MASTERS IN COUNSELOR EDUCATION PROGRAM EVALUATION REPORT. Prepared by

Transcription

1 MASTERS IN COUNSELOR EDUCATION PROGRAM EVALUATION REPORT Prepared by Marsene Caswell Research Assistant Holly J. P. Kopp Research Associate Center for Educational Policy, Applied Research and Evaluation College of Education & Human Development University of Southern Maine Spring 2001

2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page EXECUTIVE SUMMARY i I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 1 A. Purpose 1 B. Brief Program History 1 II. METHODOLOGY 2 A. Instruments 2 B. Population 3 C. Procedure 4 III. ANALYSIS 4 A. Research Question 1: Does the program content satisfy 4 the knowledge base needed for professional competency? B. Research Question 2: Does the program encourage 7 reflection and critical inquiry? C. Research Question 3: Does the program provide 8 opportunities to examine the impact of diversity? D. Research Question 4: Does the program provide good 9 opportunities for students to demonstrate content knowledge, skills, and understanding? E. Research Question 5: Are students satisfied with 10 program advising and various student services? F. Additional Analyses 12 G. Research Question 6: Are students satisfied with the 18 quality of instruction in each course? Do students feel each course is beneficial to their work? What is their overall assessment of the program and instruction? IV. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 22 A. Major conclusions 22 B. Recommendations 22 V. APPENDICES A. Surveys B. Frequency Tables

3 COUNSELOR EDUCATION PROGRAM EVALUATION I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In an effort to continuously improve, the College of Education and Human Development (CEHD) at the University of Southern Maine has implemented a plan to evaluate each of its degree programs on a five year schedule. The Counselor Education Program was scheduled as one of the programs to be evaluated in the academic year. The Counselor Education Program is designed to provide a professional preparation program that prepares its graduates to act as facilitators of change in the lives of individuals at all developmental levels. All graduates of the Counselor Education program for the past five years (N=141) and all current degree candidates (N=147) were sent surveys. Approximately, 35% of graduates (N=49) and 40% of current students (N=59) returned completed surveys. The survey was constructed using two types of items; a 5-point Likert scale to rate the program and courses, followed by several open-ended questions inviting participants to comment on strengths and weaknesses of the program and to make recommendations for improvements. The purpose of the study was to assess: 1. how well the program is meeting its stated goals and objectives; 2. if the program is responding to the common themes/processes as described in the CEHD conceptual framework; and 3. student satisfaction with both the academic program and student services. The College of Education and Human Development has adopted a conceptual framework which emphasizes: 1) connections and partnerships, 2) reflection and critical inquiry, 3) diversity, and 4) performance assessment. The computed means of the items that addressed the four areas indicated that the program was generally reflecting the framework, but that diversity was the weakest of the four areas. Participants were asked to rate courses on a) the quality of instruction, and b) how beneficial the knowledge, skills, and attitudes learned were to their work. The rating i

4 scale goes from 1 (poor) to 5 (excellent). Overall, means and frequencies suggest that graduates and current students are generally satisfied with the quality of instruction and agree that the courses are beneficial to their work. The results of the survey demonstrated an overall positive response to the Counselor Education Program on the part of graduates and current students. The most frequently mentioned strengths were: (1) the faculty, particularly in the areas of availability and interest in student progress, (2) practicum and internship experiences, (3) the flexibility of the program and the focus on meeting individual students needs, and (4) strong foundation and preparation in many practical skills provided by the program. The most frequently mentioned weaknesses were: (1) the need for more skills instruction with direct practical application throughout the program (specifically in the area of school counseling at the secondary level ), (2) the perceived lack of internship and practicum support in finding clients and sites, (3) the need for more specialty courses to be offered with more frequency, and (4) issues surrounding human development and diversity instruction. Based on these results, five areas are recommended for future attention. 1. One recommendation is that the program continue building on its many strengths 2. Second, we recommend that the program review the balance between theory and skills instruction and the opportunity for students to gain practical experiences throughout each stage of the program. 3. Third, we recommend that the program review the level of student support in preparation for field based experiences. 4. Fourth, we recommend that specialty course offerings with regards to frequency and variety be reviewed. 5. Finally, we recommend the program explore ways to help students develop a better understanding of diversity issues. ii

