, Conclusions, and Discoveries. How and with whom were the
results shared?
We will share our results with faculty within the department.
Date Received
Fall 2008 Semester Assessment Report Form
DUE March 31, 2009
Directions: Please complete a form for each of the programs within your department. This
form was designed to provide a format for assessment reporting and should not be used to limit
the amount of information provided. Each box that is attached to each of the sections is designed
to adjust to varying lengths. If you have any questions, please contact Dr. Bea Babbitt at x51506
or via email at bea.babbitt@unlv.edu.
1. Program Information:
Program Anthropology Masters of Arts
Department Anthropology and Ethnic Studies
College Liberal Arts
Program Heidi Swank
Assessment
Coordinator
Semester Data Fall 2008
Collected
Report Heidi Swank
Submitted by
Phone/email 5-4085/heidi.swank@unlv.edu
Date Submitted 3/31/09
2. According to the Assessment Plan for this program, what were the planned assessments to be
conducted during the Fall 2008 Academic Semester? You may want to copy and paste from this
program’s assessment plan.
Which outcomes for How did you measure What results did you expect? If the
this program were the outcomes? students performed well what would
measured? their performance look like, i.e.
percentages, means, or comparisons to
a national standard?
__4__outcomes out of a total of __5__ outcomes evaluated this semester.
1. Outcome? Students will be able to identify, analyze and critically evaluate the
major theories and concepts in each of the four fields of anthropology.
a. How measured? Students were tested on their written knowledge of
cultural and linguistic anthropology after having completed the core class
in these two subfields.
b. Results Expected? The majority of the MA students are expected to pass
both of the subfields taught in our core course with at least a B-.
2. Outcome? Students will be able to effectively communicate (both orally and in
writing) regarding a range of anthropological topics.
a. How measured? Students complete oral and written exams at the end of
the Core course in cultural and linguistic anthropology. It is also expected
that students present papers at professional meetings.
b. Results expected? The majority of MA students will pass both oral and
written Core exams. They will also present at conferences.
3. Outcome? Students will have an understanding of a range of current
anthropological issues within the student’s subdiscipline area.
a. How measured? Students are expected to successfully complete courses in
their own subfield (archaeological, cultural, bio-physical or linguistic
anthropology).
b. Results expected? The majority of students will pass courses in their own
subfield with a B- or higher.
4. Outcome? Students will be able to complete and write up the results from a major
anthropological research project.
a. How measured? Students are expected to write a proposal for as well as
conduct anthropological research upon which they base their MA thesis.
b. Results expected? The majority of students will complete and write up
their theses, successfully defending it in front of a committee of faculty.
3. Results, conclusions, and discoveries. What are the results of the planned assessments listed
above? What conclusions or discoveries were made from these results? Describe below or
attach to the form.
Results, conclusions, and discoveries
1. Outcome? Students will be able to identify, analyze and critically evaluate the
major theories and concepts in each of the four fields of anthropology.
a. Results: Of the seven students who took the Core course 14% passed
with an A, 14% with an A-, 43% with a B, 14% with a B-, and 14%
with an Incomplete. (This Incomplete was taken by the student for
personal reasons and so will not be figured into the following
percentages.) In total, 100% of the students in this course passed the
exam.
b. Conclusions: 100% of our students passed the Core exam.
c. Discoveries: We believe this is a result the reformulation of this course
from what was essentially a series of guest lectures to a team teaching
environment with only two professors. Students, who had also
experienced the earlier format, reported this new format was more
straightforward and coherent.
2. Outcome? Students will be able to effectively communicate (both orally and
in writing) regarding a range of anthropological topics.
a. Results: Of the students registered for the Core course, 100% passed
the written and oral exams. At least seven MA students presented a
paper orally at a professional meeting.
b. Conclusions: These data demonstrate that our students’ ability to
communicate anthropological concepts orally and in writing is
improving.
c. Discoveries: We believe these data demonstrate that the department is
achieving its educational goals.
3. Outcome? Students will have an understanding of a range of current
anthropological issues within the student’s subdiscipline area.
a. Results: In this semester, MA students enrolled in six courses that are
specific to their subfield. Of these students, 50% achieved an A, 20%
an A-, 15% a B+, 5% a B, and 10% received an Incomplete.
b. Conclusions: These data demonstrate that our students are successfully
becoming acquainted with current issues in their own subfield. 90% of
the students passed these courses, with the remaining 10% taking
Incompletes.
c. Discoveries: We believe that these data demonstrate that the
department is achieving its educational goals.
