March 7, 2008
Dr. Tracey Pellett
Associate Vice President for Undergraduate Studies
Central Washington University
400 East University Way
Ellensburg, WA 98926-7503
Dear Dr. Pellett,
Attached is my program review of the Recreation and Tourism Program at Central Washington
University. This review was constructed based upon a reading of the self-study documents and a
visit to the campus from February 20 to 22, 2008. The campus visit included an inspection of
facilities, review of numerous program documents, interviews with faculty, support staff,
students, and administrators, and an on-line review of library resources.
The attached program review considers the following areas: leadership, curriculum, program
planning and assessment, faculty, support of faculty, students, academic advising, facilities,
support of the industry and alumni, library resources, computer technology, and future directions.
Each section will address strengths and challenges. Further, for several topics, I will include my
perspective regarding the forthcoming National Recreation and Park Association (NRPA)
accreditation.
It should also be mentioned that my program review visit coincided with the department review
visit made by Dr. Virginia Clark Johnson. Some of our meetings, interviews, and meals were
scheduled together. This was an effective way for us to share notes and opinions, and it was a
positive factor in helping to make my review more thorough, thoughtful, and complete.
I would like to express my gratitude to you and all the other administrator, faculty, and students
who helped make the campus visit a well organized and pleasant experience. Please contact me
if you have any questions regarding my report.
Sincerely,
John Crossley, Ed.D.
Recreation Administration Program
California State University, Fresno
5310 North Campus Drive, M/S PH103
Fresno, CA 93740-8019
jcrossle@csufresno.edu
559-213-0059
CENTRAL WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY
Recreation and Tourism Program
External Review
Dr. John Crossley
Program Visitation February 20 to 22, 2008
SUMMARY
The Family and Consumer Studies Department (FCS) and the Recreation and Tourism Program
(RT) both have good leadership. RT Faculty all have practical experience in their field, are very
student centered, and are open to making improvements that will benefit the program. In the
future, faculty may be faced with increased expectations for scholarship and this could stress an
existing very full load of teaching responsibilities. The RT curriculum has a well designed core
of courses that will meet most of the accreditation standards of the National Recreation and Park
Association (NRPA). However, the course syllabi need improvements to communicate how the
courses meet the standards. Also, there are two instances where a specific course would meet
NRPA standards better than an alternate course offered as an option. A real strength of the RT
curriculum is the excellent variety of elective courses that allow students to gain skills and
knowledge in several different career fields. One challenge for the program will be to develop
some better outcome assessments. The academic advising process is good, but the RT program
needs to upgrade its web site and its promotional brochure in order to communicate better with
prospective students. With a couple exceptions, library resources are probably adequate for
NRPA accreditation. Regarding facilities, a major problem is the lack of a decent classroom for
most of the RT courses. The underutilized Michaelsen 108 is suggested as a solution. The RT
program has good support from industry professionals. Overall, the program is in a period of
relative stability now, and it’s a good time for fine tuning in a variety of areas. The future looks
good and continued growth should warrant an additional faculty position.
METHODOLOGY
The reviewer used the following steps to conduct the external review.
Department and Program Self Study. A self-study document for the Department of Family and
Consumer Sciences (FCS) was received on February 11, 2008. This document provided an
overview of the Department, University and Department goals, an assessment plan, faculty vitas,
Department FTE data, RTP information, results of an alumni survey, and a self-analysis that
included a section about “future directions.” Information for the Recreation and Tourism
Program (RT) was included in every section of the self study. The self study was read
thoroughly prior to the site visit and was the basis for several pages of questions that were
prepared for the site visit.
Program Site Visit The reviewer visited the campus from February 20 to 22, 2008. The campus
visit included an inspection of facilities, review of numerous program documents (including
course syllabi, promotional materials, and academic advising materials), a review of the program
web site, and an on-line review of library resources. There were also numerous meetings and
interviews with the full-time faculty in the program, support staff, students, the Department
Chair, and with several College and University administrators. Several meal functions allowed
time to interact informally and this helped to provide depth and texture to the overall
impressions. It should also be mentioned that this reviewer’s site visit coincided with the FCS
Department site visit made by Dr. Virginia Clark Johnson. Some of our meetings, interviews,
and meals were scheduled together. This was an effective way for us to share notes and
opinions, and it was a positive factor in helping to make this review more thorough, thoughtful,
and complete.