5 Marsene Caswell Research Assistant MASTERS IN COUNSELOR EDUCATION PROGRAM EVALUATION REPORT Prepared By Holly J. P. Kopp Research Associate II. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND Purpose In an effort to continuously improve, the College of Education and Human Development (CEHD) at the University of Southern Maine has implemented a plan to evaluate each of its degree programs on a five year schedule. The Counselor Education Program was scheduled as one of the programs to be evaluated in the academic year. The evaluation is designed to assess: 1. how well the program is meeting its stated goals and objectives; 2. if the program is responding to the common themes/processes as described in the CEHD conceptual framework; and, 3. levels of student satisfaction with both the academic program and student services. Brief Program History The Counselor Education program currently offers a variety of options for those wishing to pursue a degree in counseling. The Master of Science in Counselor Education was created to provide a professional preparation program that prepares its graduates to act as facilitators of change in the lives of individuals at all developmental levels. The program offers a Master of Science in Counseling degree (M. S.) with specialties in the areas of school counseling, mental health counseling (professional counseling and clinical counseling), rehabilitation counseling, and psychosocial rehabilitation counseling. In 1987, the school counseling specialty of the Counselor Education Program received accreditation by the Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs (CACREP). It is one of only three programs in New England to be accredited by CACREP. The mental health counseling specialty was also approved for 1

6 accreditation by CACREP in This program includes a professional counseling degree and a 60-hour clinical counseling specialty. The rehabilitation specialty is accredited by the Council on Rehabilitation Education (CORE). Graduates from this program are eligible to sit for the Certified Rehabilitation Counselor Examination. The University of Southern Maine and the Maine Bureau of Mental Health developed the psychosocial rehabilitation specialty in Students are awarded the Mental Health Rehabilitation Technician IV certification upon graduation from the master s specialty in psychosocial rehabilitation. It is the only program of it s kind in northern New England. A five-course certificate program is also available. III. METHODOLOGY In the fall of 2001 a survey was developed to assess the Counselor Education Program as described in the Purpose section above. In early December, the survey was mailed to 141 graduates and all current students. An analysis of the 107 returned documents was conducted in the spring of Instruments The graduate and current student surveys were developed by examining previous surveys designed by the faculty of the Counselor Education program. The program s description as presented in the University of Southern Maine Graduate Catalog was also used in order to construct items which would determine if students perceptions of the Counselor Education program agreed with the program's stated goals and objectives. The Conceptual Framework developed by the College of Education and Human Development was reviewed, as well, to ensure that survey items assessed the effectiveness of that emphasis. Faculty and administrators were invited to submit items they would like included in the survey. The surveys were drafted and submitted to program faculty for final changes and comments. The instruments for graduates and current students used a 5 point Likert scale to rate the program, with 1 being the lowest rating and 5 the highest. Frequency tables were constructed and means computed for all Likert scale items. In addition, the survey 2

7 instrument included several open-ended questions asking participants to comment on the program s strengths and weaknesses, as well as to make suggestions for improvements. Graduates of the Counselor Education program from the last three years were also sent a Supervisor/Employer survey and were asked to pass that survey along to their supervisor or employer. The instrument for Supervisors/Employer was one previously developed by the counseling faculty. Copies of the student and graduate survey instruments appear in Appendix A. Population The population surveyed included all graduates from the Counselor Education program who graduated between January of 1996 and June 2000 (N=141) and all current degree candidates as of November 2000 (N=147). The return rate for graduates (N= 49) was 35%, and the return rate for current students (N= 59) was 40%. Supervisor/Employer surveys were also sent with each survey to graduates who graduated within the last three years. Since only one supervisor survey was returned, the results of this survey will not be discussed in this report. Table 1 below displays the distribution of respondents by age and by specialty Table 1 Respondents Age and Specialty Area Age % of Current Students % of Graduates Program School Counseling Clinical Mental Health Counseling Mental Health/Psychosocial Rehabilitation Technician IV Professional Mental Health Counseling 60 & over 0 6 Rehabilitation Counseling % of Current Students % of Graduates