4. Outcome? Students will be able to complete and write up the results from a
major anthropological research project.
a. Results: Four students successfully completed and wrote up their
results.
b. Conclusions: Our students are successfully completing the research the
program trains them do be able to undertake.
c. Discoveries: The department is reaching its educational goals.
4. Use of Results. What program changes are indicated? How will they be implemented? If
none, describe why changes were not needed.
These data indicate that overall the department is successful in achieving its educational
goals. These data therefore indicate that no programmatic changes are required at this
time.
5. Dissemination of results, conclusions, and discoveries. How and with whom were the results
shared?
Results are being disseminated to the department members by emailing each a copy of
this report. The administration is being presented with the results with the filing of this
report.
Date Received
Fall 2008 Semester Assessment Report Form
DUE March 31, 2009
Directions: Please complete a form for each of the programs within your department. This
form was designed to provide a format for assessment reporting and should not be used to limit
the amount of information provided. Each box that is attached to each of the sections is designed
to adjust to varying lengths. If you have any questions, please contact Dr. Bea Babbitt at x51506
or via email at: bea.babbitt@unlv.edu.
1. Program Information:
Program Anthropology Doctor of Philosophy
Department Anthropology and Ethnic Studies
College Liberal Arts
Program Heidi Swank
Assessment
Coordinator
Semester Data Fall 2008
Collected
Report Heidi Swank
Submitted by
Phone/email 5-4085/heidi.swank@unlv.edu
Date Submitted 3/31/09
2. According to the Assessment Plan for this program, what were the planned assessments to be
conducted during the Fall 2008 Academic Semester? You may want to copy and paste from this
program’s assessment plan.
Which outcomes for How did you measure What results did you expect? If the
this program were the outcomes? students performed well what would
measured? their performance look like, i.e.
percentages, means, or comparisons to
a national standard?
__2 or 3__outcomes out of a total of __6__ outcomes evaluated this semester.
1. Outcome? Students will be able to identify, analyze and critically evaluate the
major theories and concepts in each of the four fields of anthropology.
a. How measured? Students took courses both in and outside their subfield
specialty.
b. Results Expected? The majority of the Ph.D students are expected to pass
these classes with at least a B-.
2. Outcome? Students will be able to effectively communicate (both orally and in
writing) regarding a range of anthropological topics.
a. How measured? Students taking Core will pass the oral and written
exams. Students will present papers at professional meetings.
b. Results expected? The majority of our senior Ph.D. students (those who
have completed their course work) and a smaller number of our junior
Ph.D. students will present papers at professional meetings.
3. Outcome? Students will demonstrate comprehensive knowledge of selected
aspects of anthropological method and theory, a topical area, and a geographical
region.
4. Outcome? Students will be able to complete and write up the results from a major
anthropological research project that makes an original and significant contribution
to anthropological knowledge.
3. Results, conclusions, and discoveries. What are the results of the planned assessments listed
above? What conclusions or discoveries were made from these results? Describe below or
attach to the form.
Results, conclusions, and discoveries
1. Outcome? Students will be able to identify, analyze and critically evaluate the
major theories and concepts in each of the four fields of anthropology.
a. Results: Ph.D. students were enrolled in five courses in and outside
their specific subfield. 60% of these students achieved an A in these
classes, 20% a B+, and 20% a B.
b. Conclusions: We find these data indicative of the ability of our
students to master the range of anthropological theory and knowledge.
c. Discoveries: We believe this is a result of the higher caliber of students
we are attracting due to the reputation for rigor and thoroughness that
our Ph.D. program is developing nation-wide.
2. Outcome? Students will be able to effectively communicate (both orally and
in writing) regarding a range of anthropological topics.
a. Results: One of our Ph.D. students elected to take the Core course.
This student achieved a B for the course. At least XXX Ph.D.
student(s) presented a paper orally at a professional meeting and XXX
presented a poster (requiring both written and oral skills) at a
professional meeting.
b. Conclusions: These data demonstrate that our students’ ability to
communicate anthropological concepts orally and in writing is
improving.
c. Discoveries: We believe these data demonstrate that the department is
achieving its educational goals.
3. Outcome? Students will be able to complete and write up the results from a
major anthropological research project that makes an original and significant
contribution to anthropological knowledge..
4. Use of Results. What program changes are indicated? How will they be implemented? If
none, describe why changes were not needed.
