Act 629 - Summary Reports on Institutional Effectiveness
Fiscal Year 1999 - 2000

College of Nursing

Undergraduate, Master's, and Certificate Programs

STANDARD IV. PROGRAM EFFECTIVENESS:

STUDENT PERFORMANCE AND FACULTY ACCOMPLISHMENTS

The program is effective in fulfilling its mission, philosophy, goals/objectives, and expected results. Satisfactory student performance reflects achievement of the expected results by the students in congruence with the mission, philosophy, and goals/objectives of the program as well as professional nursing standards and guidelines. Alumni satisfaction and the accomplishments of graduates of the program attest to the effectiveness of the program. Faculty accomplishments in teaching, scholarship, service, and practice are congruent with the mission, philosophy, and goals/objectives of the program and with professional nursing standards and guidelines. Program effectiveness reflects ongoing improvement. Program integrity is reflected in documents and publications concerning the program.

Key Element IV-A. Student performance is evaluated by the faculty and reflects achievement of expected results. Grading policies are defined and consistently applied.

Student performance is measured using multiple strategies, depending upon the learning situation. Evaluation methods and percentage of total course grade assigned to each method are specified in each course syllabus (on exhibit in College). Undergraduate theory courses use objective and essay tests, classroom participation, formal papers, and project reports. Graduate theory and seminar courses also incorporate multiple methods and rely more heavily on student classroom participation. Graduate and undergraduate clinical courses use nursing care plans, process recordings, case studies, and clinical reports. Graduate courses use protocols and clinical logs. In senior level undergraduate clinical courses and all graduate courses, students establish personal objectives and evaluate their own achievement along with the faculty member’s evaluation of their performance. Self-assessment and peer evaluation processes are used in selected course and clinical assignments and group projects. All course assignments have explicit grading criteria.

Evaluation of undergraduate and graduate students' overall clinical performance is ongoing during the course and is based on the course objectives. Undergraduate clinical course objectives and clinical evaluation forms are consistent and reflect standards of care and professional performance prescribed by Standards of Clinical Nursing Practice, (ANA, 1998). Graduate clinical course objectives and clinical evaluation forms are consistent and reflect standards of care and professional performance prescribed by ANA’s Scope and Standards of Advanced Practice Registered Nursing (1996) and specialty standards. Clinical performance evaluations are filed with the course professor.

Grading policies are defined and consistently applied within courses. The University does not have a specific numerical grading scale but does use letter grades and a 4-point grade point average (GPA) system. Each college may set its own grading scale or may leave it open for individual course faculty to define. In the College of Nursing, the faculty agreed to a grading scale consistent across all undergraduate courses but chose to leave the decision open to the faculty member teaching each graduate course. Course grading scales are published in each course syllabus, and the College grading policies are published in the appropriate student handbook (on exhibit in College).

Students’ perceptions on grading consistency was solicited from students on the Student Advisory Committee. In undergraduate courses where the grading scale is consistent across all courses, students may not always perceive the grading policy to be consistently applied within a course. In contrast, graduate students recognize differences in level of difficulty among courses but are more likely to believe that consistency and fairness are applied within a given course (Student Advisory Committee minutes April 1999).

In addition to course grading scales, additional College grading policies and scholastic standards are established and published in the USC bulletins and College student handbooks. In the undergraduate program, students must achieve a C or higher in all science and lower division nursing courses to progress to the upper division. Science and nursing courses may be repeated only once, and only one science or lower division nursing course may be repeated. In the upper division, the student must continue to achieve a C or higher in all nursing courses, and only one course in the upper division may be repeated. These scholastic standards are published in the USC Undergraduate Bulletin and the College Bachelor of Science in Nursing Handbook (on exhibit in College).

Undergraduate students must maintain a minimum 2.5 cumulative GPA on all University coursework in order to maintain good standing in the nursing program. Grades are reviewed at the end of each semester. Students who have less than a 2.5 are placed on probation within the College for one semester but may continue to take all necessary courses. If at the end of the probationary semester their University GPA is still less than 2.5, they may not continue in their required course sequence and no longer may take nursing courses. When placed on probation, the student is informed by letter of the probationary status and its implications. The student is requested to schedule an appointment with a College academic advisor to identify possible problems associated with their academic performance and to prescribe an academic plan of action. Students are advised to report to the academic advisor on an agreed upon interval basis to determine progress toward improvement.

These academic standards are more stringent than the progression standards established by the University. University policies allow students to progress with a 2.0 semester GPA and do not limit the number of times a student may fail a course. However, the University supports individual colleges in establishing more rigorous standards, and most colleges, particularly professional programs, do so because of the practice implications.

University and College grading policies and scholastic standards differ in the graduate program. The letter grading scale is the same; however, a Graduate School policy, allows up to 9 credits of C grades to apply toward a degree program as long as the student's overall average on all courses attempted for graduate credit within a specific time frame is at least a B (3.0 on a 4-point scale). For master's programs, the specific time frame is six years. After the six-year period, the grade below B ceases to be a disqualifying factor. However, no course, regardless of letter grade, may be used toward a degree after six years, unless it is revalidated. These policies apply to courses for non-degree purposes as well as for degree purposes.

In both the undergraduate and graduate programs, students are informed by the academic advisor of their right to petition scholastic standards and their right to appeal. The petition process is conducted by the College Undergraduate and Graduate Committees respectively (Committee minutes on exhibit in College). Students from the respective program serve as members of these committees and participate in the decision-making process. Students who petition a standard may choose to attend the petitions meeting and elaborate on their petition. The next step, if needed, is the appeals process conducted by the University Scholastic Standards and Petitions Committee for undergraduate student appeals and by the Graduate Council for graduate student appeals.

A summary of petitions activity in the College reflects that the petitions process is used. A sharp decrease in the number of undergraduate petitions for the 1998-1999 year reflects an improvement in the advisement process and further adherence to admission criteria, with an expedited review for petitions with low risk characteristics. The University requires that all colleges submit annual reports of undergraduate petitions activity to the Faculty Senate office. An example of such a report over the past three years is in Table IV-A.1. Graduate petitions totaled 10 for the 1998-1999 academic year. Eight petitions were approved. Two petitions asking to waive the four "C" rule were denied.

Table IV-A-1. Undergraduate Petitions Activity

Type of Undergraduate Petitions

96-97

97-98

98-99

Early Reinstatement from Suspension

0

2

0

Relief from Admission Requirements

26

16

4

Relief from Progression Requirements

53

16

4

Relief from Graduation Requirements

5

0

0

Other

0

23

0

Type of Action Taken

None

0

0

0

Approval Without Conditions

59

33

3

Conditional Approval

3

5

1

Disapproval

22

19

4

Other

0

0

0

Faculty and Students Involvement in Evaluation of Student Performance

Evaluation of individual student performance in course work is conducted by course faculty. Objective tests are computer-graded, particularly for courses with large enrollments. Preceptors are involved in the evaluation of student progress in precepted clinical courses.

Grades are communicated to students in ways appropriate to the situation (Bachelor of Science in Nursing Handbook and Graduate Student Handbook on exhibit in College). Test grades such as end of course exams are posted in designated areas by social security number (last four digits) or by private code according to written student consent. The other primary means of communicating grades is by returning the evaluation material with written comments directly to the individual student within the class environment. Group sessions to review test results are scheduled where rationale for correct responses and other relevant issues can be discussed. Students are strongly encouraged to see the course professor if they are performing unsatisfactorily. Faculty office hours (a minimum of two hours is required; four are recommended) enable students to schedule conferences to discuss unsatisfactory performance, and to discuss problems associated with poor performance. At these conferences, discussion focuses on identified problems and resources for problem solving. The student’s academic advisor is also notified and counsels the student.

Final course grades are available through TIPS (University Telephone Information Processing System) or VIP (University Visual Information Processing web site on the Internet) which can be accessed only by the student PIN (Personal Identification Number). Students who are experiencing academic difficulty will receive a mailed notification. Students who need a paper copy of their grades may print it off VIP or contact the Office of the University Registrar. These instructions are printed in each issue of the USC Master Schedule of Classes (on exhibit in College).