FINDINGS
This program review considers the following areas: leadership, curriculum, program planning
and assessment, faculty, support of faculty, students, academic advising, facilities, support of the
industry and alumni, library resources, computer technology, and future directions. Each
section (except future directions) will address strengths and challenges. Several perspectives are
offered regarding the forthcoming accreditation process by the National Recreation and Park
Association (NRPA).
Leadership
The FCS Department Chair is Dr. Jan Bowers and the Recreation and Tourism Program Director
is Dr. Barbara Masberg.
Strengths
1. Dr. Bowers is a highly experienced and nationally recognized educator and department
chair with a strong record of scholarship, service, and grants funding. She is well
respected by faculty. She is forward thinking and creative. Most importantly, as it
pertains to this program review, Dr. Bowers is a strong supporter of the Recreation and
Tourism Program.
2. Dr. Barbara Masberg is an experienced educator and program director with a wealth of
practical experience in the recreation and tourism industry. She has a very good record of
scholarship and service, and a good record of obtaining grants. Dr. Masberg is very
student centered and is very open to making improvements for the program.
Challenges
1. The demands of department and program administration are very strong and appear to be
increasing due to several types of accreditation/review, increased emphasis on outcomes
assessment, and the possibility of increased expectations for scholarship by a new
University President. Under these circumstances, the teaching load, particularly for Dr.
Masberg seems high.
Curriculum
The Recreation and Tourism Program has two Specializations; Recreation Management and
Tourism Management. There are also minors in Community Recreation, Tourism Management,
and Wine Trade and Tourism (soon to become a separate major). There are opportunities for
students to take a wide variety of electives that will give them depth in several areas of the
industry including Special Events and Conventions, Travel, Lodging, Recreation Activities,
Recreational Sports Management, Outdoor Recreation, Recreation for Senior Adults, and
Children and Youth Leadership.
Strengths
1. The core curriculum is generally well designed, has very appropriate content, and will
probably satisfy most of the NRPA accreditation standards for curriculum.
2. There is exceptional strength in the variety of courses available to serve the two
specializations; Recreation Management and Tourism Management. Similarly, the
available electives offer excellent opportunity for students to create depth in an area of
the recreation and tourism industry that interests them. The content of these courses is
typically right on target for knowledge, skills, and experiences that students need for
success in their field of interest.
Challenges
1. The course syllabi are typically not up to the standard expected for the NRPA
accreditation. It is critical that a syllabus communicates in a very detailed way how that
course fulfills NRPA standards. The syllabus must include the NRPA professional
competency standards in its set of course objectives or learning outcomes. Further, the
assignments (which should be more detailed) must reflect which of the NRPA standards
they cover. The course schedule for the quarter must show how the content for each
class meeting (either daily or weekly) reflects the content of those standards. It is OK for
any course to include content objectives and assignments that go beyond the NRPA
standards.
2. Most of the NRPA professional competency standards appear to be met in the courses
even though they are not adequately identified. However, several were not found in
catalog course descriptions or course syllabi, although there are logical places for these to
occur in the curriculum. These include the following (paraphrased for simplicity here):
8.05
8.12.01
8.12.02
8.25.05
Understanding of Environmental Ethics and its relation to leisure behavior
Role of leisure delivery systems in promoting Community Development
Role of leisure delivery systems in promoting Economic Development
Areas and facilities operation and maintenance
3. There are several places in the curriculum where students have a choice of two courses,
depending upon their specialization (Recreation Management or Tourism Management).
In each case one of the courses is needed to meet the NRPA standards, and students who
take the other course will not meet those standards. Specifics are:
RT 480 or 488 – 480 has several content areas that are essential to NRPA standards.
