Academic Program Review SUMMARY*
Department under review _____Microbiology______________
Date self-study received in Dean’s office Fall, 2010
Date of external consultant’s review
March, 2010
Date APR received report
February, 2011
APR’S summary of self-study (first two boxes must be completed)
APR’s summary of how the academic program attempts to reach its goals and objectives
and the extent to which those goals and objectives have been achieved.
The UW-L Department of Microbiology, in the College of Science and Health, is designed
to prepare students for a variety of workforce options as well as graduate school. This
preparation emphasizes teacher-student interaction and research. The department offers
four different tracks for majors, and two concentrations for a master’s degree. The
program is impressively self-aware and well organized, working diligently and effectively
to correct issues noted in past APR reports and external reviews. The department’s
assessment tools and response to said assessment is excellent. While the total number
of students in this department is fairly low in comparison to the number of faculty and
amount of needed resources, and the department has struggled to find majors early
enough to enroll them in the challenging curriculum, those students who are a part of the
program are ably served and very well prepared at completion. Graduates consistently
find employment in a variety of fields, depending upon major and emphasis, and
consistently gain entrance into reputable graduate programs.
APR’s comments including:
Notable Strengths
The department has many notable strengths. The department is unusual for a
comprehensive school such as UW-La Crosse, in that the Microbiology department is its
own entity and is not housed under a biology department. In recognition of the unique
contributions of this department to the university and to the region, the department has
been named a University of Wisconsin Center of Excellence. The department has secured
external funding for supplies, equipment, curriculum development, and research. The
department includes a broad variety of faculty involved in many different research
pursuits. Faculty and students collaborate on research which also often leads to
publication. With this, the faculty and students are highly successful at securing research
grants for their related projects. The department makes good use of a broad variety of
assessment data, in that they are constantly responding to said data through curriculum
modification, etc.
Notable Weaknesses
A laboratory intensive curriculum and research emphasis has resulted in concerns about
balancing teaching load with scholarship and service. Inadequate lab space is a common
complaint. There are a low number of students that declare Microbiology as a major in
their freshman year, making it difficult to include latecomers in the intensive curriculum.
Additionally, in the past the department has faced concern that a low number of students
– in comparison to the rest of the campus – are in Microbiology courses, resulting in a
comparatively low SCH/FTE ratio. Last, as is common, the budget line for the acquisition
and repair of proper lab instruments and supplies is precarious. This being said, the
department is actively working to resolve, manage or at least address these issues.
APR comments on any/all of the six specific components of the self-study (if applicable)
Self Study: Purposes
The purposes of the Microbiology Department are clearly articulated: “provide intensive,
progressive, well-balanced, educational experiences in microbiology and clinical
laboratory science with an emphasis on inquiry-based student learning and laboratory
competence, to a student population that is highly diverse both in educational background,
and in academic and career goals.” The department strives towards goals and objectives
which are clearly delineated and productively ambitious. Further, there is evidence in
curriculum, assessment, etc. that these goals and objectives are being addressed and/or
reached.
Self Study: Curriculum
The department houses two majors, Microbiology (with Biomedical, Business, and
Environmental Studies Concentrations) and Clinical Laboratory Science. The fact that the
Microbiology department is its own entity in a comprehensive state school such as UWL
where microbiology would typically fall within the department of Biology, attests to its
uniqueness. In 1988 the UW-System recognized the microbiology program as a “Center
of Excellence.” The program and hence its curriculum, places a strong emphasis on
laboratory competence. The curriculum is based on the recommendations of the American
Academy of Microbiology and the American Society for Microbiology.
The program offers a wide variety of constantly-updated courses that cover a broad
range of topics within the field of microbiology. As noted in the self-study, “Faculty
regularly revise course syllabi and laboratory exercises to reflect current advances.”
Completing the microbiology major or CLS major requires, a total of 120-135 credit
hours. While the mean number of credits for students at time of graduation is between
141 and 149, the typical cause of this is that most students do not become CLS or
microbiology majors until their after their first year. There are ongoing attempts to attract
majors earlier, through the course Introduction to the Microbial Sciences.
A Microbiology major with a Business concentration was implemented in response to
inquiries from students. A Microbiology Minor was begun in 2005-2006. Finally, six new
courses have been offered since the last Academic Program Review.
Self Study: Assessment of Student Learning & Degree of Program Success
The Microbiology program makes use of both direct and indirect measures of
assessment. These measures are thorough and productive. The data that is produced
has led to useful changes in the curriculum and a variety of other departmental practices.
While there are many assessments for all the different programs, it is important to note
that the CLS assesses through the Board of Registry exam and employment. On this
exam, “[o]ne hundred percent of the 41 UW-L students . . . since 2004 have passed,” 81%
have had scores above the national average, and all of students who have completed the
CLS program found jobs in the field within three months.
As a result of student feedback on the capstone course, the program has implemented
an oral presentation requirement and a “Math Across the Curriculum (MAC)” program to
aid in the development of computational skills. Further, the department has recently
reviewed and revised the general knowledge exam. Assessment data itself has been
better organized and is now more easily available for faculty to review. The department is
currently working to institute an assessment of microbiology laboratory skills.