8 area. The largest group of respondents, 44% of graduates and 34% of current students, were involved with the Clinical Mental Health Counseling Specialty. Students of the School Counseling program also accounted for a large number of survey returns, making up 36% of current students and 31% of graduates responding. Graduate respondents were slightly older than current students with 74% of graduates indicating they were 40 years or older compared with 49% of current students. For further information regarding enrollment and graduation trends, please refer to Tables 2-5 in Appendix B. Procedure In early December 2000, survey packets were mailed to graduates and matriculated students asking that they be completed and returned within two weeks. Each packet included: 1. a letter explaining the survey; 2. a survey; and, 3. a postage paid envelope for returning the survey. 4. Packets for recent graduates (last three years) also included a Supervisor/Employer survey with an additional postage paid envelope. At the end of two weeks, reminder postcards were mailed to all graduates and current students. IV. ANALYSIS The survey information was tabulated and analyzed with respect to several evaluative research questions. In this section of the report, an analysis of survey items is presented along with the relevant data. A copy of the computed frequencies for all survey items appears throughout tables in the text of this report and / or in Appendix B. Research Question 1: Does the program content satisfy the knowledge base needed for professional competency? Table 2, on the next page, reports the response frequencies and means for three items dealing with student perceptions of the development of professional competency. The means of these three items for graduates range from 4.02 to The means for 4

9 current students range from 4.14 to 4.40 indicating that the overwhelming majority of graduates and students agreed that the program develops professional competencies in these areas. In regards to the first statement, The program provided a balance of theoretical and practical skills, the mean for graduates (4.27) and the mean for current students (4.14) were similar. A number of graduates praised the skill development that occurred through the program, Very practical skills are well taught. The program is broad in spectrum. A few current students commented that the faculty is important in providing this balance stating, instructor experience in the working world mixed with the theories. Very good skills classes. However, some current students thought more emphasis on skills is necessary, stating, not enough connections made between counseling theories and techniques and practical experience. Several students commented that more emphasis on theory would be helpful. Human development content and theories should be tested more thoroughly. You leave each course knowing most about the aspect you researched and having only a familiarity with the other theories or stages of development. Table 2 Development of Professional Competency Question The program provided a balance of theoretical and practical skills. The program helped me develop expertise in my area of interest. The program objectives were consistent with my professional objectives. Graduates N = 49 Current Students N=59 Disagree Agree Disagree Agree Mean Mean For the second item, The program helped me develop expertise in my area of interest, the mean for graduates is 4.02 and the mean for current students is 4.24 (both indicating positive responses). Many respondents, both current students and graduates alike, indicated that a strength of the program was its flexibility in meeting the needs and 5

10 interests of all students. Comments such as the following appeared on several surveys: (A strength of the program is) the interest and openness, and accessibility of faculty to students on a personal level. A small program allows this to happen and Flexibility (is a strength of the program). The small size makes the program more effective due to greater attention to the individual. Also, the program has the format to help individuals develop their own counseling style and Instructors are flexible with regard to meeting the needs of students with demanding schedules. Most students rated the program s emphasis in developing individuals area of interest positively. However, some of the written suggestions discussed the need for some specialty courses to be offered more frequently. Others indicated that specialty courses in additional areas would help them further develop expertise in areas that interested them. The need for additional offerings of courses addressing the following areas were mentioned: chemical dependence, additional diversity topics, depressive disorders and suicide, crisis intervention, specific counseling methods and theoretical orientations, contemporary healing methods, spirituality, and elder mental health. One trend in comments written on surveys is important to note at this time. A number of school counseling graduates made comments regarding their lack of expertise and competence in areas of importance to their practice in the field. Several samples of these types of comments follow: (The program had) absolutely no regard for the unfortunate reality that school counselors are still viewed as schedulers and that we are pioneering a new role. Your graduates are really discouraged, where we could be charged up as if activists going against the grain and For school counseling, more practical tools and training at the different levels (is needed). I was completely unprepared for scheduling, SAT s, etc. in high school. In the case of the third statement, The program objectives were consistent with my professional objectives, both groups indicated rather high responses with current students giving slightly higher mean responses (4.40) than did graduates (4.24). Samples of related positive comments include: The idea of developing a professional identity instills ethical/personal standards and eases the transition into our career in counseling and Faculty seemed to care about our personal and professional development, as well as meeting CA and ACREP standards. Great preparation for licensing exam and for 6