Rec Students in 488 don’t get that all the content. They get some of the
content in MGT 380, and some in HRM 381, but that is also an “or”
choice. It would be better for all students to take 480.
RT 483 or ACCT 301 – While accounting is a great course for any student, it does not
include the content related to the budget process, funding sources, and
financial management that are included in RT 483. This is needed for
NRPA standards. All students in the program should take RT 483.
MGT 380 or HRM 381 – While both are good courses, RT 480 probably covers the basic
level of content needed for NRPA standards in administrative theory,
management process, and human resources. Therefore, neither MGT 380
or HRM 381 is essential for the program core. They would be great
electives, and their removal from the core could free-up some credits for
expansion of other courses.
4. Two credits for the content in RT 483 (Budget and Finance) are probably not enough to
meet NRPA standards, particularly since a budget project and presentation are involved.
This should be a three or four credit course with at least some dedicated time in a
computer lab to develop a budget in Excel.
5. Some of the course descriptions in the university catalog do not match close enough to
the content listed in the course syllabi. For example, the syllabus for RT 210 includes
significant content in the “conceptual foundations” of the field such as theories of play
and recreation, benefits of recreation to the individual and community, and how
recreation changes through the life span. These are all essential parts of NRPA standards
8.01 to 8.05. It is suggested that all the catalog course descriptions be reviewed to be
sure they accurately reflect the current courses.
6. It would be a good idea to develop a matrix with all Core courses listed on one axis, and
the NRPA standards listed on the other axis. Then the location for each standard can be
visualized as either primary or secondary in coverage (example provided in appendix to
this report). The great advantage of this process is to see if any given course has too
many standards being covered. If an NRPA accreditation review team sees one particular
course covering many standards (more than 7?), they may be suspicious that the
standards are not getting adequate coverage.
Program Planning and Assessment
Strengths
1. The faculty appear to be interested in proactive planning for the Recreation and Tourism
Program. For example, there is awareness of many of the challenges mentioned above in
“Curriculum Challenges.” There is also thought about developing an Outdoor Education
course, and participating in an FCS department-wide series of courses that cover basic
professional competencies.
2. An assessment plan for the Recreation and Tourism Department was created as part of an
FCS department-wide plan. It related RT Program goals to those of the College and the
University. This plan was a good start.
Challenges
1. Time to adequately plan and assess is a very rare commodity given the teaching loads of
program faculty and the program director.
2. The assessment plan could benefit from a better set of outcome assessment tasks,
particularly ones that can yield higher level quantitative or qualitative data. A plan to
accomplish 8-10 different assessment tasks could be created with two tasks completed
each year on a rotating basis. Some possible tasks include:
Student exit interview
Student exit questionnaire
Alumni survey
Senior focus group
Track retention rate and graduation rate for each year’s incoming students
Track job placement rate upon graduation or within one year of graduation
Internship evaluations (by agency) to include core professional competencies
Outside review (by industry professionals) of student projects
NRPA Accreditation Review
Standard questions (small set) for final exams each year. Compare results yearly
Academic Advising evaluation form (example included in appendix)
Evaluation of student portfolios
Faculty
In addition to Program Director Dr. Barbara Masberg, other full-time faculty include Dr.
Dorothy Chase, Dr. Kenneth Cohen, and Dr. Robert Perkins (teaching duties split between two
FCS programs). In addition, several local agency professionals teach a few courses as part-time
instructors. All the full-time faculty were interviewed, but none of the part-time faculty were
interviewed. Therefore, the observations below are limited to the full-time faculty.
Strengths
1. All the faculty are very student centered and are progressive in their orientation toward
improving the program.
2. All the faculty have significant experience in recreation, tourism, and/or related public
service fields.
3. Overall the faculty have good records of scholarship and very good records of service.
Challenges
1. It seems to be the current nature of things in higher education to hold higher expectations
for future scholarship than the expectations held in the past. This could also be a point of
emphasis with a new University President. Therefore, it should not be unexpected to see
an increase in the number and/or quality of publications needed for promotion and tenure,
and for post-tenure review. While all of the faculty are capable of increased scholarship,
the current teaching load does not allow enough time for really significant increases.
