OUTSIDE REVIEWER’S REPORT
By Dee Andrews, Chair, Department of History,
California State University, East Bay
22 May 2009
BACKGROUND:
I visited the CWU Department of History on April 8 and 9, 2009 as the Outside Reviewer for the
department’s 5th Year Review.
I met with Provost Wayne Quirk, the AVP of Undergraduate Studies Tracy Pellett, the Dean of
Graduate Studies Roger Fouts, Dean of Arts and Humanities Marji Morgan, History Department
Chair Karen Blair, the History Faculty -- including a separate meeting with the Graduate Faculty
– as well as a group of History graduate students and students in two classes.
In addition, I received the Department Self-Study by Acting Chair Thomas Wellock and
curriculum vitae for all regular faculty.
SUMMARY:
I came away with a highly positive impression of the History Department and its place in the
College and University.
In all areas under review – curriculum, program planning and assessment, faculty, students, the
Library, and future directions -- the department is performing at top grade, with





strong curricular coverage;
sophisticated assessment measures in place;
remarkable collegiality among, and professional productivity by, the faculty;
attention to pedagogical excellence;
engagement with and concern for the University Library, among other full commitments
to University service ;
 and clear plans for future directions.
Apart from various observations that I will make under these 6 heads, in this report I will also
make 6 recommendations described under Substance and itemized under Conclusions.
SUBSTANCE:
In keeping with the design of the department’s Self-Study, I will comment separately on the six
main areas.
A. Curriculum
The CWU History offers the B.A. Degree in History in the standard three areas of U.S.,
European, and Non-Western fields, with a Social Studies Teaching Major, the History Minor,
and a full M.A. Degree Program. The department’s curricular coverage is especially wide for a
relatively small faculty, including “large” and “small” plans, two seminars for Majors, and an
additional methods course for the teaching track students.
In general, the department meets the needs of the university’s mission to train teachers and to
provide suitable coursework for various constituents on campus. These student populations are
well served by the separate teaching track in the Major, a good number whose students were in
the section of HIST 481 that I visited; and by, for example, sections of HIST 314, Military History
of the US, one of which I also visited.
With several simple changes, the department might improve the general organization of its
curriculum, and possibly slightly lower its student-faculty ratio, if they may be permitted to in
these tough fiscal times.
RECOMMENDATION # 1: Elimination of the distinction between the large and small plans in
History Major.
The distinction between the large and small plans in the Major appears to be a relic from the
past, and the Department Chair confirmed that dispensing with it would probably be useful
for a clearer set of Major requirements, especially given the department’s other strong
emphasis on Social Studies preparation for the teaching credential.
The History Major also currently includes two seminars: HIST 302 Introduction to History and
HIST 481 Understanding History.
HIST 481 combines historiography and research in one single quarter-long course. The seminar
focuses on the faculty member’s main area of expertise or interest. In the section I visited, the
students were receiving a top-notch education in Russian history, but it’s difficult to see how
they could complete extensive primary source research in a field requiring knowledge of a
foreign language.
RECOMMENDATION # 2: Division of HIST 481 into 2 seminar courses, for a 2 capstone-course
sequence in the Major, one on historiography and one on research.
With such a division:
1. the European, Asian, Latin America, and African specialists would most likely teach the
first course, and the Americanists would most likely teach the second;
2. majors would be able to engage in quarter-long research projects based on raw
primary materials;
3. the course might include visits to local archives or field trips to Seattle (see also Public
History proposal below);
4. at the same time, the department would likely need to expand the Major by the
necessary additional course units;
5. in fact, the Department might considering requesting the addition of two seminars:
one intermediate course on writing and communication skills (as envisioned under
“Future Directions” in the Self-Study; and the other part of the 2-course capstone.
In addition, the Self-Study reports that the Department offers far fewer upper division courses
than most other departments, even though its list of courses suggests an average cycle of
approximately 8 upper division courses per tenure-track and tenured faculty members.
