purpose - university of louisville web viewpractice site profile (5% of final grade; due by...

Tammi Thomas Sections for Response to PM&DC Application Information Page PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT 26 of NUMPAGES \* MERGEFORMAT 26

Purpose

The NUR Foundation is applying to PM&DC for registration of the MPH program we are implementing in Lahore. The application requests information that only we at UofL can provide.

This document when completed by you and reviewed by Craig and Pete will be forward to NUR personnel for them to complete the PM&DC application.

I believe the application to and subsequent registration with PM&DC is either required or highly desirable.

Instructions

Each section for which you’re providing information begins a new page and includes:

An image of the request section (PDF-to-Word translation is not workable) My comment on the section, as applicable, and whether it’s one of the requests described in the Introduction,

below. Space for you to enter the requested information

However, you need to provide numbering or other identifications for the item you’re answering. You do not need to reproduce the entire item wording, just a way for our Pakistan partners to be able to transfer your responses to the proper location in the application.

Let Pete know if you have questions or concerns.

Email your document to Pete when completed.

Requested timeframe for emailing to Pete

Thu, 11 Dec 2014, 5:00 PM

Introduction

Many of the items requested in the application to the Pakistan Medical and Dental Council (PM&DC) for registering the Master of Public Health Program (MPH Program), University of Louisville (UofL), are not directly applicable to a standalone program in public health. Our MPH Program is population-based and does not include direct clinical- or patient-oriented experiences.

In order to be as responsive as possible, the information provided by UofL includes restatements of requests that are clinical in nature. The restatements are intended to be responsive to the requests from a public health population perspective. Restatements include reference to this Introduction for clarity.


7.(1) See section 7.(3), below.

7.(2) The program utilizes a Blackboard organization dedicated solely to the practicum. Students and faculty mentors communicate regularly through the site as requirements are submitted. Additionally, faculty communicate with students (in person or via email) regularly to discuss practicum progress.

[7.(3)] Practicum requirements are evaluated based on the standards outlined in Exhibit 7.3aAppendix SPHIS 2. Additionally, the practicum site is asked to complete an electronic evaluation of the student. Appendix SPHIS 3See Exhibit 7.3b.

Additionally, during the student’s final semester of coursework PHPH-697 Integrated Learning and Experience in Public Health is required. The course is designed to integrate knowledge acquired in coursework and other learning experiences and to apply this knowledge to situations with various aspects of professional public health practice. Students develop and analyze public health cases as well as complete a comprehensive exam. The multiple choice exam assesses a student’s grasp of core public health concepts prior to graduation. Students are required to obtain a minimum score of 80% to pass the exam.

[7.(4)] Students are asked to complete an electronic course evaluation at the conclusion of the semester. See Appendix SPHIS 4See Exhibit 7.4a.

Students are also asked to complete an electronic practicum experience survey. See Appendix SPHIS 5Exhibit 7.4b.

Graduating students are encouraged to complete the MPH graduation survey. See Appendix SPHIS 6Exhibit 7.4c.


Appendix SPHIS 2

Practicum Requirements

Preparation Requirements

The following items are required prior to start of formal practicum field.

01: Practice site and site mentor information (due by September 1). The student, working with the faculty mentor, MPH program personnel, and site personnel, is responsible for identification of the practice site.

02: Practice site affiliation agreement (due by September 1). This term refers to one of two documents: a legal agreement with an entity outside the University or a memo of understanding with an entity within the University. If the site identified by the student is not already in a site affiliation agreement with the School of Public Health and Information Sciences, the Dean’s Office is responsible for negotiating and executing an agreement with the site.

03: Student practicum agreement (legal document; due by September 1). The student completes and signs an agreement in which the student agrees to the terms and condition of the affiliation agreement with the site. Information for the student to complete and submit this agreement is in the assignment in the student’s Blackboard group and in the Practicum Experience Manual.

The student’s practice site may require additional agreements or documents signed or acknowledged by the student as conditions of participating in the activities of the site. These site requirements are not within the jurisdiction of the University; the Dean’s Office is available to discuss specific site requirements with students but is not available to provide legal advice.

