Skip to Content

College of Education


Systematic Program Evaluation Summary

Consistent with the 2016 CACREP Standards regarding data-driven program evaluation and modification, the Counselor Education program has designated four key sources of outcome data for consideration. These sources are not be confused with evaluation of the program’s pedagogy which are assessed via measurement of student learning outcomes based on course evaluation rubrics.

(Report compiled by Dr. Joshua M. Gold)

This data reflects student performance and feedback after completing the program, the input from which will be used to guide program practice and policy. Each section will integrate data for each program, providing indications of program strength and areas for enhancement, followed if appropriate by the intended program modifications. For the purposes of this report, the utilized sources of data include:

  • Counselor Education Program Alumni Surveys sent to graduates of each program (School Counseling, MCFC & PhD)by the Program in the spring of each year;
  • Professional Education Unit Exit Surveys, sent by the College of Education annually, seeking EdS and PhD student responses;
  • Input from site supervisors (data collected in spring term)
  • Input from employers of program graduates (collected by the COE after 1 year of employment)
  • EdS student performances on the National Counseling Exam (NCE); and,
  • EdS student performances on the Praxis School Counseling Exam

Please note: the collection of data from employers is scheduled to begin in summer 2017, so that information is not available for this report.

 

Feedback on the EdS Program

The presentation and interpretation of this data must be viewed with caution, as the Program Alumni surveys separate the two EdS programs into School and MCFC graduates while the College of Education Exit Surveys gather information on EdS students as a group with no designation of area of specialization.

For this reporting period, the Program received feedback from 10 out of 11 School Counseling graduates ( 91%) and 11 out of  11 MCFC graduates (100%), while the College of Education Exit Surveys have yet to be tabulated so that data is not available for this report.

 

EdS Program Strengths

Based on the quantitative data, “strength” was a topic in which at least 80%, or 9/11 respondents, rated the experience as “strongly agree:”

MCFC Program

  • Availability of faculty outside of class time
  • Ethical standards taught and maintained
  • Recommend program to others

School Counseling Program

  • Ethical standards were continually taught and maintained by faculty and supervisors
  • The faculty were well prepared for class
  • The faculty demonstrated a positive responsiveness to student concerns
  • The expectations of site supervisors and USC faculty were clear, reasonable and appropriate for field experience courses
  • Recommend program to others

Based on the quantitative data, “area for enhancement” was a topic in which 80%, or 8/10, rated the experience as “strongly disagree:” Based on the feedback gathered for this reporting period, there were no such topics or areas of concern.

 

Analysis of the qualitative data

Program Modifications:

School Counseling Student Feedback

  • Better site placement procedures (n=4)
  • A sequential form of administrative steps to program completion (n=2)

 MCFC Student Feedback

  • Re-schedule career counseling out of summer (3)
  • Amend group counseling class to practice group leadership (n=2)
  • Fewer on-line (psycho-diagnostic) classes (n=3)
  • A sequential form of administrative steps to program completion (n=1)
  • More help in securing field-based clinical sites (n=2)

 

EdS student performances on the National Counseling Exam

This data is based on the reports of student performances on the fall, 2015 and spring, 2016 National Counseling Exam. In fall, 2015, five MCFC students wrote the NCE, with an average score of 114 as compared to the minimum criteria of 85.

The data to be reported is based on 4 MCFC students and 5 School Counseling students who sat for the exam in spring, 2016. Out of those MCFC students, 4 students (100%) passed the exam with an average score of 114 as compared to the minimum criteria of 90. Out of those School Counseling students, 5 students (100%) passed the exam with an average score of 106 as compared to the minimum criteria of 90.

 

Performances of MCFC Students, Fall, 2015

CACREP Areas

 Results

 Items

Human Growth & Development

8.8 (73%)

12

Social & Cultural Diversity

7.2 (65%)

11

Helping Relationships

27.8 (77%)

36

Group Work

11.2 (70%)

16

Career Development

12.4 (62%)

20

Assessment

14.4 (72%)

20

Research & Program Evaluation

11.6 (72.5)

16

Professional Orientation & Ethical Practice

20.8 (72%)

29

Total

114.2 (71%)

`160

 

Performances of 4 MCFC Students, Spring, 2016

CACREP Areas

Results 

 Items

Human Growth & Development

7.75 (65%)

12

Social & Cultural Diversity

6.75 (61%)

11

Helping Relationships

26.00 (72%)

36

Group Work

12.00 (75%)

16

Career Development

12.50 (63%)

20

Assessment

16.00 (80%)

20

Research & Program Evaluation

11.75 (73%)

16

Professional Orientation & Ethical Practice

21.00 (72%)

29

Total

113.80 (71%)

160

 

Performances of 5 School Counseling Students

CACREP Areas

Results 

Items

Human Growth & Development

7.60 (63%)

12

Social & Cultural Diversity

5.60 (51%)

11

Helping Relationships

24.00 (67%)

36

Group Work

10.20 (64%)

16

Career Development

14.20 (71%)

20

Assessment

14.20 (71%)

20

Research & Program Evaluation

9.00 (56%)

16

Professional Orientation & Ethical Practice

21.20 (73%)

29

Total

106 (66%)

160

It can be surmised that the April, 2016 USC results confirm the efficacy and effectiveness of the program’s pedagogy and learning experiences across all 8 CACREP core curricular areas. With a national passing mark of 90/160, or 56%, a comparison between that cut-off score and core area performances could indicate any specific content are in which student performances did not meet or exceed that mark.

 

EdS student performances on the Praxis School Counseling Exam

The data to be reported is based on 11 students who sat for the exam in spring, 2016. All 11 students (100%) passed the exam with an average score of 180 as compared to the minimum criteria of 156. Once again, these scores can be viewed as confirmation of the efficacy and effectiveness of the program’s pedagogy and learning experiences for the School Counseling students.

 

Feedback on the PhD Program

There is no available data from the recent PhD graduates. The Program can enumerate 8 doctoral graduates. While surveys were delivered to these graduates in a manner similar to that of previous years, there were, as of 8.15.2016, no returned surveys. Program faculty are therefore challenged to devise an alternative, and more effective way, to gather this data.

Program Strengths based on open-ended responses:
N/A

Areas for Program Strengthening
N/A

Program Modifications:
N/A

The complete data sets from which this report was summarized are available in  Wardlaw College, Room 266. The documents are in a folder entitled “Program Evaluation Summaries” and collated by year.

CACREP 2016 Standard 4.E Information

In compliance with CACREP 2016 Standard 4.E, which directs:

“Counselor education program faculty must annually post on the program’s website in an easily accessible location the following specific information for each entry-level specialty area and doctoral program”,

The Program submits the following data that was part of the Vital Statistics report submitted in September, 2016 to CACREP. The Counselor Education program at the University of South Carolina offers two entry-level specialty programs in Marriage, Couples & Family Counseling (MCFC) and in School Counseling (SC) plus the PhD degree in Counselor Education & Supervision:

Data/Program

Marriage, Couples & Family Counseling

School Counseling

Ph.D. degree in Counselor Education & Supervision

No. of Graduates

9

12

7

Pass Rate on Credentialing Exams

100%

100%

N/A

Completion rate

99%

100%

90%

Job Placement Rate

100%

100%

100%