11 practicum and internship. One graduate mentioned that they would like to have seen more emphasis given to ethical issues, children s treatment, and preparation for licensure and practice. Research Question 2: Does the program encourage reflection and critical inquiry? When asked to rate the statement, The program helped me refine my skills of critical inquiry, the mean graduate response was 4.02 while the mean response of current students was 4.15 indicating positive responses for both groups as seen in Table 3. For the statement, The program helped me examine the connections between theory and practice, response resulted in a graduate mean of 4.24 and a current student mean of In regards to this question, many comments from graduates seem to agree that Practicum and Internship were the ultimate aspects to putting skills and theories together. However, there were some comments by current students that there are not enough connections made between counseling theories and techniques, and practical experience. The lower means for the current students may, in part, be explained by the fact that they have not finished the program and/or completed the practicum and internship courses. The following comment summarizes a suggestion proposed by several graduates. I would like to see more practical experience earlier in the program, perhaps running through the program. Table 3 Reflection and Critical Inquiry in Program Question The program helped me refine my skills of critical inquiry. The program helped me examine the connections between theory and practice. The program required rigorous intellectual discipline. Graduates N=49 Current Students N=59 Disagree Agree Disagree Agree Mean Mean

12 Respondents agreed to a slightly lesser degree with the statement, The program required rigorous intellectual discipline, with a mean graduate response of 3.76 and a 3.85 mean current student response. The most frequent response to this question from both graduates and current students was a 4 which indicates moderate agreement with this item. Several respondents made comments such as the following: Some classes are very soft and lack rigor, Too much accommodation for adult learner reduces standards and rigor and Weak academic underpinning. Another student recommended the program be evaluated from a purely academic perspective, to objectively evaluate the intellectual rigor of the program and classes. While these types of comments represent the minority, they point to a more complex opinion regarding this item. Research Question 3: Does the program provide opportunities to examine the impact of diversity? Two items on the survey addressed diversity and are listed in Table 4 below. In response to the statement, The program helped me develop a better understanding of diversity issues, the means for graduate and current student respondents were 3.82 and 4.14 respectively. When asked to rate, The faculty used examples of diversity (different cultures, religions, races, people with disabilities, etc.) in their presentations, the respective means were 3.92 and Table 4 Diversity Issues Question The program helped me develop a better understanding of diversity issues. The faculty used examples of diversity (different cultures, religions, races, people with disabilities, etc.) in their presentations. Graduates N=49 Current Students N=59 Disagree Agree Disagree Agree Mean Mean

13 The means for items related to diversity all indicate a fairly positive view on the part of program participants towards diversity training in the program; however, a number of comments discussed the need for more diversity training or improved instruction in courses most specifically related to diversity. The following comment also seems to indicate a possible deficit in at least one area of diversity training: MORE DIVERSITY training! Especially in sexuality. One is more likely to encounter a homosexual in their counseling room than many other groups in Maine. The unique, yet necessary needs of this group are not understood by many of my student colleagues. Other comments addressed the diversity training more broadly, such as the following: Some diversity training seems to perpetuate stereotyping instead of respect for individuals and their culture and Continuing lack of visibility of and discussion /info. about people from other cultural groups this is improving but continues to be an area in need of improvement. Others pointed out the lack of cultural diversity among staff and student body (but then so is this country). Research Question 4: Does the program provide good opportunities for students to demonstrate content knowledge, skills, and understanding? In regards to Research Question 4, students responded to questions regarding assessment, collaboration, and group work. Overall, students and graduates felt that faculty appropriately assessed performance, and that opportunities for collaboration, group work and individual work were all provided. Both graduates and current students of the Counselor Education program reported moderately positive responses (means of 4.00 and 3.94 respectively) for the statement, Faculty appropriately assessed student performance as seen in Table 5 on the next page. Sample comments included: Most instructors care about the quality of your learning experience by encouraging discussion and critical thinking rather than grading on memorization of factual information, and More emphasis on classroom exams (is needed). More objective, measurable standards in definable courses with less personcentered subjective learning. 9

14 Table 5 Diversity Issues Question Faculty appropriately assessed student performance. The program provided opportunities to work effectively as a team member and collaborative change agent. The program provided opportunities to work effectively with individuals and groups. Graduates N=49 Current Students N=59 Disagree Agree Disagree Agree Mean Mean When asked to respond to the item The program provided opportunities to work effectively as a team member and collaborative change agent, graduates responded with a mean of 4.06 and current students with a mean of 4.15, indicating a strong positive response. A current student exemplified these high scores with the following comment: Students are encouraged to think, and to work together as a team. The professors are also part of that team. Having students work in groups (is a strength). Graduates and currents students responded very positively to the item, The program provided opportunities to work effectively with individuals and groups, with means of 4.29 an 4.31 respectively. Several respondents commented that their fellow students were one of the strengths of the program. While the majority of respondents indicated a 5, which shows strong agreement, one student indicated group work was overemphasized: I would like to have one class in which group work/projects are not emphasized. Group work at the graduate level is very difficult, particularly when time is not given in class. Research Question 5: Are students satisfied with program advising and various student services? Table 6 on the next page reports frequencies and means for both graduates and current students for several items dealing with advising services and the availability of 10