Key Element IV-B. Surveys and other data sources to collect information about student, alumni, employer satisfaction and demonstrated achievements of graduates provide evidence of program effectiveness. Data gathered about demonstrated achievements include, but are not limited to, graduation rates, NCLEX-RN scores and job placement rates.

In this section, an overview of the College evaluation plan to determine program effectiveness is presented. This plan describes the process used by students, alumni, employers, and faculty to evaluate the program. Data obtained through this process are provided throughout this section. Use of aggregate student performance data to change or improve curriculum is discussed. Student and alumni performance measures used to indicate success in meeting program objectives are described.

The College Evaluation Plan

The College evaluation plan provides the framework for collection and dissemination of data about the educational programs. Within this plan, data are obtained from students at the completion of each nursing course, at the completion of the program, and as alumni at one, two, or three year intervals after graduation. Input is obtained from faculty and employers at three year intervals (Appendix M: College Evaluation Schedule). Students, faculty, alumni, and employers are strongly encouraged to participate in the program evaluation process; however, participation is voluntary. Data are obtained primarily through structured questionnaires, referred to as course evaluation questionnaires (CEQ) or program assessment questionnaires (PAQ). These questionnaires are distributed through the College Office of Research and the data are computer analyzed. Results are distributed to preidentified individuals or groups who are responsible for using the results for program improvement (Appendix D: Plan for Evaluation Data Collection and Distribution). Computer analyzed results for the past several years are available on exhibit in the College.

During the administration of the CEQs, students are provided an opportunity to add written comments. In addition, graduating students are invited to participate in an exit cohort interview conducted by the Assistant Dean for Academic Programs. Transcripts of these interviews are made available to appropriate individuals, groups, or committees without revealing identity of participants other than the cohort category.

PAQs are completed by students at the end of their program and by faculty every three years. Student and faculty ratings of the adequacy of students' achievement of program objectives, adequacy of academic support services, and adequacy of learning resources are reported. These data were obtained during the past three academic years.

Alumni and employer information is used to help determine if College graduates are adequately prepared for beginning practice. These data are obtained every three years through the PAQs for BSN, MSN, PMC alumni and their employers. Results from the 1996 data collection point will be reported. Results from the next data collection point (Summer, 1999) will be available for the October 1999 CHE site visit.

All PAQs for students, faculty, alumni, and employers are currently under revision, and as they are revised, they are integrated into the evaluation calendar for data collection. Beginning with spring 1999, the revised questionnaires were used. A full cycle of aggregate data from revised PAQs will be available the end of fall 1999.

The PAQs rate categories such as academic support, learning resources, curriculum, and program objectives. For interpretation purposes, a guide has been established and is presented in Table IV-B-2. In addition, PAQ items with high and low ratings are reviewed to determine strengths and weaknesses of the program.

Table IV-B-2. Guide for Interpreting Program Evaluation Data

Criteria for Interpretation Of PAQs

4-point scale*

5-point scale**

Course/Program Satisfaction

At Least 2.5

At Least 3.0

Course/Program Weakness

2.0 or Below

2.5 or Below

Course/Program Strength

3.0 or Higher

3.5 or Higher

Source: *PAQ-Student and PAQ-Faculty; **PAQ-Alumni and PAQ-Employers

CEQ-Student results are reviewed regularly to ensure that faculty and students’ curriculum expectations are being met. Overall, course ratings tend to be quite high; the focus of the review is to identify courses with CEQ average ratings less than 2.5, so that measures can be taken promptly to determine the reason(s) for the lower ratings. To facilitate this review, CEQ-Fs (Course Evaluation Questionnaire by Faculty) are completed for each situation. Reviews may result in changes such as teacher assignment adjustments, course text, course expectations, or class scheduling. Results of this review are reported in the respective section for BSN students and MSN/PMC students.

Student Outcomes: BSN Students and Alumni

BSN student and alumni outcomes include satisfaction with courses and the overall program as determined by students, faculty, alumni, and employers. Additional outcomes include graduation rates, NCLEX-RN scores, employment rates, and achievements of students and alumni. This section will address each of these outcomes.

Course Evaluations. During the past three years, 11 of 307 (3.6%) course offerings have received a student course rating of less than 2.5 involving nine courses. Nine of these were undergraduate courses. One course has received less than 2.5 three times over the three year period. The CEQ-F for the course with repeated low ratings addresses critical thinking, a core competency area in the curriculum. Faculty in the department have identified factors believed to be associated with the low ratings: sequencing of the content; the overall course workload in the semester the course is taught; and perceived relevance of the content to clinical courses. These factors are currently being addressed at the department level.

Program Evaluations. Expected outcomes for BSN students include the attainment of competencies, knowledge, skills, and attitudes as described in The Essentials of Baccalaureate Education for Professional Nursing Practice (AACN, 1998) as well as program objectives. PAQ results from the past three years were not designed to capture information on the domains of competencies, knowledge, skills, and attitudes as defined in the AACN document. In addition, the program objectives recently have been revised (1999). As a result, the aggregate data reported here will focus on program objectives as defined in the questionnaire used at that time. Student ratings on academic support services and learning resources are also reported. Revised questionnaires will obtain student self-report outcomes in the areas defined in the AACN document beginning with the 1999 cycle of data collection.

Table IV-B-3 provides student and faculty ratings of the program objectives. All ratings were above the 3.0 level indicating student and faculty satisfaction.

Table IV-B-3. Faculty and Student Ratings of Achievement of

BSN Program Objectives

BSN Program Objectives	F96 N=18	F96 n=35	Sp97 N=25	Sp98 n=26
	Faculty	Stud	Stud	Stud
Knowledge of relevant theories of the physical/ behavioral/nursing sciences and the arts and humanities	3.22	3.29	3.32	3.28
Ability to apply knowledge and skills	3.33	3.54	3.44	3.27
Skills to evaluate and modify professional nursing practice	3.33	3.51	3.36	3.35
Skills to assume leadership roles	3.11	3.54	3.36	3.38
Ability to participate cooperatively as a member of an interdisciplinary health care team	3.33	3.71	3.64	3.58
Ability to make ethical judgements	3.39	3.57	3.64	3.50
A commitment to continuing professional development	3.33	3.66	3.72	3.65
Total Average	3.29	3.55	3.50	3.43

Source: PAQs for Graduating Students and Faculty.

Students and faculty were asked to rate the College academic resources. These were divided into academic support services and learning resources. A summary of these findings is presented in Table IV-B-4. These results indicate that students and faculty generally perceive that learning resources are stronger than academic support services. Communication items (mailbox, newsletters, etc) separated from other academic service items in spring 1999 were perceived to be the most positive area for the most recent semester.

Table IV-B-4. Faculty and Student Ratings of Services and

Resources Available to BSN Students

Resource Type	F96 n=18	F96 N=35	Sp97 n=25	Sp98 n=26	Sp99 n=25
Resource Type	Faculty	Students	Students	Students	Students
Academic Support Services	3.12	3.02	2.97	2.87	2.96
Learning Resources	3.28	3.29	3.31	3.19	3.09
Communication Systems	NA	NA	NA	NA	3.14*

*Communication items separated out from other academic support service items.

Source: PAQs for Graduating Students and Faculty.

Alumni and employer information is used to assess adequacy of alumni preparation for beginning practice. BSN alumni are asked to identify major strengths and weaknesses of the program. In prior assessment (1996) strengths were clinical practice, classroom instruction, course content, and faculty. Major weaknesses were advisement, televised courses, workload, and library facilities. Several items addressed adequacy of preparation. All ratings were above 3.0 on a 5-point scale except for an item on demonstration of emergency procedures (2.54). Faculty are presently investigating the perceived problem area.

Employers of USC BSN graduates were generally satisfied with BSN graduates' performance. None were dissatisfied. Almost one half indicated USC BSN graduates were either much better prepared or somewhat better prepared than were other BSN graduates. All items related to adequacy of preparation had ratings above 3.0 on a 5-point scale.