These data indicate that overall the department is successful in achieving its educational
goals. We would like to see more students presenting at professional meetings and
conferences. However, this number does indicate an improvement in their participation
in this aspect of their professional development.
These data therefore indicate that no programmatic changes are required at this time.
5. Dissemination of results, conclusions, and discoveries. How and with whom were the results
shared?
Results are being disseminated to the department members by emailing each a copy of
this report. The administration is being presented with the results with the filing of this
report.
Date Received
Fall 2008 Semester Assessment Report Form
DUE March 31, 2009
Directions: Please complete a form for each of the programs within your department. This
form was designed to provide a format for assessment reporting and should not be used to limit
the amount of information provided. Each box that is attached to each of the sections is designed
to adjust to varying lengths. If you have any questions, please contact Dr. Bea Babbitt at x51506
or via email at: bea.babbitt@unlv.edu.
1. Program Information:
Program MFA
Department English
College Liberal Arts
Program Donald Revell
Assessment
Coordinator
Semester Data Fall 2008
Collected
Report Donald Revell
Submitted by
Phone/email 895-3471/Donald.Revell@unlv.edu
Date Submitted March 26, 2009
2. According to the Assessment Plan for this program, what were the planned assessments to be
conducted during the Fall 2008 Academic Semester? You may want to copy and paste from this
program’s assessment plan.
Which outcomes for How did you measure What results did you expect? If the
this program were the outcomes? students performed well what would
measured? Outcomes were their performance look like, i.e.
Those of all students measured according to percentages, means, or comparisons to
progressing towards an a) completion of the a national standard? The results
MFA degree degree and/or b) expected were a) timely completion of
satisfactory progress the MFA or b) successful completion
towards completion of of required coursework and c)
the degree and c) professional activity (publication,
professional conference presentations, public
development. performances).
_33___outcomes out of a total of _33___ outcomes evaluated this semester.
3. Results, conclusions, and discoveries. What are the results of the planned assessments listed
above? What conclusions or discoveries were made from these results? Describe below or
attach to the form.
Results, conclusions, and discoveries
a) Graduated Students, Aug. 2008 – Mar. 2009:
1. Jaq Greenspon, fiction
2. Paul Sacksteder, poetry
b) Students Expected to Graduate, May 2009:
1. Kimberly Idol, fiction
2. Vytautas “Tiger” Malesh, fiction
3. Kaitlin McClanahan, fiction
4. Jonathan Peter Moore, poetry
5. Sean Tribe, poetry
c) Publications, Awards, and Honors: All Enrolled and Recently-Graduated
Students, Aug. 2008 – Mar. 2009:
1. Leah Bailly
Publications:
Parlour Magazine (Fall 2008, Volume 3, Issue 3)
"When Change is 4Real"
Journalism
Prism International (Winter 2009, Issue 37.2)
"Long Views Across Nothing"
Creative Nonfiction
Fresno Undercurrent
"Reckless at the Rogue" (Feb. 22-28, 2009)
Journalism
Parlour Magazine (Forthcoming, Volume 4, Issue 1)
"Sin City Sidekicks"
Creative Nonfiction
Improbable Object (Forthcoming)
Untitled Poetry
Theater Productions:
Fridge Festival
Maragold Theatre, Bowen Island (Canada), Sept. 28th, 2008
"Some Reckless Abandon"
Workshop Production
(playwright and producer)
Rogue Festival
Fresno, California
Feb 26- March 8th, 2009
"Some Reckless Abandon"
Five performances at the Starline Performance Venue
(playwright, producer, technical director)
Paul Harris Theatre
Las Vegas, NV
March 9th & 10th, 2009
"Some Reckless Abandon"
Two performances
(playwright, producer, technical director)
Fanatic Salon
Los Angeles, CA
March 13th & 14th, 2009
"Some Reckless Abandon"
Two performances
(playwright, producer, technical director)
Uno Festival
Victoria BC (Canada)
May 24-26th, 2009
"Some Reckless Abandon"
Three forthcoming performances
Other forthcoming festivals:
Calgary Fringe Festival (July 31-Aug 8th)
Summerworks Toronto (Aug 9th-Aug 17th)
Vancouver Fringe Festival (Sept. 13th- Sept 24th)
Awards:
1st Runner Up
Prism International Creative NonFiction Contest
Novemeber, 2008
Nomination (results forthcoming)
Alberta Literary Awards
Travel Writing (for Long Views Across nothing, published in Prism
International 37.2)
November, 2008
Editorial Position:
Witness
Deputy Editor
2. Justin Burnside
Residency:
Summer 2009. Le Parc, Pampelonne, France. To support the completion
of a book of poems.
