External Review Report
Department of Physical Education, School and Public Health
Central Washington University
By
Brad Strand, Ph.D.
North Dakota State University
May 27, 2009
1
INTRODUCTION TO THE REPORT
The Program Review process, of which this report is but one component, has
been both interesting and enjoyable to me. It has afforded me an opportunity to be
a part of the present and future of the campus, an experience that has allowed me to
grow professionally as well.
I have spent most of professional career on campuses quite similar to Central
Washington University (CWU). Consequently, I have made a concerted effort to
apply my professional knowledge and experiences to the needs of this campus as
described through the materials provided in advance of the campus visit and the
conversations with faculty, staff, students, and administrators while on campus.
Everyone I interacted with was extremely open, helpful, and courteous during this
visit. The enthusiasm and professionalism that were displayed by all have
engendered strong commitment from me to assist in multiple ways. Most
importantly, this report has been carefully prepared, seeking to recognize the
mission of Central Washington University, the College of Education and Professional
Studies (CEPS), and the Department of Physical Education, School and Community
Health (PESPH). The focus has been on making an assessment and
recommendations that will enable the department programs and faculty to be as
effective and efficient as possible.
Program Review reports take many different forms. I have structured the
report according to the sections presented in the self study. Prior to my visit I posed
a number of questions to Dr. Briggs. I have attempted to answer those questions,
along with others posed by Dr. Briggs and various administrators during the site
visit. I believe those questions represent campus concerns. As such, no attempt has
been made to transition the sections with prose, but rather, to provide my best
answer from my perspective. I have attempted to articulate clearly positions with
which faculty and administrators can agree or disagree as the avenue to stimulate
consideration of the points. Directed discussions are most likely to produce closure
on commitments by the Administration to help the department and commitments to
be completed by the faculty.
Department
Is the department compatible with the College?
Before discussing the College I would like to offer my perspective on the
department split and the establishment of two new departments. Since this
program review focused on the Department of PESPH I will attempt to limit my
comments to that department. From my discussions with PESPH faculty it seems
that a great majority of them support the separation of the old department and the
establishment of a new department. As reported in the self-study and reiterated in
conversations, PESPH faculty believe that the separation “creates an environment
where PESPH programs can finally mature.” It appears that PESPH faculty did not
believe that their scholarly achievements (publications) were being fairly
recognized by the science faculty (exercise and nutrition science). More specifically,
2
qualitative-based and curriculum-based research and publications were not
recognized on the same basis as were empirical-based research articles.
As one trained in Curriculum and Instruction, I truly value the contributions
of various types of scholarly endeavors and encourage faculty to contribute in ways
that best serve their profession and the readers of their professional journals. That
being said, I also think it is important that all university faculty in every discipline
make contributions through empirical-based research. In the new department,
PESPH faculty can now determine what they consider the merits of various types of
scholarly work and establish their own criteria for tenure and promotion that follow
more closely with others who work in academic departments and colleges that focus
on teacher and educator training.
I personally support the establishment of the Department of PESPH. The
department focus can now be more tightly identified and developed. In this case, I
sense that the focus is on the preparation of educators and that professors teaching
in each of the programs have that same focus. With the former department, it is
easy to see how silos might have developed, sometimes unintentionally, but nonthe-less, the silos evolve and faculty tend to isolate themselves in their own
programs, research, and professional achievements. Faculty in PESPH are already
trying to avoid this by creating a new degree program that combines physical
education and health education. In addition, students in the pre-nursing major and
the public health major take some of the same courses as the health education
students.
As the new College of Education (COE) emerges and the current Department
of Education splits into four new departments to become part of the COE, I see that
College as the ideal place for PESPH to align. Although I do not know the exact
mission of this COE, and perhaps it has not even been identified yet, I am very
familiar with other COE and know that departments such as PESPH are often located
within them. From my perspective, and from what I have read in the self-study
report and obtained through campus conversations, I am sure the mission of PESPH
will align closely to the new COE.