Student Evaluation

The components of student evaluation are:

04: Practicum concept document (5% of final grade; due by September 1). A document describing the proposed primary activities for the practicum.

Following submission, the practicum concept document is reviewed, approved, and scored by the faculty mentor to ensure the student’s practicum is conceived as onsite field experience at and for a public health-related site.

The following rubric is used to determine the score for this component:

04: Practicum Concept Document Scoring RubricStandard On time (100%) Late (0%) Percent

Timeliness On or before September 1 After September 1 %Raw Score 100Score (Raw Score x Percent) =


05: Practice site profile (5% of final grade; due by September 1). A document describing the practice site.

Following submission, the practice site profile is reviewed, approved, and scored by the faculty mentor.


05: Practice Site Profile Scoring RubricStandard On time (100%) Late (0%) Percent

Timeliness On or before September 1 After September 1 %Raw Score 100Score (Raw Score x Percent =

06: Learning agreement (20 % of final grade; due by October 1). A document describing the conditions and parameters for the practicum experience.

The learning agreement is electronically acknowledged and agreed to by the student by submitting it, by site mentor and faculty mentor by grading it.

The learning agreement may be modified by submitting a revised version with the same electronic acknowledgments and agreements.


06: Learning Agreement Scoring Rubric

Standard On time(100%)

A bit late(85%)

Two bits late(75%)

Four bits late(50%)

Too late(0%) Percent

Timeliness On or before October 1 October 15 November 1 December 1 December 15 %

Raw Score (calculated using Written Deliverable Scoring Rubric)Score (Raw Score x Percent %) =

07: Practicum presentation (20 % of final grade; due by April 21). A PowerPoint presentation presenting the practicum tasks, projects undertaken or participated in, and results.


07: Practicum Presentation Scoring RubricStandard On time (100%) Late (90%) Percent

Timeliness On or before April 21 After April 21 %Raw Score (calculated using Oral Deliverable Scoring Rubric)Score (Raw Score x Percent) =


08: Practicum poster (15 % of final grade; due by day of oral presentation). A PowerPoint poster on the practicum experience.


08: Practicum Poster Scoring RubricStandard On time (100%) Late (90%) Percent

Timeliness On or before day of oral presentation

After day of oral presentation %

Raw Score (calculated using Poster Deliverable Scoring Rubric)Score (Raw Score x Percent =

09: Practicum report (20 % of final grade; due by date specified by faculty mentor but not later than April 29). A document presenting the practicum, tasks and projects undertaken or participated in, and results.


09: Practicum Report Scoring RubricStandard On time (100%) Late (90%) Percent

TimelinessOn or before date specified by

faculty mentor but not later than April 29

After April 29 %

Raw Score (calculated using Written Deliverable Scoring Rubric)Score (Raw Score x Percent) =

10: Student evaluation of practicum experience (5% of final grade; due by April 29). A survey on the practicum experience completed by the student.


10: Student Evaluation of Practicum Experience Scoring RubricStandard On time (100%) Late (0%) Percent

Timeliness On or before April 29 After April 29 %Raw Score 100Score (Raw Score x Percent) =

11: Site mentor evaluation of student (3-point bonus on final grade; due by April 29). A questionnaire completed by the site mentor. While the student does not have control over whether the site mentor does this or not, the student is in a position to influence the site mentor to do so.



11: Site Mentor Evaluation of Student Scoring RubricStandard On time (100%) Late (0%) Percent

Timeliness On or before April 29 After April 29 %Raw Score 3Score (Raw Score x Percent) =

Grading

The final grade for the practicum is not determined until the full six credit-hours of the practicum have been completed. Students are usually expected to take the practicum as one credit-hour in the summer term, two in the fall semester, and three in the spring semester prior to graduation; or as two three credit-hour in each of the fall and spring semesters prior to graduation. A grade of “X” is assigned for a practicum course completed without achieving a total of 6 credit-hours. After completion of the required six credit-hours, the letter grade earned is assigned to each practicum course.

