Academic Program Review 2003-2004
Executive Summary
Economics Department
The department of Economics was included in the second cycle of academic program
review for the 2003-2004 school year. Based upon feedback from the first cycle, the
contents of the self-study were modified as were some of the implementation details.
The department of economics was one of eight programs undergoing this process for this
cycle. Included in the process was the composition of a self-study document based upon
the faculty’s analysis, the visitation of an external reviewer, Dr. Tom Trulove, Chair
Department of Economics, Eastern Washington University. Dr. Trulove read the selfstudy, interviewed faculty, staff, administration, and students, and submitted his analysis.
This executive summary is based upon the departmental self-study document, external
reviewer’s report, and the dean’s response. It is intended to serve as a guide to the
faculty, staff and administration for the next several academic years as the department
addresses the recommendations and continues its record of excellence. The department
faculty and college administration will be expected to provide a summary of activities
undertaken during the 2004-2005 academic year as a consequence of the program review.
This report will be due to the provost in October, 2005.
As a department, there is much to be celebrated for the economists: there is a clear sense
of mission within the university’s overall academic programs, a focus on quality
instruction and scholarly standards, and a strong student-oriented value system. Overall,
the faculty are to be commended for the following:
By having a senior faculty member working with a junior faculty member the department
provides a strong informal mentoring program for faculty that has allowed the department
to develop a high degree of mutual respect, cohesiveness and collegiality. Expectations
for faculty contributions in scholarship, teaching standards, and service are clearly
expressed with the appropriate assistance and guidance to meet these standards. As Dr.
Trulove notes, the departmental expectations for faculty performance are high and allow
faculty to easily meet or exceed AACSB accreditation requirements. The level of rigor
required for faculty performance is appropriate for a regional comprehensive university.
The high level of communication and confidence is also reflected in the successful dual
chair arrangement whereby one faculty is the chair for two quarters and second faculty is
chair for another two quarters.
Clear focus on the value of student-faculty interactions which is reflected in the anecdotal
student responses and listing of graduate employment. As the external reviewer notes,
students’ comments provide the evidence that the department takes advising seriously,
provides individual studies and internships as much as possible, challenges students to
perform at a high academic level, and attempts to provide personal attention to their
students.
The provision of valuable service courses to other programs is a major contribution of the
department to the university’s academic programs. Seventeen programs outside the
College of Business and ten within the College of Business require an economics course
along with three economics courses in the general education program. Faculty also
contribute to various university programs including the William O. Douglas Honors
College, Resource Management, environmental studies, Asia-Pacific studies, and the
undergraduate symposium, SOURCE.
Not withstanding the excellent faculty and overall program, there are several areas where
the department will want to focus some of its energies.
The economics department is very traditional in many of its approaches and like all
strengths this also foreshadows potential limitations. For example, the strong informal
mentoring program that has allowed the department to develop a strong faculty limits the
departmental thinking about the use of adjunct faculty. Attempting to provide economics
courses to the university centers, the department relies upon tenure track faculty because
the issues of hiring adjuncts are seen as too onerous. This perspective was clearly
communicated to the external reviewer who reinforces this perspective by stating all of
the reasons why expanding the economics program to the university centers is daunting.
The reviewer also notes that the department is discussing this problem and struggling
with how to blend their best opportunity for growth with a viable approach that reflects
their values. Consequently, one recommendation for the department is to continue this
discussion, exploring how other departments have met these challenges, the use of multimodal course delivery with the integration of face to face instruction with web-enhanced
opportunities and interactive television.
The second major recommendation focuses on curriculum issues including curriculum
review, selection of course offerings and student complaints about being unable to
schedule courses in a timely fashion thereby causing a delay in graduation. As
recommended by Dr. Trulove, the department “might want to consider the ratio of
required to elective courses and its frequency of theory offerings.” This is supported by
the fact that many of the economics courses listed in the catalog have not been taught
recently. Given the funding issues surrounding staffing, the department needs to consider
how to make the best use of its current faculty while scheduling appropriate curricular
offerings in order to facilitate student progress toward graduation.
Part of the curricular discussion also needs to focus on the information literacy
expectations for economics students. As a part of the self study contents, in section V.
“Library and Technological Resources” the department was asked to “describe
information literacy proficiency expected of students at the end of major coursework: 1.
What instruction in information literacy is provided? 2. How are these proficiencies
assessed?” The department did not respond to this series of questions. While this is not a
significant problem, since these questions are a part of the regional accreditation
standards, they must be answered and these student competencies addressed in their
economics curriculum.
Similarly, the department was asked to provide data that demonstrates students are
meeting the program goals. Under assessment, the department describes two tests taken
by students in the microeconomics courses and the macroeconomics courses and includes
these multiple choice tests in the appendices. However, there is no clear pathway
between these multiple choice tests and the program goals or any evidence about how the
students perform on these tests or how the assessment results are used to inform
curricular decisions. The department does state that this is a beginning effort and they
plan on keeping these tests and establishing a student data base. In October 2005, it is
expected that the department will have had the time to develop strong end-of-program
assessments that meet the Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities
accreditation standards.
In summary, the Department of Economics has significant strengths and an opportunity
to build an even stronger department. It is anticipated that they will work together along
with their college administration in addressing these recommendations and in continuing
their areas of excellence.