Average Number of Faculty by Rank and Status

REPORT OF THE ACADEMIC PROGRAM REVIEW COMMITTEE

Department of Counseling and Psychological Services Self-Study

Review Period FY2002-FY2004

APRC Report Spring 2005

Approved by APACE

April 14, 2005

Review Team members: Michael Eriksen, Thomas Netzel, Laura Burtle (chair)

I. Department Profile

Faculty and Staff

Average Number of Faculty by Rank and StatusFY2002-FY2004

Tenured Professors5

Tenured Associate Professors6

Tenure Track Asst. Professors6.3

Non Tenure Track (Full Time, Clinical)4

The faculty roster was stable during the review period, with the addition of two tenure-track assistant professors. There is a healthy mix of tenured and tenure-track, which includes one Regents’ Professor. Four of the tenured faculty are female, as are six tenure-track faculty. One tenured faculty is a minority, as are two tenure-track faculty. Terminal degrees are held by all faculty.

Number of Staff

There are 4 full-time Administrative Staff - a business manager, administrative assistant, and 2 administrative coordinators. The department includes 2 full-time Academic Staff, an academic advisement coordinator and a staff assistant.

Average Credit Hour Production by Level, FY2002-FY2004

Lower Division - Undergraduate528 (FY2004 only) 1

Graduate9,365

1The department began offering its first undergraduate course in 2004.

Average Credit Hour Production by Faculty Type, FY2002-FY2004

Tenured/Tenure Track6,082

Non-Tenure Track (Full Time)2,246

Part-Time Instructors763

GTA1,037

Over the three year review period, credit hour production increased from 9014 to 9572. This resulted in an increase in credit hours taught by PTIs from 981 to 1056, primarily as supervisors of practica.

Most faculty members teach in the master’s core, and all faculty and programs are interconnected with regard to curriculum, faculty, and resources.

Table G-1 gives incorrect information about the student/faculty ratios. Correct information can be derived from Tables B-1 and B-3, and indicates an average Spring and Fall student/faculty ratio for all seven non-doctoral programs declining from 24.5:1 in FY02 to 21.5:1 in FY04. The ratio of 3:1 for doctoral programs is constant during the self-study period.

Scholarly and Creative Productivity,FY2002-2004

Number of Refereed Publications115

Number of Other Scholarly Works57

Average Number of Tenured/Tenure Track Faculty17.3

Number of Refereed Publications per Faculty6.6

Number of Other Scholarly Works per Faculty3.3

External Funding1$774,215

Internal Funding$139,500

1$750,000 is from a grant, co-written by Dr. Roger Weed in Rehabilitation Counseling and the Andrew Young School of Policy Studies. While the grant is housed in the AYSPS, the majority of this funding is for the tuition, book, and travel expenses of 20 CPS students in rehabilitation counseling.

The external reviewers commended the CPS faculty on their scholarly productivity.

Faculty Service

The CPS faculty has increasingly become active in College- and University-wide committees. A number of faculty are involved in the Faculty Senate, University Institutional Review Board, and all of the College-wide standing committees. In addition, the school counseling faculty has become highly engaged in establishing professional development schools (PDS) in the metro Atlanta area. Professional Development Schools provide professional, reciprocal relationships between the College of Education and a network of public schools, and facilitate organized placement of COE students in internships. This PDS work both provides important service to the community and enhances this faculty’s teaching and scholarly activity. (External reviewers’ conclusion.)

The Department has had a central role in meeting the College and University Strategic Plan goals of training school service personnel for P-12 schools in an urban environment and the development of Professional Development Schools, as countless doctoral students and graduates work with underserved populations in areas that have been neglected in past decades.

Noteworthy Departmental Features

The CPS department has received the national “Robert Frank Outstanding Counselor Education Program Award” twice in the past eleven years from the Association for Counselor Education and Supervision.