The components of student evaluation are weighted as follows:

01: Practice site and site mentor information --02: Practice site affiliation agreement --03: Student practicum agreement --04: Practicum concept document 5%05: Practice site profile 5%06: Learning agreement 20%07: Practicum presentation 25%08: Practicum poster 15%09: Practicum report 25%

10: Student evaluation of practicum experience 5%11: Site mentor evaluation of student 3 points BONUS

Grading is on an A-B-C-F basis.

Final Grade Final ScoreA 90.00-100+B 80.00-89.99C 70.00-79.99F 0-69.99


Rubric for Calculating Final Score

Rubric for Calculating Final Score

Component Scoring RubricScore from

Scoring Rubric

WeightPoints Toward

Final Score(Score x Weight)

01: Practice site and site mentor information

02: Practice site affiliation agreement

03: Student practicum agreement

04: Practicum concept document

Practicum Concept Document Scoring Rubric x 0.05 =

05: Practice site profile Practice Site Profile Scoring Rubric x 0.05 =06: Learning

agreementLearning Agreement Scoring Rubric x 0.20 =

07: Practicum presentation

Practicum Presentation Scoring Rubric x 0.25 =

08: Practicum poster Practicum Poster Scoring Rubric x 0.15 =09: Practicum report Practicum Report Scoring Rubric x 0.25 =10: Practice site

evaluation by student

Practice Site Evaluation by Student Scoring Rubric x 0.05 =

11: Site mentor evaluation of student

(extra credit)

Site Mentor Evaluation of Student Scoring Rubric x 1.00 =

Final Score ∑ =


Oral Deliverable Scoring Rubric

Oral Deliverable Scoring Rubric

Topic

Assessment of Topic(Note: Assigned score within a range is subjective assessment of degree criteria are met.) Topic

ScoreExceptional Acceptable Marginal Unacceptable

Content

45-50 pointsProvides an accurate and complete overview of the practicum experience and relates the public health competencies to the work completed at the practice site.

40-44 pointsProvides an overview of the practicum experience relating some of the public health competencies to the work completed at the practice site.

35-39 pointsProvides an overview of the practicum experience but does not relate the public health competencies to the work completed at the practice site.

0-34 pointsInadequate description of the practice site experience with no effort to relate the public health competencies to the work completed at the practice site.

= _____

Organization

14-15 pointsPresentation is clear, logical, and organized. Listener can follow line of reasoning.

12-13 pointsPresentation is generally clear and well organized. A few minor points may be confusing.

10-11 pointsListener can follow presentation only with effort. Some arguments are not clear. Organization seems haphazard.

0-9 pointsListener unable to follow presentation. Arguments are not clear. No evidence of organization in presentation.

= _____

Level of Presentation

14-15 pointsLevel of presentation is appropriate for the audience.

Presentation is paced for audience understanding. It is not a reading of a paper.

Speaker is clearly comfortable in front of the group and can be heard by all.

12-13 pointsLevel of presentation is generally appropriate.

Pacing is sometimes too fast or too slow.

The presenter seems slightly uncomfortable at times, and the audience occasionally has trouble hearing him/her.

10-11 pointsAspects of presentation are too elementary or too sophisticated for audience.

Much of the information is read.

Presenter seems uncomfortable and can be heard only if listener is very attentive.

0-9 pointsThe entire presentation is too elementary or too sophisticated for audience.

The information is read with limited or no eye contact with the audience.

Presenter is uncomfortable and cannot be heard by listener.

= _____

Contact with audience/Handling questions

18-20 pointsConsistently clarifies, restates, and responds to questions.

Summarizes when needed.

16-17 pointsGenerally responsive to audience comments, questions, and needs.

14-15 pointsMisses some opportunities for interaction.

Responds to questions inadequately.

0-13 pointsLack of interaction with audience.

No questions are answered. No interpretation made.

