Review of the Department of Biological Sciences
College of the Sciences
Central Washington University
Marshall D. Sundberg, Ph.D., F.L.S.
Professor of Botany
Emporia State University
Emporia, KS 66801
Ph 620-341-5605
msundber@emporia.edu
Introduction
This report is based on the Self Review and other documents provided by the Department
of Biological Sciences and interviews with faculty, students and staff during a visit to
campus in February, 2008. The report is divided into three main sections: the strengths,
the challenges, and recommendations. Each section is further divided into three general
categories: personnel; curriculum; and facilities. Specific items within each section are
ranked by relative importance with the most critical items listed first. Challenges and
recommendations make up the bulk of the report, but the single most import item is the
first strength listed. The department is a collegiate community of scientists dedicated to
their mission of serving students. This culture is shared by the faculty, staff and students
and provides a very supportive learning environment.
The strengths
Personnel
-Faculty collegiality and student-centeredness, open door policy
Students were unanimous in their concern that faculty be recognized for their studentcenteredness and the open-door policy of professors when working with students. The
unanimity of this impression by students is a reflection of the collegiality among faculty.
The academic environment within the department is very positive and there it is clear that
individuals feel free to express themselves candidly with colleagues and can agree to
disagree, but still remain congenial, if a consensus cannot be reached. Faculty are
supportive of each other and willing to share space and equipment. Although there
common frustrations, often related to at least a perceived lack of administrative support in
several areas, this has not (yet) dimmed the enthusiasm of the faculty for teaching or their
scholarship.
The department recognizes it is impossible to hire faculty specialized in the breadth of
biology and have consciously chosen to focus on three broad areas: Cell/Molecular,
Organismal, and Ecological while maintaining teaching expertise across the traditional
taxonomic organization. This was a wise decision to focus limited resources on building
current strengths to be competitive in major areas of contemporary biology.
-Mentoring program
The department has an established mentoring program in which new faculty are
encouraged to select a senior faculty mentor. The department recognizes the need for
mentoring and peer evaluations in order to “stabilize our core faculty.” During the past
10-12 years significant turnover has occurred, in the department and there have been
several cases of tenure denial. At least in some of these instances the mentoring program
was working as intended, and affected individuals, for one reason or another, were not
receptive to advice. The result is that as the faculty evolved during the past decade they
were able to create the supportive academic community referred to in the previous
section.
2
-Science education (sphere of distinction)
The department currently has one science education position with a split appointment
shared with the science education program and a search is ongoing for a second faculty
member who will have a similar appointment. This is an excellent arrangement. In most
traditional biology departments there is a disconnect, and lack of respect, between
scientists and science educators. That is not the case at Central Washington where there
is clear, and deserved, respect for the scientific and science education credentials of the
faculty member and his particular skills in assessment are invaluable to the department
not only in terms of curriculum revision, but for ongoing overall program review. An
added benefit is the joint appointment in the science education program when synergy
and collaboration between individual scientific disciplines will incubate. I anticipate that
additional collaborations initiated here will extend into the disciplines to the benefit of
all.
Curriculum
- New Introductory Sequence.
Based on the ongoing assessment strategy employed by the department, notably the
major fields exam, it was clear that some areas of the curriculum were weak, particularly
cell/molecular biology. The current introductory sequence is typical of many programs
devised in the 1970’s – a term of general biological principles (basic biological
chemistry, cell structure and metabolism, Mendelian genetics, ecology and evolution)
followed by a term of plant biology (diversity, structure and function) and a term of
animal biology( diversity, structure and function). Modern cell biology was not
introduced until the cell biology course. To resolve this problem, the faculty re-designed
the introductory sequence of courses which has just been approved. There is a pre-or corequisite of CHEM 181 to obviate the need to spend time reviewing basic biological
chemistry. BIOL 181 begins with the broader, more concrete concepts of ecology and
evolutionary biology with an introduction to Mendelian and population genetics. BIOL
182 moves to the cellular and molecular level using molecular genetics as a bridge. This
course will provide a solid foundation for the later cell biology course which together
should remediate the observed problem. BIOL 183 focuses on organismal
structure/function primarily of animals and plants.
In addition to the introductory core sequence the department recognizes the deficiency of
most biology students in quantitative skills. (There is still a perception among students
and the general public that biology is a science that does not require math.) They have
designed and implemented a new core course, BIOL 213: Quantitative Methods in
Biology that will emphasize the importance of mathematics in modern biology and
reinforce the necessary practical skills. This will provide the necessary foundation for
upper division courses.
3
The department should be commended for recognizing the deficiencies of its current
introductory sequence of courses and designing a new sequence to address these
deficiencies. They should also be commended for realizing that curriculum revision is
not complete, but that upper division courses must also be assessed and revised as
appropriate. The self study notes this as a future aspiration.
-Undergraduate research (sphere of distinction)
Faculty members strongly support undergraduate research in their laboratories and in at
least certain courses. It was impressive to walk down the hallway between laboratories
on the first floor and see poster-after-poster of undergraduate work on both sides of the
hall. Some of these appear to have been part of courses, but biology also is well
represented in the annual SOURCE conference and that was the source of most. Some
faculty members bring undergraduates to national or regional meetings to present their
research and this is to be encouraged. Summer support is available to undergraduates
through the competitive Summer Science Honors Research program and again biology
students are represented. It is clear from discussions with faculty that they view
providing undergraduate research opportunities at the same level as providing graduate
research. There is evidence that involvement in the Science Talent Expansion Program
(STEP) has a positive effect on preparing students for research experiences. It is
encouraging to see that independent projects are an integral component of the new BIOL
183 laboratory so that students will be introduced to doing science early in their program
of study.