Degree Programs Offered, Average Number of Students, and Average Number of Degrees Awarded in Each Program, FY2002-FY2004

Degree / Average # of students / Average # of degrees
Master of Education in
School Counseling / 55 / 31
Master of Education in
School Psychology / 49 / 20
Master of Science in Professional Counseling / 218 / 105
Master of Science in Rehabilitation Counseling / 19 / 10
Specialist in Education in Professional Counseling / 17 / 12
Specialist in Education in School Counseling / 25 / 18
Specialist in Education in School Psychology / 42 / 20
Ph. D. in Counseling / 17 / 5
Ph. D. in
Counseling Psychology / 22 / 6
Ph. D. in School Psychology / 13 / 3
Non-degree / 7

The Master’s degree programs are all a minimum of two years. According to the external reviewers, the programs that the Department of CPS offers are state-of-the-art in their pedagogy, clinical training, and scholarship.

Quality of Students by Program – Average GRE Scores, FY2002-FY2004

Degree / Verbal / Math / Average Acceptance Rate
Master of Education in
School Counseling / 471 / 552 / 23%
Master of Education in
School Psychology / 514 / 553 / 35%
Master of Science in Professional Counseling / 470 / 481 / 78%
Master of Science in Rehabilitation Counseling / 460 / 484 / 74%
Specialist in Education in Professional Counseling (FY02-03 only) / 485 / 497 / 70%
Specialist in Education in School Counseling / 535 / 559 / 68%
Specialist in Education in School Psychology (FY02-03 only) / 530 / 654 / 39%
Ph. D. in Counseling / 479 / 583 / 33%
Ph. D. in
Counseling Psychology / 516 / 566 / 13%
Ph. D. in School Psychology / 561 / 579 / 42%

GSU PhD CPS students’ mean GRE scores are higher than the national mean GRE scores for Counseling Psychology applicants, which is 446 verbal and 501 quantitative.

Mean GRE scores for verbal plus quantitative for Ph.D students in peer institutions range from 1220 at University of Maryland College Park (aspirational) to 951 at University of NorthTexas and 1100-1120 at the University of Tennessee.

The Educational Specialist degrees in Professional Counseling and School Psychology, as well as the Ph.D. in School Psychology, have become increasingly selective over the review period.

The doctoral students in Counseling Psychology are outstanding in nearly every discernible respect. The program is very competitive in its admissions. Within the last three years, the percentage of students who have been accepted to the program has ranged from 10 to 19%, and the mean GRE scores for the admitted students are well above the national average for students who apply for doctorates in counseling psychology. According to the external reviewers, this doctoral program has produced some of the most important new scholars in the field in the past decade or so. Finally, these doctoral students also perform extremely well on the national Counseling Psychology licensing exam, with a pass rate that places the program in 9th place among 72 programs in the United States and Canada.

Graduates of the school counseling and school psychology program have 100% pass rates on the PRAXIS II exams.

Service Offerings

Programs in CPS continue to be involved in urban education and related urban issues. Many of the students do practica in urban mental health settings and conduct research of direct relevance to urban populations. A number of faculty and students are involved with school systems in the urban community of Atlanta, providing in-service training, direct services, and consultation. According to the external reviewers, CPS programs are well known nationally for their commitment to multiculturalism and diversity, providing an excellent match with the College strategic plan.

School Counseling and School Psychology faculty members have provided leadership in the Professional Development Schools (PDS) Program with the Grady Cluster schools in the Atlanta Public School System for more than 10 years. These formal partnerships fulfill part of the charge from the Board of Regents, while clearly documenting how appropriate developmental school counseling adds direct value to P-16 education. In a similar manner, School Counseling faculty has led interdisciplinary training within the College of Education and this training, in turn, is leading to enhanced mutual understanding of the roles of other school professionals. This cross training and collaboration among interns and student teachers fosters their work together when they are placed in a PDS, while also helping PDS site faculty and administrators and COE faculty and administrators see how school counseling adds value to school programs.