RECOMMENDATION # 3: exploration of combining upper division Major and GE courses, to
provide greater variety of curriculum for History Majors through enrollment.
This suggestion, of course, might meet resistance by other departments; and my
understanding is that the writing requirement in upper division GE is relatively low. But as
resources become more limited, combining GE and Major courses may make some sense for a
number of departments: and departments might recognize the utility of raising writing
requirements to meet the needs of frequently under-skilled students.
Finally, the department faculty expressed strong preferences in developing new fields in the
Major.
The three that were relayed to me at the general meeting with history faculty and the meeting
with Graduate Faculty were (in no particular order):
Ancient Mediterranean
History of American Minorities
Public History
See Recommendation # 4 under “B. Program Planning and Assessment” ; and
Recommendations # 5 and 6 under “C. The Faculty.”
B. Program Planning and Assessment
Re: Program Planning:
The Department is eager to introduce the fields listed in the previous section, which I believe
can be achieved by combining Public History with history of U.S. minorities and related fields,
but it will need to have new proposals serve multiple purposes, both in curriculum and
functionally within the University, in the face of possible cutbacks in the future.
RECOMMENDATION # 4: Addition of two new fields to the History Curriculum: Public History
and Ancient World.
The History Chair Karen Blair and Prof. Wellock are currently working with Dean Morgan to
develop a plan for a new Public History Program for CWU undergraduates. Prof. Wellock sent
me a copy of the proposal, entitled “Proposal for a Digital Public Historians,” after my visit,
since I had some questions as to how this option might possibly be combined with a position at
the University Library as well as with the history of American minority groups.
The proposal answered my questions and presents the new field as rightfully interdisciplinary,
entailing cooperation with pre-existing CWU departments and programs, as well as with the
University Library, and a significant amount of work with local history organizations. The
current plan, which is exceptionally well designed, emphasizes that CWU’s Public History
Program would be the only such program in the Pacific Northwest and would focus partly on
the history of underrepresented minorities. In fact, my only concern is why the proposal
doesn’t also suggest the introduction of an M.A. Option in Public History.
In addition, the Department currently has two old-fashioned offerings in the Ancient history
(HIST 312 and 313) which are fairly begging to be converted into a foundation field in Ancient
World. The faculty might consider ways to incorporate this field, with emphasis on the Ancient
Mediterranean, into GE: perhaps in a new GE history sequence on ancient, medieval, and
modern globalization.
Alternatively, ancient history on its own, especially the Ancient Mediterranean, remains highly
popular among undergraduates, even at a more diverse institution like my own. CSUEB’s
courses on Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome fill fast, and the lower division Ancient World
course forms part of a highly successful interdisciplinary “Ancient World Cluster” for freshmen. I
don’t see any reason why something similar couldn’t be introduced at CWU.
See also “Faculty” below for tenure track recommendations.
Re: Assessment:
The department’s Self-Study includes a clearly articulated mission and outcomes. The
assessment plan includes a grading rubric in the capstone course HIST 481 and a graduate
questionnaire. The 2007-08 results are provided on p. 11 of the Self-Study, and report that
History Majors are meeting or exceeding expectations between 80 and 91% of the time, with
weakest area in “analysis ” (76% of the time).
The majors in the Social Studies track are assessed by means of LIVETEXT Assessments, directed
by the Advisor for this track, Prof. Stephen Moore, and reported in detail in the Self-Study.
The Dean has proposed greater alignment of departmental assessment with the goals of the
College. I think this is certainly possible on a general level, to provide guidance to the College
RTP Committee; but I would urge caution in attempting to make diverse programs conform to
one model. The History Department’s success demonstrates how a self-motivated body of
faculty can produce excellence for a university. I wouldn’t recommend altering the history
programs too significantly for the purposes of assessment when they are accomplishing what
they should be accomplishing now.