= _____

Score for Assessment of Oral Deliverable (transfer to deliverable scoring rubric; maximum of 100) ∑ =


Written Deliverable Scoring Rubric

Written Deliverable Scoring Rubric

TopicAssessment of Topic

(Note: Assigned score within a range is subjective assessment of degree criteria are met.) Topic Score

Exceptional Acceptable Marginal Unacceptable

Organization & Style

14-15 pointsInformation is presented in a logical, interesting way that is easy to follow.

Purpose is clearly stated and explains the structure of work.

12-13 pointsInformation is presented in a logical manner that is easily followed.

Purpose of work is clearly stated assists the structure of work.

10-11 pointsWork is hard to follow as there is very little continuity.

Purpose of work is stated, but does not assist in following work.

0-9 pointsWork is hard to follow as there is very little continuity.

Purpose of work is stated, but does not assist in following work.

= _____

Content & Knowledge

45-50 pointsRelates the goals of the learning agreement to the learning experience.

Demonstration of full knowledge of the core and cross-cutting public health competencies with explanations and elaboration.

40-44 pointsRelates most of the goals of the learning agreement to the learning experience.

Demonstration of full knowledge of the core competencies of public health with explanations and elaboration.

35-39 pointsRelates the goals of the learning agreement to the learning experience.

Fails to demonstrate knowledge of the public health competencies.

0-34 pointsFails to relate the goals of the learning agreement to the learning experience.

Fails to demonstrate knowledge of the public health competencies.

= _____

Format & Esthetics

14-15 pointsFormat is consistent throughout including heading styles and captions.

Figures and tables are presented logically and reinforce the text.

12-13 pointsFormat is generally consistent including heading styles and captions.

Figures and tables are neatly done and provide intended information.

10-11 pointsMostly consistent format.

Figures and tables are legible, but not convincing.

0-9 pointsWork is illegible, format changes throughout, e.g., font type, size, etc.

Figures and tables are sloppy and fail to provide intended information.

= _____

Spelling & Grammar

9-10 pointsNegligible misspellings and/or grammatical errors.

8 pointsMinor misspellings and/or grammatical errors.

7 pointsSeveral spelling and grammatical errors.

0-6 pointsNumerous spelling and grammatical errors.

= _____

References

9-10 pointsReference section complete and comprehensive.

Consistent and logical referencing system.

All appropriate persons and organizations appropriate acknowledged.

8 pointsMinor inadequacies in references.

Consistent referencing system.

Some organizations or persons not acknowledged.

7 pointsInadequate list of references or references in text.

Inconsistent or illogical referencing system.


0-6 pointsNo acknowledgements given.

No referencing system used.

= _____

Score for Assessment of Written Deliverable (transfer to deliverable scoring rubric; maximum of 100) ∑ =


Poster Deliverable Scoring Rubric

Poster Deliverable Scoring Rubric

TopicAssessment of Topic

(Note: Assigned score within a range is subjective assessment of degree criterion is met.) Topic Score

Exceptional Acceptable Marginal Unacceptable

Content Accuracy

36-40 pointsAll content in the poster is accurate. There are no factual errors.

8 pointsMost of the content is accurate but there is one piece of information that seems inaccurate.

28-31 pointsThe content is generally accurate, but one piece of information is clearly inaccurate.

0-27 pointsContent confusing or contains more than one factual error.

= _____

Use of Graphics and Tables

18-20 pointsAll graphics/tables are attractive (size and colors) and support the topic of the poster.

8 pointsA few graphics/tables are not attractive but all support the topic of the poster.

14-15 pointsAll graphics/tables are attractive but a few do not support the topic of the poster.

0-13 pointsSeveral graphics/tables are unattractive AND detract from the content of the poster.

= _____

Text Font Choice & Formatting

9-10 pointsFont formats (color, bold, italic) have been carefully planned to enhance readability and content.

8 pointsFont formats have been carefully planned to enhance readability.

7 pointsFont formatting has been carefully planned to complement the content. It may be a little hard to read.

0-6 pointsFont formatting makes it very difficult to read the material.

= _____

Spelling and Grammar

9-10 pointsPoster has no misspellings or grammatical errors.

