Post Certification Graduate Athletic Training Education

Program Accreditation Site Visitor WorkshopGRADUATE REVIEW COMMITTEE

GRADUATE EDUCATION COMMITTEEJune 2003

OutlineI. Philosophy of the Graduate Standards and

GuidelinesII. Overview of the Site Accreditation Visit III. Conducting the Site Accreditation VisitIV. The ReportV. The Accreditation Decision ProcessVI. Common Areas of Concern and Scenarios

I. Philosophy of the Graduate Standards and Guidelines

II. Overview of the Site Accreditation

Visit

A. PurposeB. The Site VisitorC. 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 non-

compliance 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

VisitA. 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. Entrance Meeting2. Interview Segments (PD,

faculty/staff, student, administrators, etc.)

3. Site Visitor Work Sessions4. Clinical/Research Visitations5. Program Director Exit Conference6. Exit Conference7. 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 University

• 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?