Results from PAQs have produced College changes in academic advisement, moving to a centralized model of advisement in the Office of Academic Programs and Student Services in 1998 and were the impetus to establish a faculty-mentoring role for undergraduate and graduate students. Television courses and distance learning are undergoing major technological upgrading in classroom instruction and support learning materials. The role of the Internet is influencing the distance learner by improving access to support learning materials and classroom notes. The outcomes of these influences should be reflected in future PAQ responses. The workload for BSN students remains somewhat intense; the issue is a national one. With demands for additional content in undergraduate nursing education, the expectations of employers of graduates of BSN programs, and constraints on length of programs to achieve program outcomes, a satisfactory solution has not been found.

Graduation Rates. Students who graduate from the BSN program include generic students (those who are entering the BSN program as their basic nursing program) and registered nurse students who are returning to obtain a BSN degree. Variations in the number of students graduating is influenced largely by the number of generic students accepted into the upper division or by the number of students accepted into the RN/BSN track in a given semester. In the most recent years, the variation is attributed to the number of RN/BSN students. The number of degrees awarded to generic and RN/BSN students is presented in Table IV-B-5.

Table IV-B-5. Number of BSN Degrees Awarded by Students Type

Student Type	1994-95	1995-96	1996-97	1997-98	1998-99*
Generic	81	80	90	87	87
RN/BSN	27	27	33	43	25
Total	108	107	123	130	112*

*Does not include SU99 degrees awarded.

Sources: USC Institutional Planning and Assessment and South Carolina Commission on Higher Education for total numbers; College Office of Academic Programs and Student Services for subtotals.

Graduation rates reported as percent of students who completed the nursing major in six years, were provided by the University Office of Institutional Planning and Assessment. These rates are presented in Table IV-B-6. To obtain these rates, cohorts of entering students are tracked forward to determine length of time in the program. These data are of limited use in program planning and enrollment management for two major reasons: (1) the time span required to obtain this type of data is too vast to place meaning on the data and (2) the effects of progression decisions on graduation rates far outweigh any effect of entering freshmen or lower division student factors. Graduation rates for students who progressed to the upper division or from students who graduated from the program would probably give more meaningful information for programmatic planning or for recruitment information. The overall graduation data is one of the performance measures against which the University is judged by the Commission on Higher Education. To the extent that the College can improve graduation rates, efforts will be made to do so.

Table IV-B-6. Six-Year Graduation Rates of Students Who Major in Nursing

Cohort	1990	1991	1992
Students who start out as freshmen at USC
Students who started in nursing and ended in another major	73.7% (14/19)	54.6% (18/33)	50.0% (18/36)
Students who started in another major and ended in nursing	51.2% (22/43)	41.7% (25/60)	42.9% (27/63)
Students who started and ended in nursing	61.5% (8/13)	39.1% (9/23)	39.1% (9/23)
Transfer Students as Nursing Majors at USC
Students who transferred from a USC Regional, Aiken, or Spartanburg	88.9% (8/9)	100% (1/1)	57.1% (4/7)
Students who transferred from a Non-USC institution as a generic BSN student	61.3% (19/31)	23.1% (12/52)	50.0% (28/56)
Students who transferred from a Non-USC institution as a registered nurse BSN student	68.4% (13/13)	63.2% (12/19)	53.1% (17/32)
Overall USC six-year graduation rates	63%	56%	56%

Sources: USC Institute of Planning and Assessment; South Carolina Commission on Higher Education..
NCLEX-RN Performance

BSN student outcomes on the NCLEX-RN have ranged from 92% to 100% over the past several years (Table IV-B-7.) These NCLEX-RN pass rates are considered an indicator of success on achieving program objectives. Several measures are taken to facilitate success rate on the NCLEX-RN. Standards such as the course grade requirement of C or higher on science and nursing courses; limited times a science or nursing course can be repeated to earn a grade of C, and an overall semester GPA of at least 2.5 to progress are examples of mechanisms reported to be associated with success on the NCLEX-RN. In addition, standardized national achievement tests are used to determine both student outcomes and course outcomes. Students within the lowest 25^th percentile are identified and referred to the course coordinator for consultation on strategies to improve in the specified area. Finally, senior BSN students are required to attend a Kaplan NCLEX-RN Review Course, scheduled in the College, at the end of the senior year during final examination week. The course includes an NCLEX-RN diagnostic exam given at the beginning of the last semester; an NCLEX-RN readiness test given at the beginning of the review; a five-day class and independent study guided review course; and a CAT NCLEX-RN, a computerized simulated NCLEX-RN, given at the conclusion of the course.

Table IV-B-7. Baccalaureate Student Outcomes on NCLEX-RN

Baccalaureate Student Outcomes on NCLEX-RN
STATISTICS	GRADUATION DATES
	94-95	95-96	96-97	97-98	98-99*
Number tested	73	74	80	75	41
First time takers	73	74	80	75	41
First time passed	71	70	76	69	41
First time failed	2	4	4	6	0
% pass rate	97%	95%	95%	92%	*100%

*Final data for 1999 has not been received as of submission date of this report.

Employment Rates

Employment rates for BSN graduates have not been tracked in a systematic manner because many alumni do not inform the College of changes in address. Informal means of gathering information have revealed that BSN graduates are successful in becoming employed. With the current shortage in nursing in this area, particularly in acute care facilities, employment rates of BSN graduates do not seem to be an issue at this time.

Information is available on graduating students' expectations (PAQ-S-BSN) about the type of job they will hold upon graduation. Listed in Table IV-B-8 is a summary of these expectations. These data reflect typical beginning professional nursing employment characteristic of staff nurse positions in South Carolina in acute/critical areas and in specialty areas such as child health, medical-surgical, psychiatric-mental health, obstetrics, or community health. In the spring 1999, 52% indicated they had a contract for employment; an additional 28% indicated they were confident they would be able to find employment.

Table IV-B-8. BSN Graduating Students' Expected Employment Characteristics

Characteristic	F96 n=35	Sp97 n=25	Sp98 n=26	Sp99 n=25
Characteristic	Students	Students	Students	Students
Clinical Area: Parent-Child, Medical-Surgical, Psychiatric-Mental Health, or Community	60%	84%	50%	56%
Nursing Role: Staff Nurse	70%	96%	85%	96%
Employment Location: South Carolina	85%	88%	89%	88%
Type of Setting: Acute/Critical	80%	92%	85%	80%

Source: PAQs for Graduating Students.

BSN Student Achievements. Student achievements, beyond success in completing the nursing program, are also measured. Student membership in honor societies, involvement in student organizations, including elected offices or other leadership roles, and participation in College committees are activities that are tracked. A summary of student involvement in these activities and organizations is in Table IV-B-9. In addition, student graduation application information shows that 10 students were invited to join Phi Beta Kappa in 1997-1998 and 11 were invited to join in 1998-1999.

Table IV-B-9. BSN Student Achievements

Achievements	Sp96	F96	Sp97	F97	Sp98	F98	Sp99
Induction into STT, Alpha Xi Chapter	16	21	5	15	16	9	17
Graduation with Honors Cum Laude Magna Cum Laude Summa Cum Laude	10 6 0	8 3 1	9 7 0	10 1 0	8 7 0	6 4 0	8 11 1
Student Organizations*	0	17	20	0	17	0	16
College Committees*	0	4	7	0	6	0	6

*Data not obtained every semester.

Source: Alpha Xi Newsletters, College Convocation Programs, PAQs for Graduating Students.

It is important to note that membership in organizations such as the Student Nurses' Association (SNA) provide several opportunities for leadership development. Participation in a pre-professional organization such as the SNA fosters professional identity and commitment. The SNA members represent the College well at state and national conventions. SNA student publication at the state and national levels is often through elected offices. The SNA also assists the College in recruiting students to serve on the various College committees.

Undergraduate students are recipients of several academic scholarships awarded by the College. Fifteen of the 29 College scholarships are designated for undergraduate students. Of the $31,900 awarded in 1998-99, $27,050 was awarded to 23 undergraduate students. In addition, 114 undergraduate nursing students were recipients of $178,931 in University scholarships and 213 students were recipients of $490,898 in outside scholarships. An additional $2,489,661 was awarded to undergraduate nursing students through grants and loans.