8 pointsPoster has 1-2 misspellings, but no grammatical errors.

7 pointsPoster has 1-2 grammatical errors but no misspellings.

0-6 pointsPoster has more than 2 grammatical and/or spelling errors.

= _____

Sequencing of Information

9-10 pointsInformation is organized in a clear, logical way. It is easy to anticipate the next panel.

8 pointsMost information is organized in a clear, logical way. One slide or piece of information seems out of place.

7 pointsSome information is logically sequenced. An occasional panel or piece of information seems out of place.

0-6 pointsThere is no clear plan for the organization of information.

= _____

References

9-10 pointsReference section complete and comprehensive.

Consistent and logical referencing system.

All appropriate persons and organizations appropriate acknowledged.

8 pointsMinor inadequacies in references.

Consistent referencing system.


7 pointsInadequate list of references or references in text.

Inconsistent or illogical referencing system.


0-6 pointsNo referencing system used.

No acknowledgements given.

= _____

Score for Assessment of Poster Deliverable (transfer to deliverable scoring rubric; maximum of 100) ∑ =


Appendix SPHIS 3

SITE MENTOR EVALUATION OF PRACTICUM EXPERIENCE

Name: _____________________________Date:_________

Email____________________________________

Phone____________________________________

Student Name:__________________________________________

Student PerformanceUse the following scale; please evaluate the student's performance for the full practicum.

5=Outstanding. 4=Very Good, 3=Good, 2=Fair, 1=Poor, N/A=Not Applicable

_____Reliability (attendance, punctuality, etc.)

_____Motivation and Initiative

_____Organizational skills

_____Contributed innovative ideas to improve project(s)

_____Completed projects in timely manner

_____Worked independently when needed

_____Worked as a part of a team when needed

_____Exercised own judgment appropriately

_____Made efforts to develop and improve skills

_____Accepted feedback and suggestions objectively

_____Ability to research problems or issues pertaining to their project

_____Met specified goals and objectives (e.g. those in the learning agreement)


1. I met with the student in order to develop and/or review the practicum learning objectives._____Yes _____ No – why not?

2. The student was on-site:_____Less than 100 hours_____101 – 150 hours_____151 – 200 hours_____201 – 250 hours_____251 – 300 hours_____301 +

3. The student met the objectives stipulated in the learning agreement?___Strongly Agree ___Agree ___Neutral ___Disagree ___Strongly Disagree

4. The student's work contributed to the mission of our agency/organization?___Strongly Agree ___Agree ___Neutral ___Disagree ___Strongly Disagree

5. I was able to provide input on the student’s practicum deliverables (paper, presentation, poster)?_____Yes _____ No

6. I would recommend the following professional development for the student (check all that apply):___Oral and written communication skills ___Development of professional network___Statistical software ___Research skills___Graphic presentation skills___Time management


___Critical thinking skills___Data analysis skills___Organizational skills___Critical analysis of scientific literature___Professional dress___Health risk assessment___Data collection/organization___Health education and communication with diverse populations___Knowledge about advocacy and policy___Politics and public health___Health access issues___Health equity and social justice___Public speaking___Team building___How to work in a group___Community engagement___Research methodology___Other _____________________

7. Will you or your agency provide supervised practicum experiences in the future?_____Yes _____ No – why not?

Public Health Competencies

Program Performance8. The SPHIS faculty mentor contacted me to discuss the requirements of the practicum experience._____Yes _____ No

9. The SPHIS faculty mentor was accessible (by phone, email, etc.)___Strongly Agree ___Agree ___Neutral ___Disagree ___Strongly Disagree

10. I was invited to attend the student’s practicum presentation.


_____Yes _____ No

11. The SPHIS faculty mentor contacted me to discuss the student’s final grade in relation to practicum performance and deliverables._____Yes _____ No

12. Please provide any other comments you feel would be useful in order for us to continue to improve the practicum experience.

We appreciate your time and your continued support of the MPH Program at the University of Louisville!