Conference Presentation :
Far West Popular Culture and American Culture Association, Las Vegas,
NV, March 2009: “From Seedling to Sprout: The Reinvention of Surf
Culture through the Films of Thomas Campbell.”
3. Jim Earp
Educational Outreach:
“A More Perfect Union”: A 501(c)3-status organization exploring and
presenting constitutional history online, developed in cooperation with the
Communications College at Penn State University.
Conference Presentation:
Far West Popular Culture and American Culture Association, Las Vegas,
NV, March 2009: “A More Perfect Union.”
4. Jaq Greenspon
Publications:
Danse Macabre, “Happiness Blues”
Short Story
Pop Culture Review, “Christopher Moore and the Invention of the Beta
Male.”
Essay
Conference Presentation:
Far West Popular Culture and American Culture Association, Las Vegas,
NV, March 2009: “Beautiful Uselessness: Speculative Elements in the
Mainstream Fiction of Thorne Smith and Christopher Moore.”
Editorial Position:
Internet Review of Science Fiction
Review Editor
5. Leo Jilk
Scholarship:
Summer 2009. US Department of State: Critical Language Scholarship for
Study of Russia
Conference Presentation:
National Popular Culture Association Conference, New Orleans, LA, April
2009:
“Original Poetry”
6. Peter Moore
Publication:
Boulevard (Forthcoming, April 2009.) "W.E. Guide Whitehaven,
Mississippi.”
Poem.
Arch Literary Journal. “Tyrone Williams' On Spec.”
Review.
Conference Presentation:
Frank Stanford Literary Festival, "I am the Nijinsky of Dreams:
Possibilities for Scholarship & Criticism on Frank Stanford.”
PhD Program Admission:
Duke University
7. Andrew Nicholson
Publications:
Cannot Exist (Vol. 3: 16-20.) “In the end…” and “An Anthology of
Organs,”
Black Robert Journal (Vol. 2.) “A Moth’s Alphabet” (reprint), “How It
Hums,”: http://blackrobertjournal.blogspot.com/2008/11/writing-andy-
nicholson.html.
Shampoo (No. 34.) “Moon, morning moon...” and “Theatre Piece,”:
http://www.shampoopoetry.com/ShampooThirtyfour/nicholson.html.
Idiolexicon: Sorry for Sedoka. “Sparrow,”: http://www.idiolexicon.com/.
Turntable & Blue Light Magazine (Forthcoming). “One,” “A Calling,”
“Mortar,” “Sightpath—dreamt...” “Which who, qui, who that…”
Interim (Forthcoming). “A Statement,”
8. Jesse Peterson
Publication:
Black Robert Journal (Forthcoming): Untitled Poetry
Conference Presentations:
BYU Graduate Student Symposium, March 2009: “Original Poems.”
Far West Popular Culture and American Culture Association, Las Vegas,
NV, March 2009: “Weird Westerns and the Horrific Protagonist.”
Graduate Professional and Student Research Forum, University of Nevada
Las Vegas, March 2009: “To Be Spoken…”
National Popular Culture and American Culture Association, New Orleans,
LA, April 2009: “Original Poetry.”
9. Mani Rao
Publications:
Essays:
XCP (Issue 20, Aug 2008.) On culture and poetics: “Stretch.”
In-Between Journal of Literary Criticism (Feb 2009). “Decoding
Augustine via Saussure.”
Poems:
Tinfish (Issue 18, September 2008). “Pupa,”
“Auditorium,”“Worker,”“Slough.”
Kavya Bharati (20th anniversary special No.20, 2008). “Bird Union,”
“Pol Pot’” and “Slough.”
Indian Literature (Feb 2009) “Classic,” “Tensile,” “So That You
Know,” and “The Other Half.”
DesiLit (Forthcoming, Summer 2009.) “Ganga Jump” in
http://www.desilit.org.
Not A Muse - inner lives of women, world poetry anthology. Ed. Kate
Rogers, Viki Holmes. Hong Kong: Haven Books, 2009.
Asia Literary Review, Hong Kong. Autumn 2008, pp.07-09. "Slough,"
"En Route" and "Pol Pot" in
Readings & Conferences:
Vegas Valley Book Festival, Las Vegas, Nov 2008: “Environment and
Identity : Shores of Selfhood.”