Two BSN students are enrolled in the South Carolina Honors College. A candidate for the College must demonstrate outstanding work in high school, high aptitude test scores, the ability to write well, and a strong intellectual curiosity.

Several awards are given to recognize outstanding undergraduate student achievements. The College recognizes an outstanding undergraduate student for scholarship and service achievements. The outstanding undergraduate award is given annually at the University’s Awards Day celebrated on the Horseshoe. Alpha Xi, the College chapter of STT International, recognizes an outstanding undergraduate student from among the inductees each fall, based primarily on grade point average. Alpha Xi also selects a leadership intern from among graduates of either the BSN or the MSN programs to be mentored by the chapter's officers. Several BSN students have been selected for this recognition.

The Spirit of Nursing award is given by the Army Nurse Corps in conjunction with the National Student Nurses' Association to recognize exceptional nursing students who demonstrate a commitment to excellence through their community, professional and academic achievements. Selected at the local level, each award recipient becomes eligible for consideration for the national Spirit of Nursing Award.

The Helene Fuld Health Trust invites schools of nursing to nominate an exceptional student for a class of fellows to participate in the Fuld Fellowship program. Several College nominees have been selected for and have participated in this program. The 1998 Fuld Fellow from the College was selected as the state’s representative and participated in a study program in Brazil. The 1994 College fellow was also selected as the state representative and studied in England.

BSN Alumni Achievements. PAQ-Alumni data from the 1996 survey indicated that BSN alumni continue to achieve in their professional roles. Of the respondents (n = 37), thirty-two percent belong to the ANA; 73% Alpha Xi Chapter of STT, and to a wide range of specialty organizations, including Oncology Nurses' Association, Association of Diabetic Educators, National Association of Neonatal Nurses, National Perinatal Association, Emergency Nurses' Association, National Association of School Nurses, and Association of Pediatric Oncology Nurses.

For three of the past four years, BSN alumni were selected leadership interns by Alpha Xi. This recognition allows a one-year mentoring relationship between the intern and the Alpha Xi Board of Directors. Honors or awards reported by alumni on the PAQ were Nurse of the Month, Nurse of the Year, Army Nurse Corps Awards, and acceptance to Master's program and medical school. Written comments from alumni that reflected achievements were "developed a nursing case management program," "served as "treasurer of SNA and helped found central midlands chapter of Emergency Nurses' Association in Columbia," precepted BSN students," and finally, "served as preceptor for new employees."

BSN alumni are represented in several of the classes of the Cockcroft Leadership Program. Their participation is often financially supported by their employer, reflecting a significant investment in the alumnus potential for leadership development. They participate as peers of noted nursing leaders from across the states.

College alumni may be nominated for the USC Outstanding Nurse Alumnus Award presented annually at the Vianna McCown Lecture Luncheon. Recipients of this distinguished award have made a significant contribution to the nursing profession in the following categories: (1) a contribution that exceeds the expectations traditionally represented by their position; (2) an achievement or contribution that is unique and innovative; (3) service that is continuous and sustaining; and (4) contributions to new dimensions in the nursing profession. Twelve alumni have received this award since it was initiated in 1988. All twelve received their BSN degree from USC. Some continued their education at the master's and doctoral levels and achieved most of their accomplishments afterwards; But some did not, having made major contributions to nursing without further education. Some accomplishments from this noted group of alumni include two nursing deanships (at USC and at Harding University, Arkansas); clinical practice with patient continence in South Carolina; director of the Emory Health Enhancement program and author of numerous cardiovascular-related articles; a pediatric professor at Midlands Technical College with several teaching recognition awards and the Jefferson Award sponsored by Columbia's WLTX television for recognition of achievement in HIV/Aids related work; the College's first African-American student who is a past-president of the South Carolina Nurses' Association; an executive director of the State Commission on Aging and former executive director of the Board of Nursing for South Carolina; a professor of nursing whose research has improved the quality of life of adolescents, a retired senior vice-president of Lexington Medical Center and colleague of Viana McCown; another former executive director of the South Carolina Board of Nursing and fellow of the American Academy of Nursing, a noted oncology clinical nurse specialist who received recognition from STT for her work in bereavement; and finally, a retired African-American nurse who is on the Palmetto Richland Memorial Hospital Board of Trustees and is on the Columbia Housing Authority Wall of Fame.

Student Outcomes: MSN and Post-Master’s Certificate Students and Alumni

Program Evaluations: During the past three years, only two of the 11 courses with ratings less than 2.5 were master’s level courses. Scheduling was identified as the problem associated with one of the courses. With a change in scheduling, the course subsequently received ratings of 3.0 or higher. The other course was made available on television after revisions had been made. The identified problem was scheduling a television offering before fine-tuning of the revisions had been achieved. A subsequent classroom offering of the course yielded a CEQ-Student mean rating of 3.4. PAQs are distributed to both degree-seeking students (MSN) as well as students who seek a post-master's certificate (PMC). All graduating students are not surveyed every semester. The Acute Care Nurse Practitioner students are surveyed in the fall semesters; all others in the spring semester. PMC students are enrolled primarily in the Family Nurse Practitioner emphasis area. The rationale for this alternating pattern of PAQ data collection is that, due to the programs of study in the various emphasis areas, these are the semesters during which students in each area are likely to graduate. This data collection plan accounts to some extent for the wide variations in sample sizes from one semester to another. Another factor influencing sample size is the voluntary nature of the evaluation data collection process as well as the number of students completing each emphasis.

During 1996-97 of the 3-year time frame for PAQ data collection, a fairly large number of PMC students were enrolled in and graduating from the program. Later, that number decreased while students enrolled in the MSN degree program increased. Another programmatic change during the data collection time frame was the move from separate MS and MN degrees to a single MSN degree. These factors do not appear to have influenced the pattern of responses for the PAQs (see Table IV-B-10).

Table IV-B-10. Faculty and Student Ratings of Achievement of

MSN Program Objectives

Master's Program Objectives	Su96 N=17	F96 n=24	Sp97 n=15	F97 n=6	Sp98 n=16	F98 n=10	Sp99 n=22
Master's Program Objectives	Faculty	Stud	Stud	Stud	Stud	Stud	Stud
Knowledge and skills required for advanced nursing practice	3.47	3.37	3.6	3.33	3.31	3.20	3.27
Ability to synthesize theory and research to guide practice and structure inquiry	3.35	3.26	3.13	3.50	2.81	3.20	3.45
Leadership skills for nursing practice, education, and administration	3.35	3.29	3.20	3.67	2.94	3.20	3.50
Total Average	3.39	3.31	3.31	3.50	3.02	3.20	3.41

Source: PAQs of Graduating Students and Faculty.

The ratings from the PAQs for MSN and PMC students and faculty were all above the 2.5 level on a 5-point scale indicating that program outcomes were achieved for most students. Ratings below 3.0 were obtained for two of the three objectives during one semester; however, this finding does not reflect a trend for either of the objectives. Subsequent ratings, particularly in the spring of 1999 with a large graduating class, reflect fairly high ratings for achieving program objectives. Faculty ratings in the fall of 1996 are more consistent with the more recent student ratings.

Students and faculty were asked to rate aspects of academic support services and learning resources available to MSN and PMC students. These results are summarized in Table IV-B-11. These findings are similar to those obtained by BSN students and faculty for these services and resources in that students and faculty are more satisfied with learning resources than academic support services. Changes in the OAPSS, with respect to centralized advisement, affect the master's program and are expected to positively influence student and faculty perceptions of these services.

Table IV-B-11. Faculty and Student Ratings of Services and

Resources Available to MSN/PMC Students

Resource Type	Su96 n=17	F96 n=24	Sp97 n=15	F97 n=6	Sp98 n=17	F98 n=10	Sp99 n=22
Resource Type	Faculty	Stud	Stud	Stud	Stud	Stud	Stud
Academic Support Services	2.91	2.78	2.87	2.78	2.97	3.00	2.98
Learning Resources	3.44	3.11	3.15	3.03	3.03	3.07	3.12
Communications							3.00*

*Communication items separated out from the other academic support service items.