15 program faculty. The means for all items were above 4.00, which indicated an overall positive perception of these services. Table 6 Satisfaction with Student Services Question Program advising was a. available when I needed it. Graduates N=49 Current Students N=59 Disagree Agree Disagree Agree Mean Mean b. helpful The accessibility of Counseling Education faculty was satisfactory. The assistance provided by Counseling Education faculty outside of class was helpful Responses to the question Program advising was: a) available when I needed it; and b) helpful, indicated that most students were pleased with the availability and quality of program advising, with over 80% of respondents indicating they agreed or strongly agreed. While few comments were made directly regarding advising services, one student did make the following comment: The green sheet that I got at the beginning of the year was pretty confusing in terms of what to take and when. The means for the item, The accessibility of Counseling Education faculty was satisfactory, were 4.63 for graduates and 4.23 for current students. Similar results were indicated for the related item, The assistance provided by Counseling Education faculty outside of class as helpful, with graduates indicating a mean of 4.33 and current students a mean of When asked to list the strengths of the Counselor Education program, over one-half of all respondents indicated the faculty was strength. The most frequent comments referred to availability of faculty members and their interest in the progress and individual needs of the students. Students made many comments about faculty members that were similar to the following: (Strengths of the program were) personality and approachability of professors, Faculty both instruction and availability. They have all shown an interest in my progress and the approachability of the professors, 11

16 their dedication to the profession and willingness to share their approaches and knowledge to their students. Another student discussed the strengths of the program as the knowledge and skills of faculty. Commitment of faculty to their profession and continued growth. Commitment of faculty to encouraging and supporting growth and risk taking of students. Creation of a non-competitive, cooperative environment in support of building a community of learners. Acceptance of individual differences, learning styles, and areas of interest. Additional Analyses: Questions that were generated by the faculty of the Counselor Education Program are examined in this section of the report. These questions involved: (1) graduates level of preparation regarding specific skills and knowledge areas, (2) graduates field-based experiences and supervision, (3) graduates professional credentials and current positions, and (4) graduates and current students interest in further education. In developing surveys for the purpose of this evaluation, the Counseling Education Faculty members requested that several items from previous Counselor Education graduate surveys be included. The first question addressed the level of preparation in a number of knowledge areas. The results are displayed in Table 7 on the next page in order of descending means. The higher the mean, the higher the level of preparedness as rated by survey respondents. It is important to note when viewing the table, that not all respondents indicated a response for each area. For example, 48 respondents indicated their level of knowledge in the area of Theories of counseling, but only 10 indicated responses in the area of rehabilitation/disabilities. A majority of responding graduates indicated they felt prepared in most of the areas with mean scores falling between 4.45 and Some knowledge areas in which respondents indicated the highest level of preparation with a mean above 4.00 were psychological diagnosis, theories of counseling, psychological measurement, and research and statistics. Areas in which respondents indicated the lowest level of preparedness include professional credentialing, abnormal psychology, professional organizations, family counseling, and counseling persons with special needs. 12

17 Table 7 Graduates Perceived Competency in Selected Knowledge Areas In order of descending means Graduates 30. KNOWLEDGE AREAS: Please indicate (Indicates # of respondents replying in (N=49) your preparation in each of the following each category) knowledge areas. Poor Excellent Mean Psychological (i.e., clinical) diagnosis Theories of counseling Psychological measurement (testing) Research and statistics Treatment planning/management Group counseling Rehabilitation/disabilities Crisis intervention/counseling Ethical and legal issues in your profession Consultation Career and lifestyle counseling (vocation/career development) Human growth and development Program Planning Multicultural/diversity issues Substance abuse Program Evaluation Professional credentialing Abnormal psychology Professional Organizations Family Counseling Counseling persons with special needs A second question focused on graduates perceived level of competency in skill areas. Table 8 on the next page displays the results of this question in order of descending means. Overall, a majority of responding graduates indicated they felt prepared in most of the areas with mean scores falling between 4.46 and However, only three skill areas had means above Skill areas in which graduates felt most prepared were 13

