Academic Program Review 2003-2004
Executive Summary
Department of Health, Human Performance, and Recreation
The department of Health, Human Performance, and Recreation (HHPR) 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 HHPR 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. Keith Henschen,
Professor, Exercise and Sport Science, University of Utah. Dr. Henschen read the self-study,
interviewed faculty, staff, administration, and students, and submitted his analysis.
The dean’s response is very comprehensive and thorough with specific activities and time lines
suggested for each category. This executive summary provides a very general framework for
departmental consideration and assumes that the specific content of the Dean’s response will
help guide and frame the work of the department. The department faculty and college
administration will be expected to provide a summary of activities undertaken during the 20042005 academic year as a consequence of the program review. This report will be due to the
provost in October, 2005.
The faculty and staff in the department of Health, Human Performance and Recreation are
commended for their efforts in engaging students in their disciplines. It is clear from the external
reviewer’s report and the dean’s summary that the students feel well served with professors who
are “accessible, passionate about their areas, and present relevant information in real life
scenarios.” The faculty are well prepared for their assignments and contribute the diversity of
their talents to the College of Education and Professional Studies in a variety of ways. It is also
clear from all involved in the program review that the faculty are hard working and committed to
their students and their programs.
The programs offered through this department are of high quality and several are accredited
through specialized agencies. For example, as Dean Bower’s states, “The EMT/Paramedic
program continues to receive accreditation annually and is a premier program in the state for its
offering the only bachelor’s granting program in the Pacific Northwest.” “The Recreation and
tourism program has an excellent record…The Physical Education-Teaching and Health
Education-Teaching has exceeded expectations in complying with the new state certification
standards.” The graduate level Physical Education program is the only on-line degree offered at
Central Washington University.
The department has shown modest productivity in securing external funding. According to Dr.
Quirk, the department has received approximately $100,000 in external grants and contracts
during the past three years. According to Dean Bowers, “The grants funding has enabled and
supported faculty in curriculum development and revision, research activities, and partnerships
with community entities. The funded grants have also served as a means to support students in
their studies and research and to provide services both campus-wide and to the health providers’
community.”
The departmental faculty are also to be commended for their activities associated with the
university’s goal of “building mutually beneficial partnerships.” The paramedic, community
health, exercise science, recreation and tourism, and health and physical education programs all
have outstanding relationships with a broad category of agencies and individuals. This further
strengthens the opportunities and experiences of these programs’ graduates. As noted as an
accomplishment, “Virtually all students within the department participate in either a practicum,
cooperative education experiences, or service learning.”
Recommendations:
There are several interrelated curriculum issues for the undergraduate and graduate programs.
First, the department needs to discuss all of its programs and determine if, given its mission,
resources, and faculty, they can continue offering all of the programs, including majors and
minors, and courses in their current configuration. Both the external reviewer and the dean
suggest possible realignment of programs, a curriculum audit to determine possible duplication,
and coordination issues as needing the department’s attention. Dr. Henschen suggests the
department “streamline the concentration areas to the level of faculty resources;” that “one
person programs should be enhanced with additional faculty or eliminated.” The department
itself notes the need to research and discuss strategies for reducing curriculum overlap. One
program, the minor in dance, is discussed by the reviewer and the dean, however, in the selfstudy document, there are no outcomes or discussion of that as a program in the department.
At the graduate level, faculty have done a commendable job training and preparing graduate
students. Collaborations exist within the department and with departments across campus. If the
faculty are to continue producing the number of master’s degree graduates, there is a need for
more faculty involvement or more faculty.
Another curricular issue needs to be included in the departmental discussion about their program
outcomes: the lack of information literacy standards for their graduates. Clearly, each major
degree program has learner outcomes, standards for admittance, and assesses its students’ at the
end of the program. However, the department has not articulated student learner outcomes
related to information technology as requested in Section V. B of the self-study document and
based upon regional accreditation standards. Additionally, the department also states that some
syllabi need to be updated to include learner outcomes and assessments. It would be beneficial to
the department to have data about their graduates. The department’s progress in fully meeting
these accreditation standards should be reported on in the October 2005 progress report.
A third recommendation revolves around faculty. As the external reviewer noted, the “diversity
of faculty talent is the department’s greatest strength and greatest challenge.” Issues surrounding
definition of scholarship and faculty expectations need to be discussed and a departmental
scholarship policy crafted. The faculty have shown success with presentations at regional and
national meetings. The challenge is to turn these presentations into publications in peer reviewed
journals. Issues of faculty morale seem tied to salaries and perceptions of administrators. The
dean has two suggestions to increase the two-way flow of information between the
administration and the faculty that need to be implemented.
Finally, the department needs to work with the various units on campus to address their
technological and facilities issues. The dean’s recommendations in these areas should provide
the department with the ability to move ahead to address these concerns.