July 11, 2005
To:
Dr. Linda Beath
Fm:
Liahna Armstrong
Dean, College of Arts and Humanities
Re:
English Department: Program Review Commendations and
Recommendations
Commendations:

The English Department is among the most focused, cohesive, and
collaborative departments in the College of Arts and Humanities. Under
the very able leadership of long-time Chair, Patsy Callaghan, the English
Department has consistently attended to, re-evaluated, and updated its
curriculum, program outcomes, and internal processes. As a department
that takes its mission seriously, regularly assesses its academic needs,
and strives to address them creatively and prudently,

Faculty commitment to the intellectual and imaginative growth of
students is uniformly strong. The department excels in mentoring
students and fostering scholarly and research opportunities for
undergraduates and graduates alike. As the outside evaluator noted in
his report, “the centrality of teaching” is the primary departmental value.

Hiring decisions by the department have strengthened and diversified the
faculty. English instructors, including tenure-line faculty, full-time nontenure-track faculty, adjunct instructors, and graduate teaching
assistants, are on the whole excellent. The department’s scholarly
contributions have increased in substance, number, and influence.. The
department’s vision of the integration of teaching, scholarship, and
service as the ideal professional profile is truly apt.

The English Department is a University leader in advancing diversity. Its
faculty is among the most diverse in the institution, and its curriculum
reflects wide-ranging global, multicultural, and multi-ethnic perspectives
and content.

The several threads of emphasis in the English curriculum (literature,
language,/linguistics, TESOL, composition and professional writing,
creative writing, culture studies, pedagogical studies, teacher
preparation) are all given appropriate attention and weight in the
department’s sense of its mission. The various strands are both discrete
and deftly interwoven to create a supple, well-balanced program with
excellence in every component. The department’s practice of
collaborating in curriculum development, collecting and sharing syllabi,
and regularly reviewing course objectives and content has further
advanced these strengths.

The department’s support of and contributions to General Education are
laudable.

English faculty are institutional leaders in teacher education and active in
CTL. The department does not marginalize teacher education nor
segregate off from the mainstream faculty involved in the preparation of
future educators. Indeed, the opposite is true: strong pedagogical
programs undergird the entire program and command respect.
Involvement in in-service activities, outreach, and collaborations with
secondary English teachers in the state, particularly through the Central
Washington Writers’ Project, is exemplary.

The English Graduate program is a model of its kind. Over the last eight
to ten years, the curriculum has been redesigned to reflect disciplinary
trends, and the requirements for degree completion have been revamped
to match student needs and the changed curriculum. Skilled and
dedicated leadership by the former and current Coordinators of Graduate
Studies have helped to augment the program, recruit increasingly
outstanding and larger pools of graduate students, and enable them to
move more smoothly through the program to successful degree
completion.

Recent improvements to the area of L & L that houses English,
particularly in the common areas where students gather to read, talk,
socialize, and study together and separately have created a warm,
engaging atmosphere. Despite limits on space and constraints posed by
a building constructed over 30 years ago, the ambience of the
department has been much improved. Departmental activities such as
poetry readings, forums, reading group discussions, social events, etc.
further enhance the communal feel of the program.

The departmental governance system fosters healthy input, productive
discussion, and meaningful decision-making among faculty.

English has managed its fiscal resources prudently. Thoughtful planning
has enabled the department to realize good income from summer
revenue which it has used wisely to advance faculty scholarship and
purchase goods and services to augment the quality of life in the
department. The outside evaluator’s observation that processes to apply
for summer support or travel support were considered cumbersome
mystified me. The process is relatively simple and straightforward at
both the department and college levels. English faculty take advantage of
such opportunities regularly.

Under difficult circumstances (fluctuating—currently rising—enrollments;
unstable cadre of adjunct instructors; inadequate base budget funding
for instruction; etc.), the department has managed its instructional
obligations well. I do not agree with the outside evaluator’s assessment
that “the adjunct situation is a disgrace.” Yes, adjunct instructors at CWU
receive insufficient compensation and must work under less than optimal
conditions, particularly quarter-to-quarter contracts and budgetary ups
and downs that constrain employment predictability, but English does
well under these conditions to provide as much stability and professional
support for adjunct faculty as is possible. Adjuncts have their own or
share faculty offices; they have some access to research and travel
support, especially through the College of Arts and Humanities; they are
able to participate in the life of the department, including committee
work, curriculum review and revision, and attend meetings; they are
eligible for and do receive benefits; they are able to teach during the
summer; their longevity assures their continued employment; and they
have been empowered as leaders in United Faculty of Central. Of course
there are discontents, and of course there are many ways in which the
adjunct situation is far from ideal, but I cannot endorse the assessment
that adjuncts are egregiously exploited. Indeed, adjunct faculty in
English experience more professional benefits than adjuncts in many
departments across the University.
Recommendations:

Historically, the English literature curriculum revolved around a coverage
model, structuring courses around national literatures and chronological
periods. This model has evolved into one that employs more
interdisciplinary, cross-cultural, global perspectives, and is less shaped
by national boundaries or historic eras. Continued growth and updating
of the curriculum, connected to long-range planning around appropriate
faculty expertise, is important. The prospective curricular paradigm of
“ways of reading” promises to be exciting.

Given budget and staffing realties, the department has long relied on
“tiered” or “piggybacked” upper division/graduate level courses (where
400 and 500 level instruction is combined for advanced undergrads and
graduate students in a single class.) Ideally, the “tiering” of courses will
be reduced significantly. (Not necessarily eliminated, as there are
circumstances where the stacking is pedagogically valuable.) For the
most part, separate 400 and 500 level courses can be developed with
adequate faculty coverage to enable appropriately focused instruction.

The department’s obligations in General Education are very sizable.
Greater University commitment to funding Gen Ed through enhanced
base budgets would help to stabilize Gen Ed instruction and allow for
better planning of needed sections, with less frenetic scrambling during
busy enrollment years.

The hiring of a full time Writing Center Director beginning in Fall 2005
presents both an opportunity and a challenge for the department. Thus
far, the tailoring of departmental writing curricula to the needs of
incoming students, the expectations of departments, and the state
mandates has been deftly managed. Writing skills of new students are
effectively assessed and placement of students in composition or
developmental courses has been reasonably on target. Properly
addressing the needs of student writers across the range from
matriculation to graduation and across the disciplines remains a
challenge. It is hoped that the new Director will work seamlessly with the
department in fostering these goals.

Departmental leadership over the last decade has been excellent. Dr.
Callaghan has set a high standard of collaboration, innovation, and
effectiveness. With the changing of the guard, there are high hopes that
such agile and sage leadership will continue under new Chair, Dr. Toni
Culjak.

The department has accommodated relatively adeptly the establishment
and growth of cognate interdisciplinary programs that are highly sought
out by students and valuable to the institution (c. f. Humanities,
Asia/Pacific Studies, Women’s Studies, Film and Video Studies, the
Douglas Honors College). It will be important that the department
continue to see the benefits of such programs and work collaboratively
with the faculty leadership of them to assure mutual support. Such
programs offer exciting academic opportunities for students and faculty
alike, and a collaborative interrelationship between them and English is
beneficial to all.

Two related, ongoing issues for the department are space (office space,
classroom access) and technology. The University needs to develop a
more supple way of scheduling classrooms to enable a better match
between pedagogical needs and teaching locales. Support for
instructional technology at CWU has been well-intentioned but spotty.
Better, newer, more state of the art equipment—especially computer
equipment, learning software, audio-visuals--in classrooms and faculty
offices musts be made available more rapidly at the institutional level.
The department has grown steadily over the last decade and is bursting
at the seams in its 4th floor L & L site. The University should be
developing plans (and I believe it is) to reduce the departments in L & L to
three, enabling those three tenants to expand space (needs in English
and Philosophy are probably the greatest) and re-locating one of the
smaller departments on the main floor to another quarters, perhaps the
remodeled Dean Hall when it comes on line.

As suggested in Dr. Condon’s report, it may be worthwhile to consider
augmenting the exposure to and discussion of student portfolios by
faculty. The concept of an annual department workshop revolving
around the portfolios is appealing and promises to be a valuable way to
“norm” performance expectations from students.

I read with interest Dr. Condon’s suggestions about Dr. Gray’s seminar
on composition and theory, the mentoring of graduate student teaching
assistants who cover English 101, and oversight of English 102. I don’t
feel fully equipped to assess these recommendations because I am not
familiar more than generally with what is covered in the seminar and how
Dr. Gray oversees T. A.’s. Without a more nuanced understanding of
these matters, I can only suggest that the department take a look his
recommendations and appraise their merit.