Therefore, any increase in expectations should be moderate or there should be lighter
loads for teaching.
2. The NRPA accreditation standards require that all full-time faculty have at least one
degree from an accredited institution with a major in recreation, park resources, and/or
leisure services. All faculty meet this standard except for Dr. Perkins. However, the
NRPA allows that “no more than 20 percent of the courses designated as primary,
addressing standards in the 8.00 series of standards, may be taught by instructional
faculty without the above credentials. In such circumstances, acceptable justification
must be provided.” It is the opinion of this reviewer, that Dr. Perkins will qualify based
on his experience in other areas of community development, but it needs to be
documented well in the accreditation report.
Support of Faculty
Strengths
1. Faculty in the Recreation and Tourism Program have $1500 available each year for
professional development and travel. There are also opportunities to get $300 more for
trips where presentations are made at professional conferences. This is probably above
the average for Recreation and Tourism faculty across the country, except for faculty who
have extra travel funds because of grants or special foundation accounts.
2. Faculty have good quality of office administrative support, although it is just a 10 or 11
month position.
Challenges
1. It would be desirable to have a fund available for faculty to purchase instructional support
materials such as sports and games equipment, GPS units, and other equipment and
supplies for the leadership and programming classes, software to simulate program
registration, facility reservations, and financial transactions that occur in most
professional agencies, and instructional DVD’s for guest services training, human
resources management, etc. Currently, faculty have to purchase these out of their own
pocket or use their professional development/travel funds.
2. There are 12 full-time faculty in the FCS Department served by one full-time office
administrative assistant. While the service is good, another full-time or half-time position
would improve the support of faculty, especially since student assistants cannot perform
certain functions due to privacy concerns, and student assistant turnover is typically high.
Students
The department self-report lists 61 majors in Recreation and Tourism for the 2006-07 academic
year. However, faculty agree that there are currently about 150 majors. The reviewer talked
with eight current students during the site visit, some informally, and some as part of a
designated meeting.
Strengths
1. The students were, without exception, friendly, personable, and open in sharing their
opinions, which were mostly positive.
2. The students had good communication skills and a sincere interest in their major and
future profession.
3. All the students were getting some practical experience in their field or at least in a
related service discipline.
4. Students are generally pleased with their major, their courses, and instructors. They are
happy with their decision to attend CWU.
5. Numerous students were preparing to leave for a Resort and Commercial Recreation
Association (RCRA) conference or meeting, and other students attend other professional
association functions throughout the year. The NRPA accreditation requires evidence of
ongoing student involvement in professional organizations.
6. The student majors club is being reestablished and is planning to attend a conference,
hold some social events, plan a trip, and conduct other events.
7. This might sound “corny” but these seemed like “good kids” who can usually be trusted
to do the right thing. The presence of an active and engaged student majors club is a very
positive factor for the NRPA accreditation, though not a specific requirement.
8. The NRPA requires some type of “formal ongoing process of student involvement in
those aspects of the academic unit that affect their professional preparation.” This is met
though a department student leadership council that meets on a weekly basis with
Department Chair Dr. Jan Bowers. Students earn one credit each semester for
participating on the council. The council facilitates leadership development and
communications between faculty and students. The council also manages $15,000 to
$20,000 in annual revenues from the Breezeway snack bar that it operates.
Challenges
1. Some students need to be more proactive in getting registered for their major. This can
be partially solved by doing away with the pre-major status.
Academic Advising
Strengths
1. The steps of the advising process are very logical and students have excellent
documentation at several key stages: the major and minor application form, the list of
program requirements and electives, and the CAPS report.
2. Students report that they know how to access the CAPS report and how to interpret it.
3. Students report that they are happy with the advising process. They appreciate having
faculty discuss the students’ interests and explain program options and career
opportunities. They also appreciate the flexibility given when selecting electives for their
major.
