Academic Program Review SUMMARY
Department under review__Department of Exercise and Sports Science, Undergraduate
Exercise Science Program (formerly Fitness)__
Date self-study received in Dean’s office
Fall 2009
Date of external consultant’s review
April 2011
Date APR received report
Fall 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 program under review is the undergraduate Exercise Science program, a part of the Exercise
and Sports Science Department of the College of Science and Health. Before 2010, it was known
as the Fitness program. It was re-named as a part of a major curricular revision, and now this
Exercise Science program has two tracks: Fitness and Pre-Professional.
APR’s comments including:
Notable Strengths
This program represents the historic strength of UW-L in the area of physical fitness
education, with roots in the first decades of the 20th century. It has an exceptionally high
placement rate, significant continuation to graduate school, and extensive internship and
field experience programs for students. While there are many programs similar to this one
in the region and beyond, UW-L’s program has some unique features, including fitness
requirements and a developing commitment to special populations. Students appear to be
able to finish within a reasonable time frame. The recent program revision indicates that
the faculty in this program are adaptive, dynamic, and planning for improvement. Partly
because of these strengths, the program is in high demand, can afford to maintain high
standards for admission, and turns away significant numbers of students who do not meet
those requirements.
Notable Weaknesses
Large numbers of students have stretched existing resources, leaving classes “bursting at
the seams” according to the director, and posing questions about the possibility of program
expansion with limited resources. Leadership instability and weakness in staffing levels are
the key limiters to this program’s success and ability to expand. Future challenges include
shifting expectations of external agencies, a long-term challenge of integration with the
University at large, a growing external and internal emphasis on undergraduate research
experiences, difficulty in accessing resources among many competing programs, and the
key strategic decision on whether to expand the number of students without increases in
staffing and funding.
APR comments on any/all of the six specific components of the self-study (if applicable)
Self Study: Purposes
The mission of the Exercise and Sport Science Department relates to the benefits
of physical activity and its integration into daily life. Under that umbrella, the Exercise
Science program was designed for students interested in graduate education and careers
in fitness, health and related fields. Goals of the program include offering students
extensive clinical and field experiences, and “to prepare students to sit for relevant
certification examinations including but not limited to ACSM’s” HFS certification.
The program objectives, as outlined, should provide excellent preparation for students
in these fields. A pre-professional curriculum track was recently added to better serve the
student population continuing on to graduate education in exercise science and related
health fields.
Self Study: Curriculum
The former Exercise and Sport Science Major - Fitness emphasis (2005-2007 catalog)
did have a major requirement of 57 credits, including 40 300/400 level ESS credits. This
program was officially endorsed by the American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM) at
the Health and Fitness Instructor level. This program was recently revised and as of Fall
2010, there are now two different curricular tracks: Fitness and Pre-professional. Both
tracks have the same Exercise Science core of 33 credits. The Fitness track requires an
additional 47 credits including courses in training and administration and a one semester
internship. The Pre-professional track requires an additional 53 credits including math,
chemistry, biology and psychology courses that are pre-admission requirements for many
graduate programs where these majors would likely apply. The external reviewer liked
the change to the two tracks and felt the curriculum was “well-designed...builds upon
knowledge from year to year”.
APR notes that the two existing tracks of Exercise Science have requirements totaling
80 and 86 credits, and that these totals greatly exceed the University Curriculum
Committee’s “Extent of Majors” policy, which suggests a 40-credit limit. In consultation
with UCC, APR has determined that the Exercise Science program’s variance from
policy is an end result of a long history of the program existing on its own, before the
establishment of the UCC’s policies and without full integration into the university’s
curricular programs and policies since the creation of those policies.
Beyond the university, the Exercise Science curriculum differs from comparable
programs (both in the UW system and other programs in the region) due to its core
requirements for physical activity electives and, in particular, a 3-credit field experience
that occurs early in the program. In surveys, students and employers have both noted the
exceptional preparation provided by this program. The new Pre-professional track should,
likewise, provide for better preparation of the students headed into graduate studies.
The Fitness track includes a class on Fitness across the Lifespan (ESS 443, previously
2 courses: ESS 443-Youth and Family Fitness, and ESS 442-Aging and Physical Activity),
however, both an internal subcommittee and external reviewers have noted a need for
another special populations course. Another area that was identified for improvement was
more lab experience in core courses and/or expanded opportunities for undergraduate
research.