Source: PAQs of Graduating Students and Faculty.

MSN alumni and employer information is used to assess adequacy of MSN and PMC alumni preparation for advanced practice nursing. Alumni of the MSN and post-master's programs identified strengths of their program very similarly to those identified by BSN graduates: classroom instruction, clinical practice, and course content were among the strengths in both groups. This finding is consistent with the CEQ data history. However, unlike the BSN graduates, MSN/PMC alumni rated TV courses as a strength.

Weaknesses were somewhat similar: workload and library resources were identified in both groups of alumni as weaknesses. The low library resource rankings from alumni of both programs are inconsistent with the finding that USC has a higher percentages of holdings for nursing compared to other nursing programs. Faculty believe the rankings may reflect a lack of organization and support for users of the library. This problem has lessened some, but the library may need to focus more on the consumer of its services.

MSN/post-master's alumni rated audiovisual and computer resources among weaknesses of the program. All items on "extent of preparation " received ratings above 3.5 on a 5-point scale except role development, conducting research, writing scholarly research papers, and presenting research results at conferences. The lower ratings in these areas are not surprising but rather reflect an earlier expectation of Master’s prepared nurses in the area of research. These items will be deleted from the revised edition of the PAQ.

Employers were generally satisfied with the preparation of MSN/post-master's graduates. Over three-fourths were very satisfied, and none were dissatisfied. Over one-half indicated USC graduates were either much better prepared or somewhat better prepared than were graduates from other programs. All but three items on extent of preparation were rated above 3.5 on a 5-point scale. These three items were among those with lowest ratings from the MSN/post-master's alumni and described a research role no longer considered an expectation at the master's level of preparation.

Other Outcomes for Master's Students and Alumni

Graduating rates for entering cohorts of master's students are not reported. However, graduation numbers are reported as degrees awarded. The number of degrees awarded applies to MSN degrees and post-master's certificates. These are presented in Table IV-B-12 and are categorized by CHEMIS codes as reported by the South Carolina Commission on Higher Education.

Table IV-B-12. Degrees Awarded by Master's Program Emphasis Area

Emphasis	1993-94	1994-95	1995-96	1996-97	1997-98	Total
Clinical Nursing	16	11	23	17	12	79
Health Nursing	34	25	35	24	22	140
Nursing Administration	9	4	5	3	5	26
Psychiatric/Mental Health	5	2	1	0	1	9
Advance Practice Nursing Post-Master's Certificate	19	15	22	31	29	116
	83	57	86	75	69	370

Source: USC Institute on Planning and Assessment; South Carolina Commission on Higher Education.
Certification Examination Performance.

Success on certification examinations is considered an indicator of success in achieving program objectives. Several credentialing agencies offer certification examinations for nurse practitioners. The one used most frequently by College graduates is the American Nurses' Credentialing Center (ANCC) which offers examinations for Family Nurse Practitioners (FNP), Adult Nurse Practitioners (ANP), Pediatric Nurse Practitioners (PNP), and Acute Care Nurse Practitioner (ACNP). Others include the National Certification Corporation for the Obstetric, Gynecologic and Neonatal Nursing Specialties (Women's Health Nurse Practitioners (WHNP), the National Certification Board on Pediatric Nurse Practitioners and Nurses (PNP), and the American Academy of Nurse Practitioners (PNP). Graduates of the WHNP and the Mental Health Nurse Practitioner (MHNP) tracks take the ANP examination from the ANCC.

Graduates of the MSN and PMC emphasis areas have a long history of success in first time writing advanced practice certification examinations. Until recently, reporting has been primarily on an informal and individual basis. In 1998, the ANCC began reporting, on request, aggregate data on student performance on the ANCC certification examinations. Table IV-B-13 shows student scores for 1998 and for one testing cycle in 1999. The data show an overall 94% for 68 graduates, indicating that almost all graduates are successful in ANCC examination performance. The results show that FNP students are particularly successful, consistently scoring above the ANCC mean score.

Graduates of the WHNP track often take the Women's Health Care Nurse Practitioner examination offered by the National Certification Corporation (NCC) for the Obstetric, Gynecologic and Neonatal Nursing Specialties. Results for 1998 were reported on five examinees. All five passed and all but one scored well above the mean score of 1998 NCC examinees.

Table IV-B-13. Graduates' Performance on ANCC Certification Examination

Exam Data	6/98 FNP	10/98 FNP	2/99 FNP	6/98 ANP	10/98 ANP	2/99 ANP	6/98 ACNP	2/99 ACNP	2/99 PNP
# Tested	18	8	25	3	2	1	1	9	1
# Passed	18	7	23	3	2	1	1	9	0
# Failed	0	1	2	0	0	0	0	0	1
Passing Score	103	103	100	91	91	92	95	97	98
Mean Score ANCC	113.8	111	108.9	102.4	100.3	99.5	106.1	104.9	106.7
Mean Score USC Graduates	118.2	116.6	110.48	100.7	93	107	104	113.4	87

Source: ANCC Correspondence, 2/18/99 and 7/22/99.

MSN and PMC students' expectations about the type of employment position upon graduation were available as was the case with BSN students; however, this information is less meaningful because it does not reveal changes in position based upon advanced educational preparation. A new item on the revised questionnaire distributed in spring of 1999 addresses expected changes. In this cohort all but one respondent (n = 22) indicated at least one change in employment. The following anticipated changes in employment were reported: Employer 77%; Clinical area 68%; Nursing role: 96%; Location 64%; Setting 82%; and Population served 64%. These results suggest that advanced educational preparation of the student influences expected employment characteristics.

Master's Students' Achievements. Master's students are more likely than BSN students to work full-time and attend school part-time. Their achievements are most often work-related and are not tracked systematically by the College. Students that serve on College committees make major contributions to the committee work.

Alpha Xi Chapter of STT, considers master's students for induction into the honorary society. Eligibility for induction at the master's level include completion of at least one-fourth of the required graduate curriculum and a GPA of at least 3.5 on a 4.0 scale. Over the past three years, at least 90 master's students have been inducted into the society.

Master's Students Awards and Scholarships. The Federal Bureau of Health Professions funds traineeships for graduate study. These funds provide scholarships for master's students (excluding administration and post-master's certificate students as per federal guidelines) who are enrolled full-time in graduate study. Over the past three years, the College has received funds to distribute $ 232,271 in scholarships to master's students and has been awarded $73,227 for the 1999-2000 academic year. University scholarships to MSN students for the 1998-1999 year totaled $102,146. Federal grants and loans to MSN students during this time were $680,000.

The College recognizes an outstanding master's student annually for academic performance, excellence in clinical practice, university and community involvement, and evidence of leadership. The outstanding graduate student is recognized on Graduate School Awards Day. The College also recognizes the outstanding thesis award recipient each year at the spring convocation.

Master's students are often recognized in the broader University community for their academic and scholarly achievements. Students have received awards from Professional Women on Campus for an outstanding research paper; Emily Thompson Award in Women's Studies for student research in women's health, and University fellowships for outstanding academic achievement.

MSN/PMC Alumni Achievements. PAQ-alumni data from the 1996 survey indicated that MSN/PMC students continue to achieve in their professional roles. Of the respondents (n = 84), most reported that they had participated in workshops, conferences, and seminars. Almost 50% reported they had developed continuing education for others. A few (n = 7) reported continuing education in a degree-granting program. Seven alumni reported authorship of professional nursing publications, and 22 reported participating in nursing research projects since graduation.

MSN/PMC alumni are more likely to participate in professional organizations than are BSN alumni. For example, 50% belong to the ANA, and almost 60% belong to STT. Several (n = 7) reported holding a local, state, or national office in a professional organization. Many are serving on work-related committees, both nursing and non-nursing. In addition to PAQ-Alumni results, University nursing alumni are also observed to be employed in top nursing leadership positions throughout the state. An additional cadre of MSN/PMC alumni form the core of preceptors available in the community to precept currently enrolled MSN/PMC students. These activities reflect that MSN/PMC alumni continue to achieve and contribute to the profession after graduating from their nursing program.