Undergraduate/Graduate Programs/Curriculum
Do the undergraduate and graduate programs lead to a broad, well-integrated
knowledge to prepare students for careers in public health, physical education and
school health, and athletic administration?
At the Undergraduate level:
As stated in the self-study, PESPH offers majors in public health (PH) and
physical education and school health (PESH). The number of credits in each
program is compatible with requirements of similar programs across the nation.
Many of the courses provide lab experiences and students are provided with
technology training. Students in both programs receive a variety of opportunities
that facilitate their career development. Although students were pleased with their
field experiences, they indicated that they would like to do even more “hands-on”
learning. Each program provides an over-view of materials and experiences needed
for careers found in that program. Students I talked to reported that faculty
3
incorporate a variety of teaching strategies in their teaching and that they are
exposed to technology.
With the limited time I had to visit with faculty from each program, it was
difficult to determine if programs reflect changes in the field. I know that one goal
for each program is to establish advisory boards. I strongly encourage that to
happen as advisory board members can provide valuable insight related to current
practice in the field. The alumni survey that was mentioned can also provide
valuable information as to how professionals view the programs. The addition of
professionals in this process would facilitate further partnership development and
in the case of PESH, future in-service provision for k-12 staff development. I also
believe that an exit survey of all graduating students would provide valuable insight
into current programs.
As noted in the self study and in conversations with faculty, public health
faculty will be meeting this summer to review and perhaps make adjustments to the
curriculum. Similarly, PESH faculty have been working to merge course content
from what had been separate physical education and school health education
degrees. The undertaking of that merger provides an ideal time to truly evaluate the
courses required within the majors.
At the Graduate level:
As stated in the self study review, PESPH offers an on-line MS in Health and
Physical Education and an Athletic Administration specialization. The on-line degree
has been offered since 2001 and enrolls cohort groups who are expected to take
classes on campus during summer months. The athletic administration
specialization began in 2004 to meet the needs of graduate assistants who have
coaching appointments at CWU. It is anticipated that the athletic administration
specialization will also become an on-line degree program in the near future.
Although I was not able to visit with students enrolled in the on-line degree
program I did visit with graduate assistants who are enrolled in the athletic
administration specialization. Overall, the students were pleased with their program
complimenting the faculty on their experience. A review of the courses required in
the on-line physical education program indicates a well-rounded education;
however, I was not able to view a listing of courses in the athletic administration
specialization.
As might be expected, graduate students had suggestions. Some of these are
detailed under the student section of this report. The athletic administration
students commented that they did not really understand why they had to take a
research class when so much of the course focused on a thesis. They thought it
would be better to talk more about literature reviews since they are more likely to
do that as their culminating activity. They also commented that they did not believe
that statistics offered on-line was understandable.
These students commented that it would be helpful to have one person in
charge of the athletic administration specialization. In the past two years they felt
they had bounced around from one person to the next. They would also like to visit
with an advisor earlier during their education to set topics of papers. I would also
recommend that field experience credits, independent of internship credits, be
4
available to students to help them is finding enough credits when limited courses
are offered during a particular quarter.
One thing that might be considered for graduate students relates to their
culminating activity. Associations that accredit athletic administration programs
most often include an internship as a culminating experience. This internship could
be done in one quarter or spread out over a couple of quarters so students would
have a number of different experiences. In addition, you might want to consider
including some type of research experience for AA students during their internship.
The number of students enrolled in the PESPH graduate programs has been
limited in the past due to a number of legitimate reasons. Certainly having a cohort
of students means that most of them will have their culminating activities all come
due at the same time. This can certainly overload faculty at certain times of the year.
One idea that might be implemented for the athletic administration specialization is
a course work only degree, or perhaps it could be used in both degrees. If you were
to do that, I recommend that you build a required field experience into the degree so
students get some practical experience. In order for the athletic administration
specialization to grow it is imperative that someone with an expertise in athletic
administration be hired to coordinate the curriculum and related activities.