Self Study: Assessment of Student Learning & Degree of Program Success
The ACSM student learning outcomes were used as a guide for the curriculum.
Assessment of these outcomes and degree of program success is largely conducted
through three categories of measures. First alumni survey results, which show a high
rate of employment within the area of study or entrance to graduate school within 6
months of graduation. Secondly, the program receives internship and field experience
supervisor feedback. Both tracks have a 3 credit field experience, whereas the internship
is the capstone experience only for the Fitness track. There appears to be no capstone
experience for the Pre-professional track. We would like to see more information provided
from the evaluation forms for these experiences rather than just the average of the overall
score. It might be worthwhile to rework the evaluation forms so that they better address
the learning outcomes as the current forms seem rather generic. And third, the program
receives performance data on students that take the ACSM Health/Fitness Instructor
national certification exam (not required for all students, but greater than 85% of those
that do take the exam pass compared to the 60% national average). It would be useful
to see the actual data on this - the link provided did not go to results as was indicated.
The external reviewer talked about the need for a new assessment tool to determine the
success of the new Pre-professional track in achieving its goals.
Changes made to the program due to assessment were said to include expansion in the
list of accepted elective courses, but the new tracks appear to have no electives included.
The report also talks of course content changes, modified learning objectives and program
requirements, however no specific examples were included. The addition of the new Preprofessional track seems more in response to student interest than to any assessment as
described in the report. Apparently there is a Fitness Advisory Board that is supposed to
evaluate “course-specific student based learning objectives” but it is not clear how often
this board meets, nor how this evaluation is accomplished. In the last APR report there is
talk of a graduating seniors survey based on Fitness Student Learner Outcomes (FSLO),
an internship site supervisor proficiency level survey of FSLO for students completing
an internship, and employers of graduates completing an Entrance Level Professional
Proficiency survey after one year of employment, but no data was provided for any of
these within the report.
Self Study: Previous Academic Program Review and New Program Initiatives
The 2002 APR recommendations included adding a course for special populations and
developing improved assessment tools. Since then, the program used ACSM certification
data, program evaluation, and post-graduation surveys to develop a program revision after
the 2009 self-study was completed.
The self-study argues that significant turnover of faculty and directors and a lack of
GQA hires have hampered new program initiatives as of 2009, though a significant revision
occurred just after the self study but before the arrival of the external reviewer. The
materials in this self study list three different directors since 2006. The self-study argues
that an increasing number of students who are pre-fitness, and who are presumably turned
away from the program, indicates a possibility for expansion.
While the previous APR seemed to recommend paying more attention to developing the
special populations classes, this report indicates that no new special population classes
were developed at this time, although existing ones were enhanced; note also that there
exists an ESS minor in special populations.
Self Study: Personnel
It is somewhat difficult to understand personnel issues in this program based on the
self-study and UDS, as these documents do not identify the number of faculty out of all
ESS faculty who are teaching in the Exercise Science classes, and how many classes
they teach per semester. Therefore, it is difficult for APR to assess workload. However,
in discussion with the program director, it is apparent that all ESS department faculty
teach across multiple programs, making this difficulty universal for the entire department.
Information from faculty annual reports in the self-study, combined with discussion with
the director, seem to indicate very high enrollment in classes, maximized teaching loads
and staffing difficulties; the director reports that for the Fall 2011 semester, 13 different
members of faculty and staff were teaching courses in the Exercise Science Program,
while none of those -- including the director -- taught exclusively in the Exercise Science
Program, but also taught other courses across the department. Large numbers of students
in required courses max out staffing -- resulting in 90 students in a single Biomechanics
lecture and 45 students in lab sections, a number considered far too large for successful
laboratory instruction.
In particular, the director identifies advising as the central workload problem, with large
numbers of students who are pre-admission to either of the two tracks, but nonetheless
require advising. The director is currently advising 60 students, while others in the
program, including part-time staff, are advising 30. Mass advising sessions for ESSFitness students are offered in response to these large numbers, but it is still likely that
high numbers negatively affect advising success.