Recognition of the outstanding nurse alumnus award was discussed with respect to BSN alumni achievement, because all alumni who received this award had earned their BSN degree from the University. It is important to note, however, that some of these award recipients accomplished their noted achievements after further educational preparation. Many of their graduate degrees were earned at the University.

Key Element IV-C. Faculty accomplishments in teaching, scholarship, practice, and service demonstrate program effectiveness and reflect the process of ongoing improvement.

In this section, the process for evaluating faculty performance in teaching, scholarship, service, and practice is described. Methods used to communicate results of evaluations to individual members is explained, as well as ways the results of evaluations are used, in an aggregate sense to foster ongoing improvement. Evidence of College and University support for professional growth and development of faculty are provided. Faculty accomplishments in teaching, scholarship, service, and practice are summarized.

Process for Evaluating Faculty Performance

The University mission as a major teaching and research institution is founded on the teaching, research, and service efforts of a strong and dedicated faculty. Affirming its commitment to tenure as essential to its mission, the University supports faculty in reaching their maximum professional development and assuring their full contribution to the academic life of the institution. To further these goals, the University has established annual performance review, third year review, and post-tenure review policies to recognize and reward faculty for superior achievement, and to assure that each faculty member's contribution to the University through teaching, research, and service is at a satisfactory level of performance (http://www.sc.edu/policies/facman/regs.html#faceval, p. 15).

In accordance with these policies, the College has procedures for each type of review for tenure track faculty (Appendix N: Tenure and Promotion Guidelines for Tenure Track Faculty Review, Guidelines for Faculty Performance Review (with required forms), Post-Tenure Review Procedures; Appendix B: College Tenure and Promotion Criteria; on exhibit: University Committee on Tenure and Promotion Guide to Criteria and Procedures). Minimum standards and procedures are specified for each type of review. The review considers superior levels of performance in any of the categories, and reviews of unsatisfactory levels of performance is accompanied by a development plan and a timetable for restoring performance to satisfactory levels.

Annual Performance Review. All faculty in the College, regardless of type of appointment, participate in an annual performance review. Tenure track faculty conduct a self-assessment which is reviewed by their department chair and a panel of the College Tenure and Promotions (T and P) Committee. Clinical track faculty also conduct a self-assessment which is reviewed by the department chair. In T and P Committee reviews, the focus is on faculty performance relative to tenure and promotion criteria in areas of teaching, research, and service, with recommendations for professional development relative to the College mission. Department reviews is an administrative review looking at the contributions of the faculty to the mission and functions of the department.

Three-Year Performance Review. Tenure track faculty must undergo a three-year performance review at the college level to assess progress toward eligibility for tenure. The three-year performance review follows the guidelines for annual review, except that a cumulative file is submitted and reviewed. At the time of the third-year review, the T and P Committee evaluates the faculty member in terms of whether progress toward tenue and promotion warrants continuing reappointment.

Tenure and Promotion Decisions. In accordance with University policy, tenure track faculty at the rank of assistant professor or higher are given a maximum probationary period during which they must meet criteria for tenure. The probationary period is six years for associate and full professor and seven years for assistant professor. Candidacy for tenure review involves faculty governance and administrative processes at the college and University levels as well as final approval by the Board of Trustees. The process for seeking promotion is essentially the same as for tenure. A flow chart depicting this process is in Appendix H: Flow Chart of University Tenure and Promotion procedure. It should be noted that the College T and P Criteria are approved by the University T and P Committee, and that the College document is considered an exemplary model of tenure and promotion criteria.

Post-Tenure Review. Tenured faculty, regardless of rank, are reviewed every six years unless, during the previous six-year period, the faculty member is reviewed and advanced or retained in a higher position. The College procedure for the review is in Appendix N. Review is conducted by a committee of five full professors from the college; if there are not five professors within the college, faculty from other units may be appointed by the dean. Faculty who receive an overall unsatisfactory review are provided a development plan and timetable to achieve the development goals. The process for monitoring the faculty member's progress toward achieving the plan is documented in the review procedures. The post-tenure review is being phased in using a calendar established for this purpose by the Office of the Provost. All faculty who are eligible will be reviewed in order of length of time since last review.

Evaluation of Faculty Teaching, Research, and Service/Practice

In this section, methods used to evaluate faculty in the areas of teaching, research, and service/practice are described.

Evaluation of Teaching. Evaluation of faculty teaching in the College is consistent with University guidelines. All faculty are expected to demonstrate and maintain competence as a teacher. The nature of the teaching role changes with increasing rank and may move from teaching competence and course management to research supervision and course development. Teaching competence is evaluated by students and peers. At the end of each course with an enrollment of at least three, students are asked to complete a teacher evaluation questionnaire (TEQ). Seven items on the teacher questionnaire are required by the University. Questionnaires are distributed to students and collected during class time in the absence of the course faculty and are computer analyzed. Results are distributed to the individual faculty member, the department chair, and the dean. The faculty member is expected to perform at the College mean. Annual Performance guidelines suggest when TEQ data may be most important throughout the faculty member's teaching history.

A Summary of the Teaching Evaluations Questionnaire facilitates analysis of teaching performance by identifying TEQ items with highest and lowest ratings. This summary is completed by a peer for tenure and promotion purposes but may also be completed by the faculty member. A standard Teaching Observation Form is used for peer observation of classroom or clinical teaching. Guidelines indicate frequency at which observations should be obtained as well as who should conduct the observation. The observer submits the completed form directly to the faculty member.

Curriculum development is evaluated less formally and may involve input from appropriate committee and/or departmental membership. The input may take the form of peer letters of recommendation or student evaluation comments, course ratings, and changes in class enrollments. Another form of evaluation is the development of new proposals or programmatic revisions such as, the recently approved nursing doctorate proposal plan. Research supervision is evaluated by internal or external review of selected completed projects and by randomly selected evaluations by former graduate research supervisees solicited by the College T and P Committee.

Evaluation of Faculty Scholarship. All faculty are expected to participate in scholarly activities appropriate to their academic preparation and rank. Faculty accomplishments in research are evaluated by evidence of activities such as engagement in post-doctoral research, ongoing funding to support research, regular publications in refereed journals or equivalent reviews, and recognition beyond the College in an area of expertise. Productive scholarship for tenure track faculty includes ongoing externally funded research and publications in refereed journals. Non-refereed publications may be subjected to an external review process to determine referee-equivalence. Given that the expectations for scholarship are dependent upon external decisions, the basis for performance levels is derived from an external review process rather than from an internal one.

Evaluation of Faculty Service and Practice. Faculty are expected to be involved in College and University activities and in leadership roles within the College and the Community. The nature of the leadership roles are expected to change with increasing rank. Untenured faculty are expected to minimize their service roles until they have established a funded research program. Evaluation of service is primarily through letters of recognition of service and peer observation.

Whenever letters or reviews are solicited on faculty performance for tenure or promotion decisions, the reviewer is requested to submit reviews directly to the department chair or the Tenure and Promotions Committee as indicated. The reviewer may also choose to copy the review to the faculty member.

Methods of Communicating Results of Reviews to Faculty. The method of communicating results of reviews to faculty varies with the type of decision and the type of review. All reviews conducted by the Tenure and Promotion Committee are communicated in writing. The communication process is outlined in the Tenure and Promotion Guidelines for Tenure Track Faculty Review for each type of review. The person responsible for communicating the results of the review is clearly identified. Written communication is used in all cases. In the third year review, a written response from the Tenure and Promotion Committee, and a conference with the Dean is held. Departmental reviews of tenure track and clinical track faculty are also communicated in writing and orally. Negative tenure and/or promotion decisions are communicated to the faculty member by the Dean.

Use of Results to Foster Ongoing Improvement. Faculty are expected to be productive in teaching and scholarship appropriate for rank and level of preparation. With these expectations, less than satisfactory performance in one area may be offset with superior performance in another area. All T and P and departmental reviews include recommendations for ongoing improvement. Unsatisfactory reviews such as the post-tenure review include a developmental plan.