American Comparative Literary Association, Harvard University,
Cambridge, MA, March 2009: “Cuntree.”
Asian Writers Conference, Creighton University Nebraska, April 2009
10. Christopher Seelie
Conference Presentation:
Brigham Young University Department of English Aesthetics and Culture
Symposium, March 2009: “"Deviant pleasures of the text and the
Marvelous Inaccuracy."
11. Adam Strauss
Publications:
BlazeVox Books, "Nation-State.” E-Chapbook.
Scantily Clad Press, "Address.” E-Chapbook.
Drunken Boat (Forthcoming.) Untitled poetry.
d) All students not mentioned above have made satisfactory and timely
progress in their coursework relevant to the completion of their
degrees.
4. Use of Results. What program changes are indicated? How will they be implemented? If
none, describe why changes were not needed.
Results indicate that the program continues to work well, both in its requirements and its
flexibility. Therefore, no changes seem to be needed at this time.
5. Dissemination of results, conclusions, and discoveries. How and with whom were the results
shared?
These results are shared via this report directly with the addressed authority as well as
with the department’s Chair and Director of Graduate Studies.
Date Received
Semester Assessment Report Form: Fall 2008 Data
DUE March 31, 2008
Directions: Please complete a form for each of the programs within your department. This
form was designed to provide a format for assessment reporting and should not be used to limit
the amount of information provided. Each box that is attached to each of the sections is designed
to adjust to varying lengths. If you have any questions, please contact Dr. Bea Babbitt at x51506
or via email at: bea.babbitt@unlv.edu.
***Please submit the report electronically to bea.babbitt@unlv.edu
1. Program Information:
Program M.A.
Department History
College Liberal Arts
Program Elspeth Whitney
Assessment
Coordinator
Semester Data Fall 2008
Collected
Report Elspeth Whitney, with assistance from Lynette Weber,
Submitted by Administrative Assistant, History Department
Phone/email 895-3350, elspeth@unlv.nevada.edu
Date Submitted April 11, 2007
2. According to the Assessment Plan for this program, what were the planned assessments to be
conducted during the Spring 2008 semester? You may want to copy and paste from this
program’s assessment plan.
Which outcomes for How did you measure What results did you expect? If the
this program were the outcomes? students performed well what would
measured? their performance look like, i.e.
percentages, means, or comparisons to
a national standard?
__1__outcome out of a total of __3__ outcomes evaluated this semester.
1. Demonstrate an Grades and graduation All students would make satisfactory
in-depth rates. and timely progress through the
knowledge of an program as indicated through faculty
extensive body of assessment of individual student
scholarly material achievement levels on outcome 1A,
in a defined 1b, 1C.
historical period,
on a particular
geographic region
or regions, or on a
particular theme,
e.g. History and
Memory.
A. Demonstrate an Students would find opportunities to
in-depth make use of their graduate training
knowledge of the Student professional through employment, publishing and
content of a body activities. other activities.
of scholarly
material of a
particular field
B. Demonstrate
knowledge of the
historical literature
and historiography All students would pass 700-level course work would
of a particular field the comprehensive emphasize historiography and
from the field’s exams on the first historiographical analysis and students
earliest beginnings attempt. would complete this course work
to its most recent successfully. All students would pass
developments. the comprehensive exams, which
C. Demonstrate an emphasize historiography, on the first
awareness of the attempt. A pass represents a high
role of historians standard of achievement on outcomes
in the construction 1A, 1B, 1C.
of the past and the
role of
contemporary
context in shaping
the perspectives of
historians.
3. Results. What are the results of the planned assessments listed above? Describe below or
attach to the form.
Results
The M.A. program is highly individualized and faculty work closely with students.
This year the Department conducted both a self-study of its M.A. program and was
reviewed by an outside accreditation team. The relevant results of this thorough and
rigorous assessment process have been incorporated into this report.
The average GPA for graduating MA students was 3. 73. This average demonstrates
the rigor of the program, the commitment of the faculty and the high quality of the
students.
Many students have family and work responsibilities which slow their progress
through the program. The Department has grown increasingly concerned bout the
number of students taking six credits or fewer in one semester. Part-time enrollment
has grown from 30% of MA students in 2004 to 45% in 2007 and 2008. The
Department has responded by scheduling more courses in the late afternoon and
evening and by instituting a requirement that all students take at least 9 credits a
semester. However, 15 students graduated in the last academic year, a sharp upswing
from the previous four year average of 8. These results demonstrate that continuing
faculty efforts to raise admission standards and monitor individual student progress, as
well as the Department’s ability to offer state funded and sponsored project-funded
scholarships and graduate assistant ships have been successful.