4. Students are able to get into required courses and elective courses both within the
department and in other departments. The major exception is the difficulty of getting into
Accounting 301.
Challenges
1. Students who transfer to CWU from another university or community college who do not
have their AA degree sometimes wait one to three quarters before their transfer courses
are evaluated. Meanwhile these students try to select their remaining General Education
courses and courses in their major without secure knowledge of what transfer credits
count. This is not fair to students. The transfer articulation process needs to be more
timely.
2. The Recreation and Tourism Program needs to improve update and improve their website
to be more appealing and accurate for students seeking information about the program.
3. The Recreation and Tourism Program needs to create an attractive and appealing
promotional brochure in full color on glossy paper. The current brochure is not very
good. In the future, a one page “rack card” and poster would also be good ideas. The
creation of an RT digital photo library, drawing upon the personal photo libraries of each
faculty member, plus additional online search, would help facilitate better graphics for
future publications and the web site.
4. Students reported that they sometimes have difficulty laying out their schedule for
multiple quarters in advance. This can be improved by use of a “Scheduling Matrix”
(sample provided in the appendix).
5. There needs to be a more accurate method of capturing data regarding student majors.
Perhaps the planned removal of the “pre-major” will help get students coded into their
major sooner.
Facilities
A tour of campus was conducted and there were numerous opportunities to see the facilities
within Michaelsen Hall. Facilities were also a key part of the discussions with faculty and
students.
Strengths
1. Overall the University has some excellent facilities that are more attractive and functional
on the interior than they would appear to be judging from the exterior. The Student
Union Building (SUB) offers some great opportunities for student recreation and parttime jobs. There is also potential for joint programs and events with the RT Program.
2. Michaelsen Hall has some classrooms with excellent size, features, and support
technology.
3. Michaelsen Hall has numerous areas and spaces for faculty conferences, student informal
meetings, individual study, and socialization, including an area for light refreshments and
snacks.
4. Faculty offices are basic but functional, and adequate in size, except for having room to
store support materials for students.
Challenges
1. The Recreation and Tourism Program does not have an adequate classroom for most of
its courses. Rooms 203 and 204 are the rooms most frequently assigned for RT courses
and these rooms are too small, poorly configured, and lack support features needed for
class that other rooms in Michaelsen have. This was one of the greatest negative issues
found in the site visit and was the topic of greatest dismay by both faculty and students.
Another classroom, Room 108, is used only four hours a day by an alternative school,
and this reviewer never saw more that 20 students in that room at one time, over a three
day period. Also, it was learned and was observed that the instructor for the alternative
school program on occasion took his students to room 204 for class. Room 108 would be
an excellent classroom for the Recreation and Tourism Program. This reviewer cannot
comprehend how the alternative school merits a better classroom that the Recreation and
Tourism Program has, particularly since the RT classes have many more students and
have a mission more central to the University. A switch of classroom use is definitely in
order.
2. Michaelsen Hall does not have easy access for some disabled people to get to offices and
classrooms on the second floor. Access is via an elevator in an adjacent building
connected by a breezeway.
3. Michaelsen Hall needs air conditioning and a better heating system.
Support of the Industry and Alumni
Strengths
1. Numerous recreation and tourism industry professionals serve as guest speakers and as
hosts for student field trips.
2. A listing of the recreation and tourism agency sites for practicum and internships in the
past year is very impressive, both in the diversity of opportunity for the students and in
the quality of the organizations (there were numerous well-known and respected
organizations in the list).
3. A survey of alumni featured an importance-performance evaluation of 25 competencies.
For the competencies that rated as being most important, the RT alumni were generally
well satisfied that they were prepared for those competencies. Overall, they were
satisfied with the training and experiences they received in the RT major.
Challenges
1. This reviewer neglected to ask about the existence of an advisory board for the program.
This may exist, but if not, the program should establish an advisory board that meets at
least once annually.
2. There is no evidence of industry and alumni financial support of scholarships designated
for students in the program. Many programs have this, and it could become a major
function of an advisory board.