Aggregate evaluation results are used to facilitate achievement of the College mission. In the area of teaching, College faculty have heavier teaching loads than faculty in other colleges. This finding has resulted in scheduling fewer sections of courses and larger class sizes. Low faculty performance in teaching (as defined by CEQ and TEQ ratings) results in reconsideration of teaching assignments and instructional development. In the area of scholarship, allocation of resources (human, physical, and fiscal) and faculty workload distribution issues are considered. In service practice, workloads are adjusted to meet the needs for clinical supervision of students. However, teaching and scholarship are priorities of the College as evidenced in the Workload Policy.

Evidence of Faculty Accomplishments

College and University support for professional growth and development of faculty was identified in Standard II. In this section, evidence will be provided to show that faculty are effectively contributing to the mission, philosophy, and goals/objectives of the program in the areas of teaching, scholarship, and service/practice.

Teaching. Evidence of faculty effectiveness in teaching and curriculum development is provided in several ways. Course evaluation results reflect that courses generally receive high ratings. Alumni of the programs rate faculty, classroom teaching, and clinical instruction as strengths of the College (PAQ-Alumni results on exhibit in College) . Students participate in the nomination of faculty for undergraduate and graduate teaching awards. Three faculty have recently received the Provost's Instructional Grant Award for developing and implementing innovative teaching methodologies (Instructional Grant Award Proposals on exhibit in College). College faculty are requested to share expertise in technological instruction methods with other faculties on campus.

The College has a history of success in obtaining federal funding to support training grants for new program development in the master's curriculum. Three recently funded programs were Women's Health Nurse Practitioner Program, Acute Care Advanced Practice Nurse, and Advanced Practice Mental Health Nursing. The success in obtaining federal funding for curriculum/program development through an external review process reflects the quality of the educational programs in the College.

Scholarship. Evidence of faculty effectiveness in scholarship is provided primarily by funded research programs and dissemination of research in appropriate avenues. Summary information on research activity are presented for the past three years (Table IV-C-1) followed by summary information on dissemination of research for three years (College Office of Research annual reports on exhibit in College).

Table IV-C-1. Summary of Faculty Research Activity

AWARD MONIES RECEIVED	1996-97	1997-98	1998-99
Federal Awards	$1,053,366	$1,193,714	$1,117,844
State/Local/Private Awards	336,924	295,577	139,606,
College of Nursing Awards	21,118	34,360	20,000
TOTAL AWARD MONIES RECEIVED	1,591,408	1,703,651	1,457,450
Research Awards Received	653,089	704,615	404,392
Educational Awards Received	738,319	799,036	853,058
NUMBER OF AWARDS RECEIVED
Research	12	14	7
Intramural	1	3	1
Extramural	11	11	6
Educational	8	13	8
TOTAL NUMBER OF AWARDS RECEIVED	20	27	15

Source: College Office of Research Annual Reports: 1996-97; 1997-98; 1998-99)

The total amount of award monies received by the College has been fairly stable over the past three years, although the amount awarded for research programs decreased during the 1998-99 year. While actual funding decreased, the number of extramural proposals submitted increased, and success will be reflected in 1999-2000. In addition, faculty have been encouraged to focus on development of programs of research instead of submitting proposals on multiple topic areas. All research proposals now undergo an in-depth critique process before submission, so proposals are carefully considered for successful submissions. Thus, several faculty have conducted pilot studies this past year to prepare to write extramural grants in 1999-2000. This change in emphasis to development of focused programs of research is consistent with the President’s goal for the University to become a member of the American Association of Universities (AAU) and a Research I University. Focused research programs can be sustained over a long period of time. This change is also consistent with the focused program area of research articulated by the faculty in the summer, 1998, which formed the base for successful funding of the Research Center for Health Promotion and Risk Reduction in Special Populations. This grant is one of only seven centers in the United States funded by the National Institute of Nursing Research (NINR). Institutions eligible for these center core grants had to have at least three projects funded by the Department of Health and Human Services. The grant is funded at $1,029, 210 (direct costs) for 5 years "to provide the infrastructure to centralize resources and facilities to support an active center of excellence in a specific area of inquiry that has a strong base of research funding." The center grant will provide an additional $30,000 per year in intramural research funding for pilot studies. (Grant application on exhibit in College).

Faculty publications and presentations facilitate the College mission on scholarship. Summary information for the past three years is presented in Table IV-C-2. Full citations of published works are listed in the annual reports of the College Office of Research (on exhibit in College). Samples of published articles are on exhibit for review. The decrease in volume of publications and presentations can be attributed to the College focus on developing the center grant proposal. The decrease in the volume of publications and presentations are due to multiple factors. First, beginning in 1997-98, the reporting of publications and presentations was changed to more accurately reflect faculty scholarship. Prior to 1997-98 all faculty who were listed were individually considered, so the count was inflated. In addition, publications submitted or in review were included in the report. Currently only the first author is counted in the report and publications and presentations submitted or in review are not counted. For presentations (posters and papers) only those presented at regional, national, or internationally peer-reviewed meetings are counted. Non-peer reviewed, local presentations have been eliminated from the report. The new reporting system is consistent with the Provost for Research reporting requirements and tenure criteria. Publication numbers have decreased in 1998-99 due to faculty concentrating on their pilot and preliminary studies. Presentation numbers have decreased as faculty have become more selective to maximize their research exposure at more focused and prestigious research meetings. These numbers are expected to remain consistent or slightly increase. The large number of published refereed manuscripts in 1997-98 reflects publications resulting from a completed federally funded grant. Faculty scholarship is also evidence in the number of faculty who have been appointed to editorial boards of peer-reviewed journals and review boards.

Faculty have received recognition beyond the College in their research productivity. In 1995, one professor received the USC Educational Foundation Award for Health Sciences. Another professor received a national award, the Association of Nurses in Aids Care Outstanding Research Award, in 1998. Another faculty member nationally recognized for her contributions to nursing research received the Outstanding Alumnus award from the Medical University of South Carolina College of Nursing in 1999.

Table IV-C-2. Summary of College of Nursing Faculty Scholarship

	1996-97	1997-98	1998-99
Publications
Refereed Manuscripts	59	64	44
Nonrefereed Manuscripts	55	20	13
Books, Chapters, Monographs	34	12	7
Presentations
Papers	99	44	21
Posters	21	13	12

Source: College Office of Research Annual Reports: 1996-97; 1997-98; 1998-99)

Faculty Service and Practice have been previously discussed relative to congruence among University and College missions, philosophies, and goals and with respect to commitment of and resources for the College mission, philosophy and goals. Faculty effectiveness in the provision of service and practice to fulfill the College mission is evident in several ways. All faculty are active in College Committee work and provide a strong component of the leadership in Alpha Xi, the College chapter of STT (Faculty curriculum vitae and Alpha Xi newsletters on exhibit).

At the University level, faculty participate on several standing and advisory committees. These are listed in Table IV-C-3.

Table IV-C-3. Summary of Faculty Participation in Service to the University

Year	Name of Committee/Council
1996-97	Center for Ethics Teaching Associate Curricula and Courses Committee Educational Foundation Research Award for Health Professions Faculty Senator (3) Faculty Welfare Committee Graduate Council Graduate Faculty Practice and Procedures Sub-Committee of Graduate School Health Professions' Undergraduate Advisement Committee Honorary Degrees Committee Infection Control Committee (Chair) Institutional Review Board Instructional Development Committee Telemedicine Committee
1997-98	Center for Ethics Teaching Associate Curricula and Courses Committee Faculty Senator (3) Faculty Welfare Committee Faith-Health Consortium Advisory Committee Graduate Council Institutional Review Board Instructional Development Committee Michael Mungo Teaching Award Committee (Chair) Occupational Health and Safety Committee Venture Fund Review Panel
1998-99	Center for Health Services and Policy Research Advisory Committee Center for Ethics Teaching Associate Child Care Task Force (ad hoc) Complementary Medicine Program Development Committee Faculty Senator (3) Faculty Welfare Committee Faith-Health Consortium Advisory Committee Honorary Degrees Committee Institutional Review Board Instructional Development Committee Occupational Health and Safety Committee Religious Affairs Committee (chair) Venture Fund Review Panel

The profile of service to University governance indicates a comprehensive range of involvement, provides evidence of faculty leadership at the University level and reveals College representation on health-related committees. In addition to faculty service to the University, staff involvement also exists. For example, the College technology specialist serves on several committees: Academic Computing and Information Technology Advisory Committee; Information Technology Infrastructure Committee for SACS Accreditation, and several technology managers' teams. Another staff member is the liaison for Health and Safety Programs and serves as safety manager for the College in this role.