This study indicates continued education and involvement on the part of department
personnel, but offers no specific examples or numbers. The report indicates that the
program requires “acceptable performance” but does not define the term; neither are
there included departmental bylaws that indicate acceptable performance. However, the
included annual reports of individual faculty members anecdotally indicates professional
involvement, conference attendance, and significant numbers of peer-reviewed
publications on the part of faculty.
The number of faculty are an area of concern in the self-study, which notes that
while the department recently lost two members, they had hopes of hiring four with the
assistance of GQA funding. It is not clear that this happened. The study indicates that
staffing will be adequate only if they replace the two recent departures. Overall, the study
does not summarize total faculty/staff in the program, neither does it give a breakout of
degree/rank for faculty and staff -- this would be helpful in the future.
While the supplied UDS applies not to the program but to the overall department and is
therefore not entirely useful, the ESS department’s SCH/IFTE in comparison to University
average looks acceptably close, although slightly higher, with no discernible trends over
time.
Self Study: Support for Achieving Academic Program Goals (Resources)
The self-study indicates that support is sufficient, but only for current levels of
instruction. The authors note that “the program’s needs are currently being met, however,
significant expansion may require additional classroom and laboratory space,” and
that “Classroom and laboratory equipment are currently meeting the needs” of the
program. Funding was almost exclusively through internal sources, and personnel were
judged to be tight but adequate for current needs.
External Reviewer Recommendations
APR’s Comments on External Reviewer (if applicable)
In April of 2011, the program arranged an external review from Jeffrey M. Janot,
PhD, ACSM-CES, Associate Professor of Kinesiology, UW-Eau Claire. He notes first
the Fall 2010 redesign of the program, “re-configured into the current ESS-Exercise
Science program format that now offers two academic tracks for students . . . Fitness
or Pre-professional.” The redesign drew praise from the reviewer, who notes that “this
is a particularly well-designed curriculum that builds upon knowledge from year to
year.” In addition to the existing ACSM recognition, the external reviewer recommends
seeking “National Strength and Conditioning Association” recognition. Praise for
collegiality, preparation for post-graduation careers, quality of faculty and staff, major
application process, unique physical fitness requirements, early field experience, and
lab space: “There are few laboratory spaces in the region better than UW-La Crosse in
regards to equipment, support, and faculty/staff mentoring.”
Significantly, the external reviewer reports that the department felt that they were
previously operating in “crisis mode” over the last several years in regards to staffing
and leadership, an unsustainable status that was at the limits of what was possible. The
staffing limitations will likely impact further development, as the reviewer argued that “the
program is somewhat top-heavy . . . and there appears to be a need for more professors
at the Associate level who are prepared to take future leadership roles (this is an area of
need).”
The reviewer recommends seeking outside funding, noting that “the program is funded
almost exclusively through [UW-L] classroom and laboratory modernization grants. Past
external grants have helped to improve instruction and research. I encourage the faculty in
the program to continue seeking out additional funding sources.”
Student demand and faculty workload issues represent both challenge and opportunity
to the external reviewer, who writes that the opportunity for expansion is very real:
“student enrollment numbers could be pushed closer to 300 if additional faculty and
staff are provided.” But that opportunity would require resources, as the current staff is
seriously squeezed: “In order to accept more minimally qualified students, more faculty and
instructional academic staff will need to be added to the program.” The squeeze is also
felt outside the classroom, as the reviewer notes that “due to the high numbers of students
pre-program and admitted, advising loads are very heavy for some staff, especially for
instructional academic staff.” In a neat trick, the external reviewer recommends pulling
a hat out of a rabbit, directing the department to “identify and pursue ways to provide
more student-faculty research opportunities without significantly altering an already full
workload.”
In regards to assessment, the reviewer recommended that “the program faculty and
staff should work to identify more direct measures of content mastery through courseembedded assessment.”
Repeating the same recommendation from the APR report from nine years before, the
external reviewer recommended that the program consider a separate course on special
populations. While the recent self-study indicated that the program had chosen not to
create a separate course but to teach the subject material in existing courses, the reviewer
noted that “It is unclear at this time whether this information is being effectively conveyed
through multiple courses.” The program could consider developing direct assessment
methods that demonstrated that this material was adequately covered in these courses, or
could emphasize what has been previously described as a unique feature of the program
by creating a separate course.