In order to complement the self-assessment the department has added a writing
component to the assessment program. This is accomplished within the capstone.
Learning Environment Surveys have consistently shown that most students felt the most
valuable component of their curriculum was the large quantity of lab experience. The
value of this experience is confirmed via comments from employers and graduate
programs where our majors are now students. In addition, in this same survey a majority
of students have rated advising “as either exceptional or very good.”
The department offers three general education classes, which include both informal and
formal modes of assessment.
Self Study: Previous Academic Program Review and New Program Initiatives
The 2002 APR summary highlighted five areas of concern, which are similar to current
concerns. The five areas were, in summary: heavy teaching loads for faculty without relief
for interaction with students outside the classroom, tight lab space, small numbers of
majors declaring as first-year students, low funding for lab supplies and instruments, and
lack of assistantships to encourage graduate students. For all of these concerns, APR
can now report that Microbiology has offered thoughtful, constructive, and innovative
responses. While several of these concerns are endemic and largely inescapable for
programs at UW-L – for example, the lack of lab and prep space is both well known and
unsolvable by Faculty Senate – some of them can be addressed by the department, and it
certainly appears that Microbiology has been active in considering new approaches.
The two recommendations offered by the APR in 2002 did not offer any specific
approaches to solving the problems but the department has appeared to come up with
coping strategies on their own. Of particular interest is the development of a number of
100-level General Education courses both as a means of increasing numbers of students
and attracting new majors in the first-year. These are Global Bioterrorism, Microbes and
Society, and Introduction to Microbial Sciences.
The self-study indicates a thoughtful and data-driven approach to solving the problems
of tight lab space and demanding workload. While these are challenges that do not
appear to have any simple solution, Microbiology is closely tracking resources (see Table
17) and considering multiple approaches to addressing SCH concerns. One solution
identified here, along “with the addition of a new [IAS] member, [is] less emphasis by the
administration on the SCH production.” With that, says the department “we hope, the
faculty will have more time to mentor undergraduate and graduate researchers.”
Self Study: Personnel
The microbiology department clearly encourages and expects professional
development on the part of faculty, in a manner and mode consistent with other
departments on campus. The relative emphases of teaching, research and service, for
faculty and staff alike, are explicitly stated in departmental bylaws. The relative values of
different types of scholarship and service – comparing publishing and obtaining patents,
for example – are likewise explicitly stated.
There are no expectations for faculty or staff retirements in the coming five years. The
department hopes to receive additional personnel support from the Growth, Quality and
Access program in the form of three IAS and one tenure-track faculty member, all with the
goal of addressing tight teaching schedules and loads.
Self Study: Support for Achieving Academic Program Goals (Resources)
The self-study notes that there are “four dedicated laboratories for microbiology
instruction in Cowley Hall,” one shared space in the Health Sciences Center, and one
smaller fermentation lab. This would appear to be adequate to teaching needs, but only in
the most minimal sense that courses are successfully taught in these spaces, noting that
the Cowley Hall labs meet only minimum expectations. As the self study puts it, “[t]here is
a dire need for more space to house equipment and supplies related to these courses.”
Similar statements about research laboratories note that lab space exists, but that it is
severely limited, for faculty and student research alike. In the words of the self-study, “our
greatest need for space, however, is in the prep room.” That space has not expanded
along with the growing number of courses and “sometimes this poses safety concerns.”
The self-study notes that the department “has been very successful in securing external
funding for both curriculum development and research” and the data provided fully support
this claim. Table 8 in the self-study tallies $2,750,000 in grants secured by department
faculty in the last five years. It is evident that the success of the Microbiology department
in devising new courses, programs, and research projects is significantly dependant on
the commitment and skill of the departmental faculty in securing external funding.
External Reviewer Recommendations
APR’s Comments on External Reviewer (if applicable)
An external review team consisting of two professors from Michigan Technical
University visited the department in February 2010. The visit team wrote that, in looking
at the 2002 review, “it was interesting to note that the lists of strengths and weaknesses
would be similar to what we found in this recent review.” They went on to observe that
this most likely did not mean that the department wasn’t responsive to their challenges,
but rather that the department, “in the case of infrastructure, can not also deal with some
areas of concern.” This observation jibes with APR’s observations – that the department
is responsive to concerns, but some challenges are beyond their ability to substantively
address.
The external review team used very positive language to describe the department. They
note that it is “doing well in its mission,” that “faculty are highly regarded on-campus,” and
that internally, the “Department’s personnel work will together.” In summarizing the
curriculum, they note that “the Departmental programs generally seem to be well-poised
to meet the emerging needs of the field.” These positive statements are spread
throughout the report.
The reviewers also present their concerns, many of which are tempered by the
limitations of resources. An example of one such recommendation: “An increase in the
availability of undergraduate research opportunities for both Microbiology and CLS majors
would be desirable; however, this currently is difficult to achieve given the less than
adequate facilities available to most of the faculty.” The reviewers indicate trends in the
field that might expand the number of requirements but demand them in a shorter time; as
such, note the reviewers, “Fitting all the requirements into three-years of university
instruction, such as with this CLS program, will be a challenge.”