Appendix SPHIS 4

STUDENT EVALUATION OF PRACTICUM EXPERIENCE

Student Name: _________________________________Date: __________

Practice Site Name: ___________________________________________

Name of Faculty Mentor: __________________________________

******************************************************************************Please answer each question according to selection of responses.

Guidance by MPH Program:1. How did you select your practicum site? __Found through the list of affiliation agreements__Faculty member suggested__Found on my own__Program sent out announcement regarding site__Other ______________________

2. To what extent did the MPH Program provide adequate information and guidance in preparing for your practicum?__A lot __Some __Very Little__None

3. The MPH Program was available throughout the practicum to answer questions.___Strongly Agree ___Agree ___Neutral ___Disagree ___Strongly Disagree

Guidance by faculty mentor : 4. My faculty mentor was accessible (by phone, email, etc.).___Strongly Agree ___Agree ___Neutral ___Disagree


___Strongly Disagree

5. The faculty mentor reviewed and discussed the requirements (syllabus and grading rubics) for successfully completing the practicum experience with me.___Fully reviewed___Partially reviewed___Did not review

6. The individual meetings with the faculty mentor throughout the practicum were useful in the development of learning objectives and monitoring my practicum progress.___Strongly Agree ___Agree ___Neutral ___Disagree ___Strongly Disagree___ I did not meet with my faculty mentor.

7. My faculty mentor reviewed my practicum deliverables and provided feedback.___Fully reviewed___Partially reviewed___Did not review

8. Overall, my faculty mentor was very effective.___Strongly Agree ___Agree ___Neutral ___Disagree ___Strongly Disagree

Guidance by Other SPHIS Faculty9. Did you have any assistance from any other SPHIS faculty or staff to help in the preparation or throughout your practicum? _____Yes If yes, who were they, and how did they help?

_____ No


Guidance by Site Mentor10. The site mentor was available throughout the practicum to provide guidance and answer questions.___Strongly Agree ___Agree ___Neutral ___Disagree ___Strongly Disagree

11. I was given an orientation to the practicum site._____Yes_____ No

12. I met with my site mentor . . . ___Daily (each time I was on site)___Weekly___Bi-weekly___Monthly___As needed___Other

13. Was this a sufficient amount of time?_____Yes_____ No

14. The feedback provided by my site mentor was appropriate and useful._____Yes_____ No

15. I felt my site mentor was qualified to supervise my practicum experience.___Strongly Agree ___Agree ___Neutral ___Disagree ___Strongly Disagree

10. I would you recommend this particular site mentor for future projects and student work?


___Strongly Agree ___Agree ___Neutral ___Disagree ___Strongly Disagree

Overall Program Experience11. The practicum increased my ability to work in and understand public health.___Strongly Agree ___Agree ___Neutral ___Disagree ___Strongly Disagree

12. The MPH Town Hall Meetings increased my understanding of the practicum and its requirements.___Strongly Agree ___Agree ___Neutral ___Disagree ___Strongly Disagree

13. The Integration course was useful in reflecting on my practicum experience and public health practice.___Strongly Agree ___Agree ___Neutral ___Disagree ___Strongly Disagree

14. The practicum blackboard site was useful.___Strongly Agree ___Agree ___Neutral ___Disagree ___Strongly Disagree

15. Developing the practicum poster was valuable.___Strongly Agree ___Agree


___Neutral ___Disagree ___Strongly Disagree

16. Would you recommend your practicum site to other SPHIS students? _____Yes – why?_____ No – why not?

17. Are there any knowledge areas that would have been helpful in preparing you for your practicum? (check all that apply)___SAS/SPSS___GIS___Issue briefs___Grant writing___Writing press releases___Microsoft Access___More in depth electives ___Program planning___Finding funding sources___Learning about specific job roles in public health___Informatics___Health equity___IRB process___Leadership skills___Cultural competence___Reading and understanding budgets___Data analysis skills

18. Do you have any additional comments concerning your practicum?


Appendix SPHIS 5

MPH STUDENT GRADUATION SURVEY ____

1. What were your personal expectations at the time you enrolled in the MPH program?

2. How well did the MPH program do in meeting these expectations?

3. How would you assess the MPH program in terms of the usefulness, applicability, and currency of the courses and course materials?