The Department’s undergraduate offerings in Career Development and Life Planning and Multicultural Issues are providing critical leadership that is relevant to the mission of the COE and GSU. These courses will be invaluable in enhancing the undergraduate program and may prove useful in enhancing undergraduate retention.

1. Inventory of Program Review

The self-study committee included Dr. Fran Mullis, School Counseling and APACE Review Chair for CPS; Dr. JoAnna White, CPS Department Chair; and an advisory committee consisting of the program coordinators for each program: Dr. Jeff Ashby, Counseling Psychology; Dr. Roy Kern, Counselor Education and Practice; Dr. Joey Meyers, School Psychology; Dr. Roger Weed, Rehabilitation Counseling; and Dr. Gary Arthur, Professional Counseling. The self-study covers Fall 2001 – Spring 2004, and follows the template for program review. The self-study document is a very comprehensive and impressive assessment of the progress and activities of the Department. The external reviewers clearly benefited from the self-study document and the Dean of the College noted the quality of the document in his response to the Chair’s statement. The process of developing the self-study document is not described in the self-study report itself. Dr. Fran Mullis chaired the process and convened a CPS Advisory Committee, but no other details are provided. The self-study used all available data regarding faculty productivity and student characteristics.

Section A of the self study provides a brief history of the department, founded in 1966, and describes it expansion to its current size. Section B describes the strong, collegial relationships among faculty within the department, and with faculty in other disciplines, including the GSUCounselingCenter and the Psychology Department, the research productivity of the faculty, and the service work of the faculty and students for both the campus and the community. Section B includes the number of faculty by rank, tenure status, gender, and minority status, and faculty productivity. Information about faculty productivity, program types and numbers, is provided, with comparisons to peer institutions (University of NorthTexas, University of Maryland College Park, and University of Tennessee Knoxville). The increase in credit hour generation, by level and faculty type is discussed, along with the implications for use of part-time instructors. Finally, the relevance of the program to the community, the College, and the University is addressed. The self-study did not provide the number of degrees conferred for each degree program. That information was provided upon request to the APRC committee.

Section C describes progress in teaching, research, and service goals and objectives since the last academic program review.

Section D describes the work of the department faculty in developing learning outcomes and outcomes assessments for graduate students (included in appendices I and J) and the process by which they are being assessed, including a policy on Student Development and Retention. Changes in the curriculum to improve student learning outcomes are detailed in Appendix G. The Department conducts its own survey of students and graduates, but relied on the results of the study conducted by the Office of Institutional Research for presentation in the self-study report.

The quality of the students is addressed in section E, and details the quality indicators for each program, with comparisons to the peer institutions. Input indicators include GRE scores, incoming GPAs, and selectivity of each program. Output indicators include licensing examination pass rates, job placements and acceptance in graduate or professional schools, scholarly presentations and honors, and student publications. Section F examines the quality of the program faculty, including quality and quantity of scholarly and creative productivity, results of promotion and tenure reviews, faculty honors, sponsored research, and service and outreach contributions. The adequacy of resources in Section G emphases the inadequacy of faculty resources, and includes sections on administrative resources, technological resources, space resources, laboratory resources, GSU foundation resources, and library resources. The table G-1, provided by Institutional Research, is incorrect. The correct faculty numbers are included in table B-1.

The Strengths and Weaknesses of the Program are discussed in Section H, including strengths in faculty rank, research productivity, student headcounts/credit hours, service contributions, student quality, teaching quality, morale, accreditation of programs, diversity, and national ranking. Strengths are substantiated with comparisons to peers. Weaknesses identified are external funding and faculty size. Program Goals and Objectives for the Next APR Cycle, in Teaching, Research and Scholarly Activity, and Service are well established in Section I.