As noted in the self study, there is also discussion regarding a Master’s in
Public Health or a specialization in community health. I would certainly discourage
the initiation of a MPH at this time. Three of the public health faculty are new to the
campus and at this time it seems that they need to focus on understanding the
undergraduate degree program. I would like to add however, that I believe the
graduate level community health specialization is something that should stay on the
front burner. The future of public/community health education is bright and is
certainly a growth area in many colleges and universities. If you seek to develop
this graduate specialization additional faculty in public/community are necessary.
A challenge of graduate education for PESPH is the limited number of faculty
and the need to teach undergraduate as well as graduate level courses. Teaching
both levels of courses simultaneously would be ideal if the University would allow
more courses to be listed as 400/grad.
Are there important areas of expertise or aspects of the disciplines that are not
adequately covered?
In general, I believe that most of the significant areas of sub-disciplines are
adequately covered. One comment made by pre-nursing students was the lack of
science based courses. However, I did notice that the pre-nursing specialization
does include 39 required credits that are principally science-based. Another
comment from the public health students is that they would like to take a statistics
course similar to what the pre-nursing students are taking.
Although I do not know the listing of courses for the athletic administration
specialization it was mentioned to me that the program was put together with
existing classes. That being said, perhaps there are certain areas that are not being
adequately covered.
5
Are the degree requirements appropriate for quality programs aligned with
appropriate licensing/certifying boards?
Yes they are for the undergraduate programs. The curriculum for the
Community Health Education specialization is closely aligned with the SABPAC
approval standards. The Physical Education major was developed to meet the
NASPE Beginning Teacher Standards. The Public Health and School Health
programs have used the National Health Education Standards, NCATE, and
EALR/Benchmarks of OSPI Washington State to guide student learning outcomes.
The Public Health curriculum is also guided by the National Commission for Health
Education Credentialing by using the “Seven Areas of Responsibility for Entry-Level
Health Educators.” Since NASPE has recently revised the Beginning Teacher
Standards I suggest that PESH faculty review those standards and make chances to
their program.
NASPE also provides standards for Advanced Programs. Those too have
been recently revised. I suggest that PESH faculty review those standards and make
appropriate changes to the physical education MS degree. As indicated to me during
my visit, faculty have followed NIAAA standards in the development of the athletic
administration specialization. I suggest that you also refer to the North American
Society for Sport Management for additional curriculum ideas.
Is the curriculum appropriate for the year 2009-2010? Are there modifications likely
to e needed?
On the whole, it appears that the undergraduate programs and the physical
education MS are very current with proposed curricular changes that reflect
important trends. Specialization within programs may need to be identified in the
future. Trends in the coming years are readily identifiable through formal needs
assessments conducted with appropriate constituents. Both of the programs would
benefit from the incorporation of an evaluation system that would help predict
future trends.
Increasing content and field demands in each program with limited teaching
resources will require some future decision to be made regarding program
offerings. Current demands on faculty with limited resources will limit the ability of
faculty to meet the future demands they will face.
Does there seem to be a realistic plan for the future?
Department and program plans are mentioned in various places in the self
study. The future plans appear realistic in the sense that there are appropriate
changes indicated. I believe all actions can be accomplished although some will
require additional staffing and funding.
As was mentioned during my visit, upper administration would like to see
the MS program in PESPH grow. However, I did not see nor hear of a plan to grow
the graduate programs. A new faculty member in athletic administration will
certainly allow the program to grow but even with a new faculty member, a plan for
enrollment management needs to be developed and implemented.
6
Assessment
Are student outcomes assessment established and are they being effectively utilized?
It is obvious that the department does have a system in place to assess
student learning of undergraduate students. According to the self study review,
PESPH faculty have identified student learning outcomes for public health and
physical education.
Student learning outcomes for public health and physical education and
school health are derived from national accreditation and credentialing boards and
are certainly appropriate for the disciplines. The detailed measure would indicate
that students are meeting the learning outcomes. Many different assessment
methods are utilized to determine if the outcomes are being met. These methods
include but are not limited to: tests constructed by individual faculty, standardized
tests for certification competency, practical labs, written projects, research reports,
simulations, log books, checklists, oral presentations, and self-analysis of
performance.