18 individual counseling, and clinical diagnosis. Graduates felt least prepared in the areas of classroom guidance skills, career and lifestyle counseling, and counseling persons with special needs. Table 8 Graduates Perceived Competency in Selected Skill Areas In order of descending means 31. SKILLS AREAS: Please indicate your personal evaluation of your preparation in each of the following skills areas in your program(s) (Indicates # of respondents replying in each category) Graduates (N=49) Poor Excellent Mean Individual counseling Clinical (psycho) diagnosis Child and adolescent counseling Treatment planning/management Rehabilitation processes Assessment Group Counseling Program planning Crisis intervention/counseling Consultation Classroom guidance skills Career and lifestyle counseling Counseling persons with special needs Counseling Education faculty decided that they wanted to explore interns experience with supervision, and their perception of training opportunities provided during their field based experiences. Results to three questions relating to these topics are detailed in Table 9 on the next page. Means on these items ranged from 4.00 to 4.29, indicating an overall positive response. Many of the comments, particularly on graduate surveys, referred to practicum and internship experiences. Some of the graduates spoke highly of their field-based experiences, such as the following graduate who said, The practicum and internship are excellent and the counseling skills course makes the program. While the majority of respondents indicated that they strongly agreed the supervision during practicum and other field-based experiences was excellent, a number 14

19 of comments questioned the support received prior to the experience. One student made the following comment: Having to find practicum clients by yourself (is a weakness of the program). This is potentially dangerous and could result in inappropriate clients being paired with inexperienced counselors. Another student made the following suggestion for improving the program: Develop a better way for students to meet clients in practicum. Perhaps they could do so through a counseling center or other agencies. Meeting strangers inside of closets in Portland is a recipe for disaster. Table 9 Graduates Perception of Field-based Experiences and Supervision Graduates N=49 The sites provided for field-based experiences offered excellent training opportunities. The on-campus individual supervision for practicum was excellent. The on-campus, individual, group supervision for field-based experiences was excellent. Disagree Agree Mean Similar comments emerged regarding the internship experience. A sample of comments includes: Lack of support provided during internship (i.e., finding a site) no resources available. and Greater university support for developing and guiding students to varied real world internships, at least with regard to clinical counseling (is needed). One student suggested that the college provide students with a list of local contacts for both practicum and internship. The third area queried by Counselor Education faculty concerned the professional credentials and employment of graduates of the program. As can be seen in Table 10 on the next page, a large majority of those responding hold a Licensed Clinical Professional Counselor degree (87%) and many are also National Certified Counselors (71%). Fewer, approximately one-third, have obtained certification from the Maine Department of Education. This is the majority of those graduates that find such a certificate applicable. The smallest percentage of graduates responding are Certified Rehabilitation Counselors 15

20 (7%), though over 50% of those responded they do not find the certification applicable to their work. Table 10 Professional Credentials of Graduates Do you hold any of the following licenses? Licensed Professional Counselor 9 Licensed Clinical Professional Counselor 87 Licensed Substance Abuse Counselor 4 Are you a National Certified Counselor (NCC)? Yes 71 No 23 Not Applicable 6 Do you currently hold certification from the Maine Department of Education? Yes 35 No 20 Not applicable 45 Are you a Certified Rehabilitation Counselor (CRC)? Yes 7 No 42 Not Applicable 51 Table 11 on the next page indicates that the majority of graduates (70%) changed jobs as a result of their master s degree. Overall, 82 % of graduates are currently employed with 63% employed on a full-time basis. Graduates of the Counselor Education program reported employment in a variety of positions accounting for 25 different job titles. The largest group of graduates (32%) reported they were currently employed as school or guidance counselors. Other job titles reported by more than one respondent include counselor, social worker, case manager, and crisis unit clinician/worker. For a complete list of job titles, please see Appendix B, Table 7. Further data regarding clients served, salary, and location is also included in Appendix B, Tables The fourth area of additional analysis concerned student interest in further education. When graduates were asked about further educational study at the University of Southern Maine, 61% of those responding indicated interest in pursuing a doctoral program. Slightly fewer, 53%, were interested in pursuing a Certificate of Advanced Study (53%) as indicated in Table 12 on the next page. 16