Department’s response to the Reviewer Recommendations
APR’s Comments on the Department’s Response (if applicable)
This response, dated May 2011, indicates that a large number of program faculty
read and collaborated to draft a meaningful response to the external reviewer. The result
indicates agreement with identified strengths, and a prudent caution about the central
problem of expansion. While the program concurs that expansion is a goal, the response
wishes “to emphasize that instruction and student experience quality is high now and will
remain high if student numbers are kept in check.” The response indicated agreement
with suggestions to expand assessment tools, particularly focused on new additions
to the program, and also to explore suggestions about intensifying a focus on special
populations. While the program agreed with “the suggestion that the program expand its
undergraduate research opportunities for students,” the program’s response indicated that
limits in human resources within the ESS Department generally and within the program
specifically” will make this difficult.
While the external reviewer identified three general threats to program success - competition for facilities and resources with expanding athletics, respect and value
amongst multiple competing programs in the department and college, and inadequate
resources for growth -- the program indicated that it is confident in its ability to deal with all
three.
Dean’s Letter
APR’s Comments on Dean’s Letter (if applicable)
This letter, dated September 2011, contains very positive comments on the program’s
success: the program “is known for the excellent preparation provided to students,” and
continuing to summarize the praise of the external reviewer. The letter also summarized
the limitations of resources, highlighted the need for dedicated lab space for biomechanics,
strength and conditioning, and motor behavior, the program’s need for direct assessment
tools and undergraduate research opportunities.
While the letter is quite positive, there is no clear statement for, nor against, future
expansion of this program. This matter is left in the hands of the ESS department and
chair. “It is the choice of the department where the resources made available are placed,”
the letter notes. “Within this context, I fully endorse the department’s position to continue
its current program until additional resources exist to allow expansion.”
APR’s Recommendations (must be completed)
Recommendations:
APR has few recommendations concerning the current success of this program. In fact, this must
be considered a very successful program that represented itself well in the self-study process.
Most of the recommendations below do not seek to correct current oversights or shortcomings;
rather, most pertain to future areas to improve an already-successful program, or refer to largescale and strategic improvements that are frankly beyond the scope of the APR process.
○
APR recommends beginning a formal strategic planning process, including
major stakeholders and producing a written document to guide significant
decisions in the next few years. The issues include:
■ taking steps to enhance leadership stability, or to support leadership.
■ making a decision on whether to build number of majors or to be restrictive
in admission requirements and concentrate on fewer students, as indicated
by external reviewer. This plan should assist the department in making
better arguments for GQA hiring.
■ deciding whether or not to pursue recognition from new outside agencies,
the “Committee on Accreditation for the Exercise Sciences,” and/or
the “National Strength and Conditioning Association,” as recommended
by external reviewer. This is a crucial decision, and requires some sort of
formal strategic planning process.
■ documenting whether to adopt a clear path towards accommodation with
University-wide policies such as the UCC’s “Extent of Majors” policy, or to
seek a formal exemption from, accommodation to or alteration of the policy.
This may include developing a clear argument or justification for the ES
programs variance from policy, which would in itself aid future interaction
with the University at large.
■ planning out efforts to seek external funding, as urged by reviewers. This
would be aided by a strategic planning process which could envision future
plans and target funding sources for same.
■ planning ways to collaborate with other ESS programs, such as Human
Performance, in support of hiring a dedicated Biomechanics Ph.D. position
within the ESS department. This is a particular difficulty for the entire
department, and a new solution might require significant collaboration or
accommodation.
○
Recommendations for writing the next self-study:
■ The APR committee would prefer a more concise self-study; well-crafted
self-studies demonstrate careful judgment and discrimination concerning
what is necessary and what is not; self-studies should summarize if at
all possible, and should not include the entirety of externally-produced
brochures.
■ Include selected assessment data and results in next self-study as
examples.
■ Include program-level data on student credits at graduation and faculty
teaching in ES program, broken out of larger number of ESS department
faculty. Include faculty rank, along with summaries of teaching assignments
and research expectations and accomplishments.
○
Undergraduate Exercise Science Program Website: APR recommends that
the ES program explore a revision of their website, to include faculty research
interests and establish a sense of program identity. This revision would also serve
to communicate requirements and standards to students who intend to enter the
program, but who may not understand the eventual demands. The current website
has no list of faculty specifically associated with this program as opposed to the
entire ESS department, and little to mark this program as distinct.
☒ 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