Re: the Department Office:
To the credit of the Department Chair, the History Department is a very well run unit. It was
clear from my interview with the Department Coordinator Karen Hill that the Department
Office is efficiently maintained but also very welcoming. The Coordinator expressed great
satisfaction, even joy, in her work; and the office’s move toward creating a database of alumni
for purposes of outreach is a very well-placed strategy for maintaining the department’s overall
visibility to its own larger alumni community. I urge that the University sustain its current level
of support for supplies and services to the department and Department Office.
C. The Faculty
Perhaps the greatest pleasure I had in visiting CWU History Department was to see how very
congenial and cooperative the faculty are with one another, including with lecturer faculty.
CWU has a remarkable set of historians at this time. The department, likely to the credit of the
Chair, has recruited excellent junior, now Associate, faculty who are award-winning teachers,
moving successfully up the RTP ladder, and participating in many aspects of university life,
especially in its committee structure and university centers. The department’s work with the
College of Education is especially to be commended. But altogether, the faculty is noteworthy
for its remarkable productivity, given the numerous demands on their time and high teaching
load.
As reported on Table 10, page 34, the tenure-track and tenured faculty altogether in the last
five years have produced 17 articles, 7 books, and participated in 27 conferences; they have
received 12 internal and 12 external grants; and they have served on CWU committees 40
times, with their professional organizations 24 times, and with state and community
organizations 7 and 25 times respectively. It doesn’t get much more productive than that at a
comprehensive university.
In addition, the historians on the Graduate Faculty appear to work together well as a unit within
the larger department. I’m unfamiliar with this kind of system, but it seems to be effective, and
may partly account for senior faculty’s on-going scholarly output.
Consistent with program planning (described above) and faculty input, I recommend the
following re: upcoming tenure track searches:
RECOMMENDATION # 5: Approval of a tenure-track search in Public History, with emphasis
on history of immigration, U.S. Minorities, and/ or Native Americans.
I fully endorse the proposal for a “Digital Public Historian” as described above, and urge that
the department especially seek to recruit a specialist in the history of immigration, U.S.
minorities, and/or Native Americans, to meet the preference of a number of faculty for adding
the history of minorities to the History curriculum (see “Program Planning” above).
I also strongly urge the department stay engaged with developments at the Library, and to be
cognizant of the enormous pressures on library budgets at this time: and to consider ways to
incorporate the library into the Public History search.
At the same time, as the proposal for a Public Historian makes clear, and as I know from
CSUEB’s own Public History option at CSUEB, Public History is a genuine field of its own, with
substantial national recognition, and should not be treated as a dumping ground for too many
interdisciplinary or inter-organizational schemes, as I’m sure the department would not want it
to be.
RECOMMENDATION # 6: Approval of a tenure-track search in the Ancient Mediterranean,
with ability to teach the Ancient World.
See discussion under “Program Planning” above. While the curricular field would be Ancient
World, the department might prefer to search for a specialist in the Ancient Mediterranean
who can teach Ancient World, since the former field is fairly well populated and provides a
greater depth of study than general Ancient World. Such a specialist might also be able to offer
Greek and/or Latin or other ancient languages in the Foreign Languages program.
Other less pressing things that the department might want to take under consideration:
1. Are the 5-credit courses worth a 5-day a week schedule, especially given the ambitions
of this faculty to be a consistently publishing faculty? Perhaps more courses could be
offered annually on a 4-credit model.
2. The department faculty largely values publications; it might also consider grant-getting
to be a worthy pursuit. Whether or not the two should be considered comparable, I will
leave up to you all: but a certain flexibility in expectations may serve the department
well in its faculty searches and department outreach over the next 5 years.
3. The faculty might consider taking up the Dean’s offer to teach larger sections for some
release time, especially if funding is available for M.A. students to serve as graders.