With the three new hires in public health, it is imperative that a review of
program and student learning outcomes be conducted and that the input of new
faculty be valued. Similarly, with the advent of a new degree, physical education and
school health, a drafting of new outcomes that addresses both disciplines be
conducted. From my conversations with PESH faculty I know that some of this work
has already begun.
Student learning outcomes for the graduate program were not identified in
the self study. This is something that certainly needs to get done and is an
important component of the total department assessment program.
Are program outcomes assessment established and are they being effectively utilized?
From the self study review, measures for the program outcomes for the
public health program were provided but not for the physical education major.
Even though, the identified outcomes for each program seem appropriate.
Last fall the department mission, vision, and values were established. Next,
faculty need to identify department goals and outcomes via assessment measures. It
is my belief that since the College of Education will be new, along with five new
departments, that someone should be brought on campus who can assist the College
and departments in setting goals and outcome measures for each department that
compliments one another. This individual would also help identify assessment
measures that could be used for each outcome. In essence, a complete loop would
include college, department, program, and student learning outcomes and
assessments that are all interrelated and tie into each other.
The results from the alumni survey will certainly help when addressing
program and student learning outcomes. This type of data is extremely valuable to a
department.
7
Students
Are the professional and educational needs of students being met?
The self study review listed a number of student outcomes that would
suggest that the professional and education needs of undergraduate students are
being met. For example, 90% of all school health majors completed their portfolio
review with a score of at least 90%, 96% of physical education majors taking the
West E exam passed last year, and all student learning outcomes in public health
that assess skills and competencies were completed with a minimum of 80%.
Professionally, 75% of school health education majors attended WAHPERD or
AAHPERD conferences and all undergraduate physical education majors met a
criterion standard of attending three conferences. From the self study review I was
not able to discern how many public health majors pass the CHES exam. The
physical education program has established PDS partnerships with over 18 different
schools including an alternative middle school and a school with diverse
populations.
Overall, it appears the professional and educational needs of undergraduate
students are being met. However, in a couple of instances needs are perhaps not
being met as completely as they could be. Public health majors indicated that they
would like more opportunities for field experiences or practicum experiences prior
to their internship, more information regarding conferences they could attend, and
more science-based courses. The physical education and school health majors
indicated that they feel well prepared to teach elementary school physical education
but not as well prepared for middle or high school. The graduate students I visited
with indicated that in some cases they have to wait a year to take certain courses
and then, even though a course is listed as being taught a certain semester, it is not
offered.
What are student perceptions of the department, programs, advising, and faculty?
Student perceptions of the department seem very positive. Students had
very positive things to say about faculty members and the preparation and advising
they were receiving. Students indicated that they liked the separation of the old
department and think that combining physical education and health education will
lead to better prepared students. Physical education and health education students
like the fact that they get lots of observation and teaching opportunities prior to
beginning their student teaching.
A major complaint from both groups of undergraduate students I visited with
relates to the timing and scheduling of classes. They felt that there was no
coordination among faculty as to when classes are offered. Some classes are offered
on MTW while others are offered for three hours on a Monday. Some classes have
labs that students are not aware of until the course begins. I certainly recommend
that scheduling within the department be reviewed and adjusted to meet student
needs. Many universities use a MWF/TH scheduling system in which classes are
offered on the hour (50 minutes) on MWF or for 75 minutes on TH. This type of
scheduling certainly helps students when planning their quarter or semester
schedules.
8
Faculty
How do I rate faculty activity and effectiveness with regard to teaching excellence,
research and scholarly activity, and service?
As shown in Appendix 6 of the self study, the department has five tenured
faculty, six probationary tenure-track faculty, and two non-tenure track/lecturer
faculty. I was not able to determine how many lecturers are hired to teach the
various activity courses offered in the department.