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A Rationale for Selection of Peer Institutions

Appendix B-1 Departmental Governance

Appendix B-2 Organizational Chart

Appendix D Faculty Roster

Appendix E-1 Summary of GRE-GPA Admission Requirements

Appendix E-2 Student Publications

Appendix F-1 Strategic Plan 2002

Appendix F-2 Strategic Plan 2004

Appendix G-1 Outcomes and Assessments

Appendix G-2 Curricular Changes to Improve Learning Outcomes

Appendix G-3 Policy on Student Development and Retention

Appendix I Degree Requirements

The external review committee consisted of David L. Blustein, Ph.D., BostonCollege, Dennis Engels, Ph.D., LPC, NCC, NCCC, University of NorthTexas, Arleen C. Lewis, Ph.D., WesternWashingtonUniversity, Horace W. Sawyer, Ed.D., University of Florida, and Mark E. Swerdlik, Ph.D., ABPP, IllinoisStateUniversity. The external review committee visited January 25-26, 2005, and submitted the report on February 4, 2005.

The external review report is very thorough and positive. It notes that all the programs offered through the CPS Department are appropriate from a disciplinary perspective and there is considerable demand for graduates from these programs. The reviewers also note that there is adequate demand from students for the doctoral programs as measured by applications and enrollment and noted that the number of students enrolled in the program is appropriate, with possibly too many students in the MS program in Professional Counseling. The reviewers commented favorably on the quality of the current faculty and particularly noted their interdisciplinary focus. The reviewers stated that they believed the Department was consistent with the university’s mission and that the curriculum and learning outcomes were appropriate. The reviewers stated that they believed the students were strong and that the faculty “is one of the strongest in the United States.”

In addition to the self-study report itself, there were appendices, addenda (which included the graduate student handbooks, chair’s statement and dean’s response).

III. Key Observations and Issues.

1. Given the size of the student body within the Department, the faculty is overextended. Thus the faculty resources available in the department are not adequate to meet the continuing needs of the various programs. During the review period, the seven non-doctoral graduate degrees had an average fall and spring student/faculty ratio of 22.6:1. This ratio exceeds the standards of the accreditation bodies for these seven programs (Council for the Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs (CACREP), Council on Rehabilitation Education (CORE), and the National Association of School Psychologists (NASP)). All three of the department’s accreditation bodies for its M.Ed., M.S., and Ed.S. programs recommend a 10:1 student/faculty ratio, thus this is a significant problem. The Ph.D. programs, in contrast, have a 3:1 student/graduate faculty ratio.

1. From the external reviewer’s perspective, the M.S. program in Professional Counseling is admitting too many students given the currently available fiscal and faculty resources. The large number of Professional Counseling master’s students constitutes a considerable burden on the faculty.

1. In the research and scholarly activity area, the Department has effectively attained the goals outlined in the last report. The addition of new faculty, including the hiring of senior faculty, has in fact resulted in greater research productivity, visibility, and external funding. The Department recognizes that there is a need to continue to move forward with these research and scholarly objectives.

1. Students in the Department’s Counseling and Counseling Psychology Ph.D. programs have the opportunity to obtain a teaching mentorship under the supervision of a faculty member and to enroll in the adult learning/teaching course. Doctoral students in the School Psychology program do not have this option, which would benefit students in this program who are interested in an academic career.

1. School Psychology and School Counseling have only one coordinator, resulting in excessive demands on faculty time in the face of internal reviews for these programs and multiple accreditation reports (the American Psychological Association and the National Association of School Psychologists for school psychology, and CACREP and the National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education for school counseling).

IV. Recommendations

• Fall and Spring Student/Faculty ratios in the seven Masters and Specialist programs need to be reduced from the current (FY04) 21.5:1. Consider limiting the number of students admitted to the M.S. program in Professional Counseling. However, adding additional faculty will likely be required to achieve a 10:1 student/faculty ratio.

• Consider adjusting standard 3/2 course loads based on strong research and external funding potential.

• Continue pursing opportunities in undergraduate education, especially those that will help undergraduate retention.

• Pursue courses of action to expose more of the PhD students to teaching.

• Examine staff requirements for support of multiple programs and accreditation reports.

1