Faculty contribute their expertise to the nursing and health care community in innovative and/or practical ways. For example, the existing shortage of nurses in acute care facilities recently fulminated to a critical stage one weekend. The facility asked for College faculty for assistance in covering the shortage on a short term basis. Another example is the Preceptor Project, a joint project between the College and the Palmetto Alliance acute care agencies, in which several faculty are participating in an orientation and development program for preceptors of new graduates. The project is funded by the Palmetto Alliance. This project is being implemented summer of 1999. These two examples are among numerous roles faculty play in community service.

In addition to community service, faculty are very involved in professional organizations at local, state, and national levels. Faculty members have served as president of the South Carolina Nurses' Association, Alpha Xi Chapter of STT. Two faculty members have received the Order of the Palmetto, the highest award a civilian can receive by the Governor of the State. One faculty member received this award for her contributions in the area of cancer research, and the other member was recognized for her service to the country in the Gulf War and for her continued service on a Presidential committee to explore the relationship of Orange Agent and post-Gulf War illnesses. Faculty have been recognized by STT for outstanding contributions to nursing, and one faculty member was recently selected as one of STT’s 2000-2001 Distinguished Lecturers. Finally, at least two faculty members have completed the Cockcroft Leadership Program. All of these accomplishments are documented in faculty curriculum vitae (on exhibit in the College). In summary, there is evidence of significant faculty involvement in service to support the College mission.

The Faculty Practice Plan has been discussed previously. Faculty involvement in the faculty practice plan includes six full-time nurse practitioners and seven full-time faculty who provide a total of 37 hours of nursing practice. One of the nurse practitioners in the faculty practice plan was recognized nationally as the Nurse Practitioner of the Year Award from the National Association of Nurse Practitioners for Reproductive Health. The College of Nursing Faculty Practice received the 1998 Outstanding Faculty Practice award from the National Association of Nurse Practitioner Faculties.

Key Element IV-D. Records of student satisfaction/formal complaints are reviewed as a part of the process of ongoing improvement.

Student input into the process of ongoing improvement is valued by the faculty as evidenced by the resources allocated to the evaluation process described previously. Specific procedures have been instituted to encourage students to respond honestly to the evaluation items. Course and Teacher Evaluation Questionnaires are administered, collected, and analyzed by non-faculty. Results are not available to faculty until after course grades are reported to the Registrar. Results, including transcripts of anonymous student comments, are used by faculty to improve the course or teaching process. Exit cohort interview transcripts, with student confidentiality maintained, are distributed to groups such as undergraduate/graduate department chairs and program committees for review and recommendations. The Plan for Collection and Distribution of Evaluation Information reflects these processes (Appendix D).

Other processes to obtain input from students include the Student Advisory Committee with student representatives from each of the programs and the College of Nursing Suggestion Box, a locked box with an insert slot located in the canteen, which allows anonymous input. Staff in Student Services encourage students to use the suggestion box process to communicate with the Dean. The Suggestion Box is accessed weekly and comments are reviewed by the Dean and sorted according to urgency and type of comment. If indicated, urgent action is taken. The Dean may delegate the comments to an appropriate committee or individual for consideration. If further student input is needed, the issue is taken to the Student Advisory Committee. The Student Advisory Committee meets twice a semester.

The number of comments from the Suggestion Box averages less than 12 per month and are typically classified as either positive, negative, or frivolous in nature. Some are signed although the majority are unsigned. Some comments include student offers to participate in the problem-solving process. Overall, this process along with the Student Advisory Committee works to facilitate review of students' satisfaction and concerns.

Formal complaints or concerns raised by students are handled on various levels. Many student complaints begin with the concerns shared with the academic advisor. Depending upon the nature of the issue, i.e., personal, academic, civil, etc., the advisor refers the student to the appropriate resource. Resources may involve counseling, use of learning resources within the College or at the University level, or referral to University Student Affairs. In any case, the advisor aims to inform the student of his/her rights and available resources to address the concern.

If the concern is with academic standards for admission, progression, or graduation, the advisor helps the student prepare a petition for submission to the respective program committee. The Committee considers each petition to determine if the standard should be waived. If the student complaint concerns a particular course, the advisor encourages the student to meet with the course instructor and informs the student of the process to use if not resolved at the course faculty level, i.e., the Departmental Chair and the dean.

Formal complaints may be classified as (1) Student Grievance-Non-Academic, (2) Grievance-Academic, (student or faculty), and (3) violation of the Rule of Academic Responsibility. All three processes, once initiated, require due process to protect the rights of involved parties. These processes are described in the Carolina Community and online @ http://www.sc.edu. Two of these processes are initiated at the College level, Student Academic Grievance and Academic Responsibility. Student academic grievance issues are referred to the College Steering Committee if not resolved at the faculty, department, or Dean's Office levels. A subcommittee of the Steering Committee is formed to handle the specific complaint. Violations of the Rule of Academic Responsibility are referred to the College Student Affairs Committee. The College Bylaws (Appendix J) reflect these responsibilities under the appropriate committee.

Key Element IV-E. Current documents and publications distributed accurately reflect student performance and satisfaction, as well as faculty accomplishments (i.e., truth in advertising).

Many documents and publications are used to distribute information about student performance and satisfaction as well as faculty accomplishments. Samples of these publications are on exhibit in the College. All documents accurately reflect student and faculty accomplishments. Several newsletter publications are used to highlight student performance and satisfaction or faculty accomplishments. The College publishes an internal newsletter, Carolina Nursing, that targets students in all nursing programs and a newsletter that targets alumni, USC Nurse. These publications, particularly USC Nurse, highlight scholarship recipients, other student awards, and also alumni and faculty accomplishments. At the University level, the newsletter, USC Times, publishes faculty accomplishments.

The College electronic local area network is relied upon to disseminate information within the College on both student and faculty awards and accomplishments. This communication medium includes individual notes of congratulations and the weekly memo that circulates among faculty and staff within the College. Documents such as self-studies for external review purposes are another source of information that disseminates student and faculty accomplishments. These reports accurately reflect input from students, faculty, alumni, and employers on satisfaction with College programs and accurately report student and faculty achievements.

External publications that request information about the College, its faculty and students include Petersen's Guide, STT's Alpha Xi Chapter newsletter, and survey forms for the American Association of Colleges of Nursing, National League for Nursing, South Carolina State Board of Nursing, and South Carolina Commission on Higher Education. Information submitted to these agencies and organizations accurately reflects student and faculty information.

Recruitment materials which disseminate information about the College, faculty and student characteristics include flyers on curricular options and advertisements for faculty positions in various journals and newsletters. These materials accurately reflect characteristics about the College, its faculty and students.

Type of Undergraduate Petitions	96-97	97-98	98-99
Early Reinstatement from Suspension	0	2	0
Relief from Admission Requirements	26	16	4
Relief from Progression Requirements	53	16	4
Relief from Graduation Requirements	5	0	0
Other	0	23	0
Type of Action Taken
None	0	0	0
Approval Without Conditions	59	33	3
Conditional Approval	3	5	1
Disapproval	22	19	4
Other	0	0	0

Criteria for Interpretation Of PAQs	4-point scale*	5-point scale**
Course/Program Satisfaction	At Least 2.5	At Least 3.0
Course/Program Weakness	2.0 or Below	2.5 or Below
Course/Program Strength	3.0 or Higher	3.5 or Higher