This is a unique department in that there are five full professors with the
remainder of the faculty as assistant professors and/or lecturers. Since many of the
faculty are relatively new hires it is difficult to measure their effectiveness. The full
professors in the department have certainly obtained outstanding scholarly records
even with their heavy teaching responsibilities. It should also be noted that teaching
evaluations of PESPH faculty are consistently higher than the University average.
Is the current number of full-time, tenure track faculty in the department appropriate
in relation to the number of degree programs and to the faculty growth plan?
As has been mentioned elsewhere in this report, if the department really
desires to grow the graduate program specializations in athletic administration and
add public/community health, additional faculty trained in athletic administration
and public/community health must be hired. If additional faculty were hired to
teach in the athletic administration graduate program, consideration could also be
given to developing an undergraduate degree in athletic administration.
What is the new hires sense of mentoring by senior faculty? Do they feel valued and
included?
The junior faculty I met with provided very positive feedback regarding
mentoring by senior faculty. The new hires in public health mentioned that they
had met with Melody individual and that she had been very helpful.
Resources
First, additional faculty are necessary to meet program needs. Faculty have
heavy teaching loads and that is not likely to change under the current system. If
the graduate program is expected to grow it is essential that additional faculty are
hired.
It appears that current appropriated funding is sufficient to cover
department needs. However, it today’s climate as we adjust to the “state-assisted”
model of funding as compared to the “state-supported” model and as departments
are being asked to cover more and more of what were college or university costs,
department funding may not be sufficient. I highly recommend that PESPH look to
develop other sources of funding. Often, that sort of funding is used to support
faculty travel and to purchase equipment. For a department with programs that are
equipment based, the availability of money to replace that equipment is essential.
Single pieces of equipment can cost thousands of dollars. Many departments
9
implement course fees for those courses that require the purchase and upkeep of
equipment.
Perhaps a more direct statement is that the department needs to consider
the development of non-State funding sources. A current example seen in many
places, including UCW, is that of summer workshops for teachers or sport camps for
children. Other things that might be considered include consulting with school
districts, in-service programs for a fee, contracts for services provided by faculty
and/or students, and/or facility usage fee when off-campus groups use the facilities.
Other examples can be identified on the campus as models, but faculty must
recognize the value they represent.
In far too many cases educators feel compelled to provide services at not
cost. If the faculty can generate some flow into the department and can control the
level of workload, they should consider the creation of endowment accounts that
guarantee the availability of future support in the form of interest from the
principle. It may involve delayed gratification, but when trying to stabilize the
program for the future, endowments are certainly a means to that end.
Another thing I noticed was the scarcity of grant funding within the
department. I certainly do not know the college or department expectations for
external funding but as resources become tighter and harder to come by, we all need
to investigate the possibility of external funding. Any external grants cold provide
indirect costs to the department, support staff, travel, equipment, salary-buy-out,
and graduate assistants.
Facilities and Equipment
Are the facilities appropriate to the major programs offered?
On first glance the facilities seem appropriate; however, upon closer
inspection there are some shortcoming, even with the remodeling of the Pavilion.
The classroom used for teaching in the Pavilion appears to be a stop-gap measure. It
is certainly not the most efficient teaching station with the opening in the back of
the room. The room does not seem conducive to learning with the noise level from
the courts nearby and the wall covering. In order to be a quality teaching station
that room certainly need sound proofing. In addition, the courts that are considered
teaching stations are not secure from intrusions during physical education class
sessions. Individuals walking through a classroom during a class session would
certainly not be accepted. The same standard should apply for teaching stations
located in gymnasiums.
It is my understanding that the remodel of the Pavilion allowed coaches to
move from the Physical Education Building. I am sure that the additional space in
the PE building is welcome but from what I learned it is still not enough. There is a
need for more office space for new faculty, an undergraduate computer lab, a
distance education and video lab for class meetings and video analysis, more
classroom space, and additional space for students while they await their classes
and/or study. Although science labs are not needed within the new department
there is a need for a Qualitative Research Lab that would have a small room for
10
focus groups divided with a one-way mirror to a classroom along with a computer
room for transcription and data analysis.