D. The Students
Students in the classes I visited appeared to be attentive and engaged; and the M.A. students
expressed great satisfaction with their program and their advisors’ mentorship. Like their
teachers, CWU History Majors are also highly productive, regularly presenting papers at the
annual Phi Alta Theta Conferences and receiving the CWU Distinguished Thesis Award, most
recently in 2005, among other forms of recognition.
Re: undergraduate Majors:
In HIST 481, I talked with students at the end of class about the possibilities of studying abroad
and about the job market.
Students expressed a great interest in being able study abroad, perhaps encouraged by the
richness of the material of the broad range of courses available in their Major. They indicated
that lack of funds was the main inhibiting factor. So the department might consider ways to
connect with Study Abroad programs and funding sources to make this option possible. I know
this is already happening with the department’s National Science Foundation work in China.
Re: the job market: students perked up at the idea that the Department might bring in History
alumni for an on-campus jobs forum, in all fields. Given the current economic climate, this
seems more critical than ever. The Self-Study’s list of areas where alumni are now employed
would suggest that there would be plenty of speakers to choose from, even if most are not in
historical fields per se: in fact, that breadth further underscores the utility of the History Major.
Re: M.A. Students:
My meeting with approximately 10 graduate students was especially encouraging. They are
more than satisfied with the program, especially with
1.
2.
3.
4.
the research and methodology classes;
ability to take undergrad courses for graduate credit, to increase variety of choices;
the degree to which their TA work is treated as a kind of apprenticeship;
the department’s remarkable record at placing students in doctoral programs.
The students clearly are very impressed with the faculty and happy to be at CWU: there was a
lot of enthusiastic energy in the room. The number of students working in non-US fields was
especially interesting. As reported in the Self-Study, 6 graduates of the M.A. Program have
entered doctoral programs in the last 4 years.
I would simply suggest is that the Department provide some kind of uniform orientation for
TA’ing, which at this time it appears to be left to the individual faculty. This would be a bit of a
break from the apprenticeship model, but surely useful for purposes of uniform grading.
E. Library and Information Science
As at most campuses, the History faculty are very concerned about the state of the Library and
its collections in these hard times, and especially about the vacancy in the office of University
Archivist.
This initially prompted me to ask if the department might want to attempt a combined search
in Public History and University Archives (see above). My understanding is that the Librarians
themselves might not find that to be a congenial combination, since archival work is a distinct
and distinguished profession all its own. In any case, the proposal for a Digital Public Historian
appears to me to be much stronger the way it is.
A key concern is that the Library continue to provide the department with important access to
databases and journals critical to history students and to historians, even if these are
increasingly in electronic format.
F. Future Directions
The department is clearly ready to move in a number of fresh directions: chief among these,
the introduction of new fields, but also efforts to increase its visibility in the larger community,
and to keep up with students’ ever increasing needs for experience in writing and research.
Specifically, the Self-Study under “Future Directions” (p. 46) calls for the
1) addition of a readings seminar class focusing on various skills areas;
2) introduction of curriculum in pre-modern, especially Ancient and Medieval History.
My observations above – with recommendations repeated below – have attempted to
incorporate these proposals into the big picture that I perceived during my visit.
As it stands, the department provides many things to the University and the community: in the
broad professional strengths of its faculty, its close ties to teacher education, its visibly
successful graduate program, its ability to recruit top-notch junior faculty, and its potential,
through public history, to also have a greater community presence.
CONCLUSION:
In sum, in addition to the various observations above, I would like to make the following 6
substantive recommendations for the History Department and its programs:
 that the department dispense with the distinction between the large and small majors;
 that the department revise its senior seminar into a two-course capstone sequence;
 that the department explore combining upper division Major and GE courses, to provide
greater variety of curriculum for History Major;
 that the department introduce Public History and Ancient World as new fields;
 that a tenure-track search in Public History be approved, with emphasis on history of
immigration, U.S. Minorities, and/ or Native Americans;
 that a tenure-track search in the Ancient Mediterranean be approved, with ability to
teach the Ancient World.