3. The campus recreation program has some staff who could be good part-time instructors
in the RT Program, however they not being utilized due to some regulations about
overtime pay. These individuals are free to use their personal leisure time teaching a
class for another community agency, but evidently can’t do so at CWU without resulting
in overtime pay. This is a missed opportunity.
Library Resources
The reviewer conducted an online search of the library holdings for periodicals in the areas of
parks, recreation, leisure, tourism, hospitality, therapeutic recreation, sports management, club
management, natural resources, etc. A search of books was not done.
Strengths
1. There were about 20 journals and periodicals found that support this curriculum. Most of
the expected key journals (Journal of Leisure Research, Leisure Studies, Parks and
Recreation, Tourism Research, Lodging Hospitality, Therapeutic Recreation Journal, etc)
were found. Another 30 to 40 periodicals that would be considered to be of “consumer
interest” were also found.
Challenges
1. The Journal of Park and Recreation Administration (after 2001) was not found and it
should be acquired. Another key journal, Leisure Sciences, was not found and should be
acquired.
2. There was some concern expressed by faculty about the ability of the Library to acquire
data bases that would be useful to the RT faculty.
Computer Technology
Strengths
1. Faculty have fairly up to date computer work stations
2. There are many computer labs around campus and the ones visited by the reviewer had a
student assistant on duty. Further, students do not have to pay extra for printing, since
this is included in university fees.
3. Most classrooms are SMART classrooms.
4. Blackboard is well established and students appear to know how to use it.
Challenges
1. The computer lab in Michaelsen Hall doubles as a classroom for an English department
professor. Therefore, it is not always available for students or faculty to use.
2. Most of the computers on campus are Mac’s and students would like to have more PC’s
available. Students say that about half the students have PC’s for personal use and those
students are more comfortable with the PC’s.
Future Directions
This section will not feature the “Strengths” and “Challenges” categories of previous section
because the events have not yet happened. Instead, the reviewer will comment upon several
items that appear to be “future directions” and will make some additional suggestions.
Period of Stability
There appears to be a period of relative stability in the Recreation and Tourism Program after the
trauma of relocation to a new department and some faculty turnover. This period of stability
needs to continue in order for the faculty to accomplish the many little projects and tasks
suggested in this review.
Program and Faculty Growth
When all the RT majors get properly coded into the major it might be as high as 150. This is a
pretty high number of majors for three full-time faculty plus a couple shared and part-time
faculty. Three is the minimum allowed for NRPA accreditation. The addition of a new faculty
position should be considered.
Core Courses in the FCS Department
There is a core of professional competencies common to all the students in the several FCS
programs. These include leadership, professional ethics, principles of management, human
resources management, budgeting and financial management, marketing, computer
competencies, program evaluation, and others. There is some current thought within FCS that
the development of department-wide core courses in these areas would be both effective and
efficient. It could help reduce course content overlap and remove the inefficiencies of several
small class sections. This reviewer believes that the concept is valid for teaching basic principles
that cut across all the FCS disciplines. However, care must be taken that the course content
unique to each discipline is not lost. The NRPA accreditation requirements have some very
specific content standards that need to be covered. Perhaps a strategy is for each program to
have a one credit “lab” or separate session tied to each core course. These labs would enrich the
core content with the content unique to each particular discipline.
Outdoor Recreation Program
There is probably student interest for program growth in the areas of outdoor recreation and
environmental education. Faculty share this interest and some planning is underway. In addition
to the development of a three credit course, a series of one unit “Outdoor Adventure” courses
(rock climbing, backpacking, wilderness survival, orienteering, snow boarding, mountain biking,
fly fishing, etc) would probably be very well received by students across campus, regardless of
major. These would be “activity courses” similar to physical education courses, but add the
element of trip planning, environmental issues, proper equipment selection and care, etc. The
equipment rental resources of the campus outdoor program, and the climbing wall in the SUB
would be logical partners for such courses. It is also important to note that such course often
serve as a “discovery” course for a students looking for a major.