4. How do you feel about the balance between theory and practice?

5. What are the program’s strengths?

6. What aspects need improvement?

7. Would you recommend the MPH program to others?


Final EvaluationMPH Program

Year ____ Graduates

1. Effectiveness of Instructional Approaches

Instructional Approaches

VeryEffective

Generally Effective

As Effective

as Ineffective or Neither

GenerallyIneffective

Very Ineffective

Cannot Evaluate

a. Lecturesb. Guest speakersc. Case studiesd. Videose. Class discussionsf. Individual student presentationsg. Group student presentationsh. Group student projectsi. Examsj. Research papers

2. Of the courses you have taken in the MPH program, how many, if any, have brought in public sector practitioners as guest speakers or lecturers?

_______ _______ _______ _______ _______ _______ Almost Most of About half Some of Very few No

all them of them them of them Opinion

3. To what extent, if any, have public sector practitioner guest speakers or lecturers enhanced your learning in the MPH program?

_______ _______ _______ _______ _______ _______ To a very To a great To a To some To little or Nogreat extent extent moderate extent no extent Opinion

extent

Considering the MPH courses you have taken to date, how effective or ineffective are each of the following instructional approaches in helping you learn the material?


4. To what extent, if any, have the students in your classes who are public sector practitioners enhanced your learning?

_______ _______ _______ _______ _______ _______ To a very To a great To a To some To little or Nogreat extent extent moderate extent no extent Opinion

extent

5. Considering all the MPH courses you have taken to-date, overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with each of the following:

Very Satisfied

Generally Satisfied

As Satisfiedas Dissatisfied

or Neither

Generally Dissatisfied

VeryDissatisfied

Cannot Evaluate

a. Opportunities to participate in class discussionb. Extent to which you are learning new informationc. Extent to which you are learning useful informationd. The currency of course materialse. The amount of theory presented in coursesf. The amount of hands-on application in coursesg. Class size

6. If you were designing these classes, would you include more or less of these approaches?

MuchMore

SomewhatMore

About the Same

Somewhat Less

MuchLess

No Opinion

a. Lecturesb. Guest Speakersc. Class Discussiond. Case Studiese. Research Papersf. Group Projectsg. Exams


7. MPH Faculty Performance – In general, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with various aspects of faculty performance?

Very Satisfied

Generally Satisfied

As Satisfiedas Dissatisfied

or Neither

Generally Dissatisfied

VeryDissatisfied

Cannot Evaluate

a. Level of faculty knowledgeb. Ability of faculty to relate concepts to real world settingsc. Willingness of faculty to meet student needsd. Availability of faculty outside of classe. Ability of faculty to treat students as adult learnersf. Ability of faculty to create learning environmentsg. Ability of faculty to include the diverse views of all students in classroom settings

8. Thinking about your experiences with the MPH courses and program, please describe your best experience and what made it the best.

9. How strongly would you recommend or not recommend the MPH program to others?

_____ a. Strongly Recommend

_____ b. Generally Recommend

_____ c. Possibly Recommend

_____ d. Generally Not Recommend

_____ e. Strongly Not Recommend

_____ f. No Opinion


14.(ii) Yes.

14.(ii) Yes.

14.(ii)

Competency Assessment Method(s) Evaluator(s)

Public health knowledge exams reports using rubrics oral presentations using rubrics

faculty members


Competency Assessment Method(s) Evaluator(s)

Public health practice-based learning outcomes-based rubrics faculty member community-based preceptor in public

health-related organization

Interpersonal & communication skills reports using rubrics oral presentations using rubrics

faculty member community-based preceptor in public


Professionalism reports using rubrics oral presentations using rubrics



Systems-based public health practice exams reports using rubrics oral presentations using rubrics




(3) See section 18.

purpose - university of louisville web viewpractice site profile (5% of final grade; due by...

Documents