12 M. A. students took their comprehensive exams passed on the first try. One
student failed. Significantly more students earned a “High Pass” or “Honors” in 2007
and 2008 (6 students) than in 2005 and 2006 (2 students).
The Department’s M.A. students continue to win university-wide awards. In Fall 08
Claire White won the Regent’s Scholar Award.
One of our recent M.A. students was recently offered and accepted a full-time
teaching position at a college in the Midwest. Another received a full-time position
teaching AP European and World history at a California high school and has had a
second article published in Southern California Quarterly. Another has published a
book on Japanese religion. A fourth student received the offer of a professional
position at the Las Vegas Springs Preserve. Recent M.A. graduates from our program
are currently enrolled in top History doctoral programs with full funding, e.g.
University of Chicago, U.C. Riverside, and University of Washington. A significant
number of graduates of our MA program who have gone on to complete PhDs at other
institutions now hold tenure-track positions at quality institutions such as Rensselaer
Polytechnic Institute, Oklahoma State University, University of Puget Sound, and
College of Southern Nevada.
All 700-level courses have a strong historiographical component in order to give
students adequate preparation. In addition, all students are required to take HIST 740,
which focuses specifically on historiography.
4. Conclusions and Discoveries. What conclusions or discoveries were made from these
results? Describe below or attach to the form.
Conclusions and Discoveries
Overall, the performance of M.A. students in 700 level courses and on comprehensive
exams has continued to improve compared to previous semesters.
Continuing departmental initiatives. The Department has been working for some
time on ways to strengthen the performance of M.A. students, especially on
comprehensive exams. Several initiatives developed during the Fall 07 and Spring 08
semesters as a result of assessment have been implemented. The new form for
comparative assessment of student performance on comprehensive exams is being
used. This has already had the effect of highlighting specific aspects of student
performance which could be improved. The handbook for students laying out the
relationship between the comprehensive exams and coursework, dissertation research
and teaching has been completed and given out to students. This handbook also
includes a clear timeline for preparation for the exams. A booklet of sample exam
questions and sample book lists is in the process of being developed. The new policy
of flagging students who do poorly in Historiography courses has been implemented.
In addition, HIST 710, a new required course, has been developed and improved
(described below)>
Student professional activities. The Department is doing an excellent job in helping
students succeed professionally.
5. Use of Results. What program changes are indicated? How will they be implemented? If
none, describe why changes were not needed.
Program change. A new course. HIST 710: The Professional Historian, was
developed and approved. This 1-credit course is designed to introduce students to
various aspects of the history profession including: effective teaching strategies and
syllabus construction, thinking historiographically, applying for grants internal and
external research grants, submitting conference paper abstracts, navigating the job
market, etc. This course will be required of all students in the program (MA and Ph.D.).
The course will be co-taught by the faculty in a workshop format, with 6-8 workshops
per semester, and will be graded on a Pass/Fail basis.
The course was approved by the college and university curriculum committees in Fall
2008 and will be taught beginning in Fall 09.
Program change. 700-level historiography courses, required of all M. A. students, now
require a mid-term or major exam to give students practice in writing exam essays
comparable to the comprehensive exams and to assess comprehension. Students with a
weak performance are flagged and additional preparatory work recommended to them
prior to the taking of the comprehensive exams.
Program change. New track added to History MA program, to begin in fall 2009.
The Master of Arts for Teachers of History will provide the opportunity to pursue an
M.A. in History with a specific emphasis on teaching. Students will take courses that
emphasize both historical content and educational methodology and pursue projects that
culminate in the creation of classroom units and other K-12 teaching materials. This new
track involves the creation of a new three-credit course, HIST 790A: Materials for
Teaching History. This course will be taken towards the end of the program and will be
taught by a History Department faculty member either as a seminar-style course for each
cohort of teachers, if numbers warrant, or in a more individualized fashion. In fall 2008
the Graduate College Program Committee and the College of Liberal Arts Curriculum
Committee approved this program.
6. Dissemination of Results, Conclusions, and Discoveries. How and with whom were the
results shared?
The assessment report will be shared with the Chair immediately and with the faculty in
electronic form during the Fall 08 semester. As discoveries result from the use of the
new form, these discoveries will be shared with M. A. students through the Graduate
Committee and Graduate Coordinator..