The external reviewers spent time considering SCH/FTE ratio: “Based on data included
in the Self-study Report, efforts to maintain the undergraduate SCH/IFTE production
levels over the past several years seem to be successful. . . The Department would be
better served by efforts to reduce faculty contact hours than trying to add many more
courses. However, the basis for contact hour reductions (down to as low as 9/week) need
to be clearly stated and consistently applied.”
On the ongoing problem of Cowley Hall, the external reviewers provide a summary of
both the challenge and the department’s response: “With a few exceptions, the
Department’s overall physical infrastructure is out-dated and, at times, inappropriate; it is
remarkable what is being accomplished despite these limitations.”
A long list of specific recommendations conclude the report. These include
redistributing teaching loads, expanding the MS, considering additional graduate degrees,
increasing offerings in Molecular Biology, instituting a department-wide safety committee,
and a recommendation to “[d]etermine the basis by which faculty contact hours are
reduced (and, if appropriate, place in the departmental by-laws).”
Department’s response to the Reviewer Recommendations
APR’s Comments on the Department’s Response (if applicable)
As with all other records provided by the Microbiology Department, the response to the
external reviewer’s report is substantive, thoughtful and organized. The department
provides responses to four challenges and concerns that appear to be above the level of
the department, as well as 14 specific recommendations for the department’s future.
All of these responses are meaningful and indicate the department’s engagement in
addressing these concerns. While the department largely sets aside the reviewer’s
recommendations to pursue substantively reduced contact hours, they have indicated
revisions to the by-laws “addressing contact hour disparities associated with class size,
number of advisees, . . . graduate level courses . . number of . . . mentees, and number
of graduate thesis advisees.” In all other instances, the department responses indicate
continued application to the identified problems and recommendations. APR notes that
the department has itself responded to concerns about classroom and prep room safety
raised in the self-study and external review, committing to develop a standing Safety
Committee for the department, charged with developing and overseeing safety standards.
Dean’s Letter
APR’s Comments on Dean’s Letter (if applicable)
The Dean’s letter is a useful and substantive comment on the self-study and external
review. While distinguishing between recommended changes from the external reviewers
that are too large for the department level, the letter does indicate that “the college does
strongly concur” with several department-level changes, including possible workload
reduction, as long as it was done in an organized manner: “A reduction of teaching
workload for research-active faculty has always been an option available to the
department. Current workload guidelines permit such accommodation . . . With a
reduction in workload, however, clear expectations for student engagement, publications,
and extramural funding should be delineated.” The letter also indicates a sympathy with
“the perception that high-cost (lab-intensive, low-enrollment) undergraduate programs are
undervalued,” but notes that major changes in funding are unlikely, and so the department
is “encouraged to find efficiencies” in its current budgets.
The Dean’s letter sounds a note of caution even while generally supporting the external
reviewer’s recommendation to begin planning for a Professional Science Masters, or
PSM, degree. “[I]t should be noted that adequate resources/funding must be identified
prior to its implementation,” notes the letter. “The addition of yet another high-cost, lowenrollment program to a department that is already short on resources cannot be
considered appropriate without assurances that the new program will not impact existing
programs.”
The letter ends with recognition of the department’s accomplishments. After praising
both the faculty and departmental leadership, the letter notes that “the willingness of the
department to make change and seek new directions, especially in light of the fiscal
difficulties such change represents, is truly appreciated.”
APR’s Recommendations (must be completed)
Recommendations:
There is fairly little that APR can recommend that Microbiology has not already done in
response to their own challenges. Still:

A simple recommendation would be to continue the department’s exceptional
commitment to a challenging mission, and to maintain their impressive and
cohesive work in curriculum innovation, assessment, and leadership.

If indeed Microbiology wishes to begin long-term planning for a PSM degree, APR
recommends that they consult with faculty senate’s Academic Planning committee,
consider creating a long-term strategic planning process and document, and seek
partners beyond the UW-L campus who might support such a program with
external funding. However, the APR committee urges caution in adding additional
programs and/or courses without sufficient support until Microbiology resolves
current concerns about tight resources and demands on personnel.

Microbiology should be conscious of current plans to revise a university-wide
definition of faculty workload. If their concern about SCH/FTE numbers is largely
dependent on the definition of an appropriate SCH/FTE ratio, and the Dean’s letter
indicates the ability to selectively reduce workload within the current policy, then
changes to the definition of workload should be a strategic concern for the
department. On the same note, the department should continue to monitor and
consistently apply policy that relieves teaching load in exchange for service and
research, as directed in the Dean’s letter.
 No serious areas to address – review in 7 years
□ Some areas to address – review in 7 years
□ Some areas to address – department should submit short report on progress to Fac
Senate/Provost’s Office in 3 years
* APR’s report to faculty senate will consist of this completed form in electronic form.