Transcript Graduate Athletic Training Site Visitor Workshop

Post Certification
Graduate Athletic
Training Education
Program Accreditation
Site Visitor Workshop
GRADUATE REVIEW COMMITTEE
GRADUATE EDUCATION COMMITTEE
June 2003
Outline
I.
Philosophy of the Graduate Standards
and Guidelines
II. Overview of the Site Accreditation
Visit
III. Conducting the Site Accreditation Visit
IV. The Report
V. The Accreditation Decision Process
VI. Common Areas of Concern and
Scenarios
I. Philosophy of the Graduate
Standards and Guidelines
II. Overview of the Site
Accreditation Visit
A. Purpose
B. The Site Visitor
C. Benefits of the Report
A. The Purpose of the Site
Visit
• Validate and/or clarify the contents of the
self study report
• Determine the extent to which the program
complies with the standards and guidelines
• Provide recommendations on program
enhancement/improvement
• To provide objective feedback to the
program for the enhancement of student
education
The Purpose cont.
• In some instances act as a liaison for the AT
faculty in reinforcing and describing
programmatic objectives, strengths or
areas of concern based on national
standards, particularly to Administrators
and Academic Deans whose exposure to
the program may be limited
• The Site Visitor should act in the best
interest of the profession by promoting
advanced graduate education
B. The Site Visitor
• Must understand the role of the site visit
• Must be knowledgeable of the standards and
guidelines and uphold them
• Must be knowledgeable of the program and the
academic unit in which it is housed
• Must convey professionalism
• Has a genuine interest and concern for promoting
post-certification graduate athletic training education
• Must remain objective and fair
• Roles of the Chair and Team Member
• Difference between JRC-AT and GRC visitor mindset
C. Benefits of the Report
• Provides critical feedback regarding program compliance and noncompliance with the standards and guidelines
• Identifies the programs areas of strength to reinforce positive
aspects of the educational program
• Identifies areas of concern so that program administrators and
faculty can take action to improve their program
• Promotes critical reflection on the program by administrators,
faculty, staff, and students, to foster continual quality
improvement
• Provides suggestions for improvement that can serve as goals and
objectives for future program improvements
III. Conducting the Site
Accreditation Visit
A. Site Visitor Preparation
B. Site Visit Agenda
A. Site Visitor Preparation
• Review the self study report and accompanying
materials
• Communicate with the other site visitor regarding
preliminary areas of concern and/or points of
clarification
• Request any additional materials necessary for
clarification purposes
• Develop, review and approve proposed site visit
agenda
• Preliminary on-site meeting of site visit team
members to develop on site strategy
A. Site Visitor Preparation
• Ann additional materials that are
requested from the Site Visitor should
be bound.
– 2 copies to Lynne Caruthers and 1 copy to
each visitor
– Hint…If requesting materials, provide a
date upon which you would like the
materials
– Site Visitors can request additional
materials to be available upon the site visit.
B. Site Visit Agenda
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Entrance Meeting
Interview Segments (PD,
faculty/staff, student,
administrators, etc.)
Site Visitor Work Sessions
Clinical/Research Visitations
Program Director Exit Conference
Exit Conference
Optional Post Exit Conference
Site Visit Agenda Guidelines
• Single Meeting Room
• Working lunches/dinners
• Travel time
• PD scheduled first
• Time allotments
• Clinical Supervisor meeting
1. Entrance Meeting
• Introductions
• General Thank you
• State purpose of site visitation and
explain how the visit will be
conducted
• Explain the process of the
accreditation timeline
• Ask if there are any general
questions
2. Interview Segments
• Introductions
• Explain the purpose of the interview
• Question and answer
• May have time for the individual to
ask you questions
• Thank you
• “Act as Fact Verifiers not Critical
Proclaimers”
Program Director
• Purpose of the interview
–
–
–
–
–
Overview of the program by PD
Vision for the program
Scope of PD’s responsibilities
Strengths and areas of concern identified by PD
Direct the discussions toward key issues that
need additional information and clarification
– Request any additional information needed
– Determine if there are issues or components of
the review that the Site Visitation Team can
reinforce that would be of benefit for the AT
Program.
• Potential Questions
– How does the program fit into the mission of
the institution?
– What are the plans in the department for
_____ for the next 3-5 years?
– To whom do you report? Who else is
important to the future of the program?
– What interaction do you have with other
faculty on campus?
– What is allotted/contracted distribution of
effort, i.e. percent teaching, administration,
service? And is this accurate when compared
to actual effort?
Chair/Dean
• Purpose of the Interview
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
To determine the future of the program
Growth
Financial issues
Response to the community
Job market
Tenure
Budget
Equality of policies among the faculty for this
program versus other schools/colleges/units
– Support for the program and its relationship to
the mission of the College/School and
• Potential Questions
– What is their general impression/view
of the GATEP?
– What do you see as the future direction
of the program?
– How does the GATEP fit into your
academic unit?
– What are the standards for promotion
and tenure? How do the program
faculty fair?
Program Faculty
• Purpose of the Interview
– Determine what they consider the major
program strengths and areas of concern to be
– Determine approaches used in teaching their
areas
– Determine their understanding of the goals
and objectives of the program
– Determine their perception of the students
– Assess their involvement in program planning
and implementation
– Evaluate faculty teaching loads and
appropriate student to faculty ratios
• Potential Questions
– How does your course fit into the curriculum design?
– What teaching methods do you incorporate to ensure
maximum learning?
– How have the students ranked among those that you
teach?
– What role do you play in program planning and
design?