Although the classrooms in the PE building are updated with “smart
classroom” technology it appears that the equipment is a bit dated and will need to
be replaced in the not so distant future.
I understand how the faculty in the two departments might want to keep
office space and secretary space as it was in the past as a show of cooperation;
however, in order for the two departments to establish their individual identities, I
believe that organizational changes in the building must be made. Ideally, the entire
building should become the PESPH building housing only the PESPH department.
That may not be possible in the near future, however.
The front office arrangement needs to be changed sooner rather than later. I
realize that the arrangement is set up based on the old department but it is certainly
not conducive to the new PESPH department. I also realize that support staff are
currently shared within the two departments. I suggest that each department have
it’s own support staff in the future. Some faculty did talk about the maze they have
to navigate to find the right secretary. The new faculty even mentioned that they
did not know who the person located outside of Dr. Brigg’s office was.
If the two departments will continue to share building space for the time
being, I believe that office space should be situated so that the faculty within each
department are in close proximity to others in the same department.
What are my observations regarding facility maintenance?
The campus appears to be well maintained, yielding a positive reaction to
being on campus. Considering the heavy usage and open access policy, the
maintenance of the facilities used by PESPH is exemplary.
Is the equipment appropriate for the majors offered in the department?
Current equipment appears to be up-to-date and appropriate for offices,
classrooms, and activity spaces.
Summary
The Department of Physical Education, School and Public Health has many
strength’s and is doing many things well. Most have been identified in the self-study
but I would like to mention a few:
 Undergraduate and graduate programs that fit with faculty strengths.
However, this is perhaps not yet so for the athletic administration
specialization in the graduate program.
 A unique on-line masters degree in health and physical education.
 Faculty support of student majors.
 Senior faculty who are professionally engaged and committed to scholarship.
 Hands-on experiences built into programs.
 A large and diverse activity program.
 A growing dance program.
11




A graduate specialization (athletic administration) with a future of growth.
Highly dedicated, loyal, and competent support personnel.
Use of technology in professional programs.
A well thought out and articulated list of goals.
I believe the Department of Physical Education, School and Public Health has
done a good job of responding to the Dean’s Recommendations of July 1, 2004
(pages 52-58) and a great job of detailing future directions (pages 61-63). In my
mind your central issues are:
 Establishing a supportive culture that values the unique scholarly
contributions of all faculty members.
 Finishing the merger process of physical education and health education by
identifying outcome competencies and assessment criteria for each of the
courses in the new major.
 Making use of the new public health faculty to assist with reviewing and
perhaps tweaking the public health major.
 Establishing your own space in the physical education building. Best case
scenario for the department would be to have complete control of the
building. If PESPH controlled the entire building appropriate research and
teaching labs could be constructed that would benefit the faculty and
students of PESPH.
 Developing an enrollment management plan for the MS program that
systematically allows the specializations to grow, thus meeting the desires of
upper administration, while allowing faculty to determine the speed of
growth.
 Hiring faculty with an expertise in athletic administration. This, or these,
individuals could develop a stronger program of study in athletic
administration and provide guidance toward accreditation of the athletic
administration degree. With the advent of the MS athletic administration
specialization, consideration might also be given to the development of an
undergraduate degree also. The field of sport management (athletic
administration) is certainly a growth area in the broad field of Kinesiology.
 Once public health faculty have gained a couple of years of university
experience, you might consider adding a community health specialization to
the current MS degree. I do not support the idea of a stand-alone MPH nor do
I support the development of separate MS degrees for each of the
specializations you might have. In order to offer the community health
specialization you will need additional faculty.
 Working with the new College of Education to identify college and
department assessment outcomes and making sure that these outcomes align
with program and student learning outcomes.
 Since NASPE has recently released new Beginning Teaching Standards and
Advanced Teaching Standards, I strongly suggest that you review your
outcomes for your undergraduate physical education and school health
degree and on-line MS degree.
12
13