Click here to return to Messiah College's homepage
Department of Sociology

Remediation Process & Procedure

 

Student Evaluation and Remediation

Students are assessed on the department’s critical competencies, professionalism, and performance on an ongoing basis. Department faculty and administrators meet tri-annually to review the progress of all students. If students are deemed in need of improvement they will be contacted by their advisors and a development plan may be put in place.

 

Process and Procedure for Evaluation

At the end of each course term faculty submit grades and rate students on the critical competencies evaluation. The program administrative assistant and chair review all grades and evaluations. The assistant alerts advisors to advisees who received below a B grade in a class (see “Standards of Scholarship” in the student handbook) or received an “Area of Significant concern" rating on a critical competency criteria. If there is an urgent need for intervention (e.g. the student has failed a class or exhibited unethical conduct with a client) the advisor may bring the issue to a weekly faculty meeting to determine next steps. If the concern is not urgent, the advisor may wait until the next student review meeting to address the issue.

Three times a year (usually May, August, and January) the entire department faculty, program administrative assistant, and internship coordinator meet to review all students in the counseling program using the following procedure.

 

  • Prior to the meeting, the program administrative assistant will notify all advisors about any students who have received an "Area of significant concern" on one or more sections of the critical competencies course assessment or received below a B in a course since the last student review. Students who meet these criteria will heretofore be referred to as “flagged” students.

  • Advisors will review flagged student’s folder of critical competencies assessments (in student’s electronic folder) and prepare to summarize the areas of concern.

  • At the student review meeting, advisors will verbally summarize areas of concern for flagged students. The department faculty will discuss whether the student needs intervention or monitoring for the areas of concern.

  • All other students in the program (not flagged) will be placed on the table for in-depth review if requested by someone present at the meeting.

  • If further monitoring or intervention is agreed upon, the student’s advisor and one other faculty member will create a student development plan.

  • It may also be decided that monitoring or intervention is not needed but the advisor should make contact with the student to address areas of concern.

 

After the tri-annual review meetings:

 

  • A written development plan will be presented to the student in person or in a face-to-face online format by the advisor, and the student will either agree to the plan or ask to make a rebuttal and propose modifications. The student will make a rebuttal with proposed modifications in writing that will be presented to the whole faculty for discussion.

  • The student will sign the plan and mail it to the advisor.

  • An original signed plan will be saved to the student’s electronic folder by the program administrative assistant.

  • The advisor will be tasked with monitoring and following up on any plans put in place.

  • If and when the student has met the terms of the plan the advisor will notify the student in writing. A copy of this notification will also go in the student’s electronic file.

  • If the terms of the plan are not met, the advisor will consult with the co-author of the plan, the program director, and/or the entire faculty as to next steps.

 

 

Apply Now!

Contact Us

Licensure/Certification
Financial Aid
Textbooks
Grad Student Handbook

Facebook

follow us on facebook!