– What do you feel are the programs areas of strength
and areas of concern?
– What role do you play in the research requirement
that the students must meet?
Clinical Supervisor’s
• Purpose of the Interview
– To determine the extent of collaboration between
the academic and clinical affiliates
– Their perception of the students’ preparation for
advanced practice
– Their perception of program strengths and areas of
concern
– Their support and understanding of the mission of
the program
– Are students given appropriate autonomy to
practice?
– Is appropriate student feedback provided to
enhance learning?
• Potential Questions
– What form of interaction do you have with the
program administration, faculty and students?
– Can you describe your role in the development of
the clinical objectives?
– What special strengths do students from this
program bring to the clinical aspect? What are
their weaknesses?
– What areas do you notice improvement in while the
students are with you?
– What suggestions for improvement do you have for
the program?
Students
• Purpose of the Interview
– An opportunity to hear their perspective regarding
the strengths and areas of concern of the program
– Determine to what extent the students understand
the mission and unique characteristics of their
program
– Identify to what extent the students are allowed to
give feedback for program improvement
– Collaborate information provided in the self-study
regarding course work, clinical experiences, and the
research experience
– Obtain candid student evaluations of faculty
teaching and clinical supervisor effectiveness
Students
• Purpose of the Interview
– Verify financial package for
clinical/teaching/research responsibilities
– Assess student responsiveness to the
current course offerings and
strengths/areas of concern of the
curriculum
– Assess students perception and evaluation
of the Area(s) of Distinctiveness
• Potential Questions
– Even the best educational program can be
improved. What do you think could be done to
make this program better?
– Why did you choose this program?
– If you could change one thing about this program
what would it be?
– Do you feel that the program has increased your
knowledge in the designated areas of
distinctiveness?
3. Site Visitor Work Sessions
• Several working sessions for the site
visitors should be scheduled throughout
the on site visitation
• These allow for the visitation officers to
dialogue about their individual and
collective impressions of the program
• These serve as excellent work meetings
to begin preparing the preliminary report
4. Clinical/Research
Visitations
• Allot ample time
• Site Visitors can split up
• Representative sites visited (may
use videotape for remainder of
sites)
5. Program Director Exit
Conference
• Share the findings and conclusions in the
draft of the site visit report with the PD
prior to the exit conference
• Give the PD opportunity to clarify or
rebut initial findings and conclusions
6. Exit Conference
• In the beginning of the Exit Conference,
make it clear to the attendees that the
purpose of the Exit Conference is to present
the information from the visit NOT to
provide an opportunity for further discussion
on how to rectify or improve current
conditions
• You don’t want to get into a situation where
the site visitor is threatened or feels
compelled to justify or defend the visit or the
findings
6. Exit Conference
• Express thanks for hospitality/cooperation
• Review accreditation timeline again
• Share the findings and conclusions in the
draft of the site visit report
• Answer questions and provide clarification
regarding findings and conclusions
• Give an opportunity to clarify or rebut initial
findings and conclusions
7. Optional Post Exit
Conference
• Visitation team will meet with the
PD and other appropriate
individuals as designated by the PD
• Findings from the on-site visit
should be discussed in more detail,
determining how to correct
deficiencies
IV. The Report
A. Components of the Report
B. Writing the Report
C. Submitting the Report
A. Components of the
Report**
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Title Page
Table of Contents
Brief Institution Overview
List of individuals interviewed
Introduction
Clinical Experience
Research Experience
Curriculum
Summary and Recommendations
B. Writing the Report
• The institutional and program descriptions can be
taken directly from the self-study if confirmed
• A list of all personnel interviewed should maintained
throughout the site visit
• Work sessions should be utilized to begin
identifying and formulating program strengths,
recommendations, and violations
• Prior to the final exit meeting a draft of the
strengths, recommendations, and violations should
be completed
• The report should be finalized as soon as possible
after the site visit to ensure retention of the
information
C. Submitting the Report
• Once both site visitation officers
have reviewed, approved, and
signed the report, the Chief
Evaluation Officer should submit the
final report to the Chair of the GRC
V. The Accreditation
Decision Process
• After receiving the report, the Chair of
the GRC will send a copy to institution
representatives
• The institution will then respond to the
report providing clarification or a plan for
change if necessary.
• After review of the rejoinder, the Chair of
the GRC meets via conference call or in
person to review the institutional
response with the committee
The Accreditation
Decision Process cont.
• Following committee review a letter is
drafted to the Reviewed Institution
disclosing deficiencies, recommendations
and the action of accreditation (full or
partial term) and/or withholding of
accreditation
• As a site visitor you will likely be
contacted by the Chair of the GRC to
provide clarification and background
information regarding the contents of the
report.
VI. Common Areas of
Concern and Scenarios
• Dynamics between Site Visitors and
Institution
• Clarification of the written report
• Relationship between the visitors
• Exit Conference Guidelines
• Others?
Dynamics
• The Site Visitor(s) must be cognizant that
they are representing the Graduate
Review Committee and the NATA.
• The interaction between the Chair of the
Site Visit and the team member should be
professionally sound. If there are
situations where a member of the Site
Visit feels s/he was treated unfairly or
not given due respect, then the Site
Visitor should report to the Chair of the
GRC
Dynamics
• By agreeing to sign the Site
Visitation document, the site
Reviewers are verifying that they
agree with the
recommendations/deficiencies. Any
disagreements should be brought to
the attention of the Chair of the
GRC.
Dynamics
• “Act as Fact Verifiers not Critical
Proclaimers”
Scenario #1
Comments?
• Additional Requests/Information?