The faculty correctly note that the amount of time and effort required to mentor
undergraduate students in meaningful research in not less than that required to mentor a
graduate student. In fact, it may be more. Yet, there is a differential in credit to faculty
mentors – 1/8 vs 1/6. This is not a meaningful distinction and both are low relative to the
time required to mentor the research of young scientists effectively.
-Small class size
The department has made a concerted effort to integrate lecture and laboratory activities
in individual courses by maintaining a lecture size commensurate with laboratory space.
There is strong evidence that the greatest amount of meaningful learning occurs in
situations where individual students and small groups of students are hands-on/minds-on
and interacting with the instructor. It is also documented that for most faculty, a size of
16-24 students is optimal for this type of approach. The largest classes are in the
introductory course and have an enrollment cap of 50 students to match with two lab
sections. It is critical that the faculty work with their science educator to effectively
assess student learning, particularly critical thinking skills, in their courses to serve as a
baseline for future decisions regarding class size.
4
-Grant funding
Eight of 13 tenured/tenure track faculty members from the department have received at
least one grant within the past 3 years - a total of 16 grants. Of these, 8 grants, awarded
to 5 different faculty members, involved major external funding. Six grants specifically
support undergraduate research and 7 involved interdisciplinary collaboration. This is
above average for a department of this size at a comprehensive state university.
Nevertheless, it seems that there are opportunities for faculty members who are not
currently funded to engage in collaborations both within and outside of the department
not only on disciplinary research but in the scholarship of teaching and learning. The
latter seems a natural course for those individuals who have almost single mindedly
dedicated themselves to their teaching.
-Interdisciplinary field program in China
One faculty member has initiated a summer field research experience for students in
China in collaboration with a colleague from another department on campus and Chinese
colleagues. This has been operating for several years but has not yet been
institutionalized. It is a great opportunity for students and should be expanded to involve
additional faculty with university support.
Facilities
-Chemical/equipment inventory; HAZMAT protocols
The department has excellent support staff at all levels. Management of the central
stockroom and preparation facilities was particularly impressive. The paperwork and
procedures involving purchase, use, and disposal of consumables, especially hazardous
chemicals, can be daunting and present potential health, safety, and legal risks. A formal
training program to educate students, and faculty, about proper protocols is operating
effectively. Given the recent history of the EPA to spot-check for university compliance
with hazardous waste regulations around the country, CWU is in excellent shape!
-Teaching laboratories and equipment
The teaching laboratories are of adequate size and are well maintained – as is the building
as a whole. Many if not most of the teaching laboratories are arranged in such a way as
to share preparation space and/or common equipment. Instrumentation is generally in
good shape, although it is uniformly aging. The key word here is uniform. Most of the
teaching equipment was purchased when the building was built about a decade ago so it
is all aging at the same rate. The usable lifespan of instrumentation varies considerably.
A quality microscope, well maintained, will be serviceable for decades but some
electronic equipment, such as gel scanners, can be outmoded in a few years. The
department should begin to plan for eventual equipment replacement based on anticipated
lifetime and changes in “state of the art.” In fact the department recognizes this need as
evidenced by their aspiration to “Implement a pro-active plan to replace outdated
equipment/software” and to “…better utilize space….”
5
-AV-equipped classrooms
Classrooms and laboratories are well equipped with digital media devices and are internet
accessible. Each room has a ceiling mounted projector, computer, document reader and
DVD player. This makes it easy for faculty to use the wide variety of pedagogical tools
now available to support instruction. The only shortcoming is the apparent universitywide lack of a computer upgrade plan such that some computers are not now capable of
running some of the latest software.
-Collections, vivarium, greenhouse
The herbarium and museum collections share a collections room with a modern system of
compactor cabinets that provides excellent protection and accessibility. The vivarium is
well maintained with individual isolation rooms, each with independent environmental
control, to house a variety of research animals to support student and faculty research.
The greenhouse and adjacent arboretum also are well maintained to support coursework
and undergraduate and graduate research.
-Ready access to “natural area”
The secured pond west of the science building parking lot provides a readily accessible
natural area for use by courses and for small research projects. The fencing ensures that
the habitat is protected and experiments are not interrupted. The ecology courses
currently make particular use of this facility; hopefully the new BIOL 181 and 183 also
will take advantage of its proximity.
-Maintenance and general appearance of facilities
The department is blessed with a strikingly designed and relative new building. It is clear
that the custodial staff have a sense of ownership for the building. The rooms and
hallways were “polished” and clean. I was told that the plantings in the atrium were not
only maintained by custodial staff but actually obtained by them. It must be an
impressive experience for a prospective student to enter the building for the first time.
The challenges
Personnel
-Advising
Student advising is a shared responsibility among the faculty with variable results
according to students. Some advisors are very good but they are a minority. Particular
concerns were mentioned about some of the pre-professional advising. The department
recognizes this problem and suggests hiring a professional advisor, particularly for the
pre-professional programs. Given that pre-health science advising is typically shared
6
between biology and chemistry departments, a professional advisor may be a joint
appointment.
A bigger problem seems to relate to the fact that students are not required to meet with
their advisor before registering for classes. It seems that many of the students
complaints, mentioned below, have their root in poor advising- particularly in ensuring
that students in fact meet with their advisors on a regular basis.
-Disconnect between activity report vs. workload plan (and related
union/administration concerns.
A general faculty concern is the disconnect between the mandated workload plan and the
subsequent mandated activity report. This dissatisfaction appears to have it roots in at
least the perception of antagonism between the administration and unionized faculty.
Perhaps some of this is simply resistance to a “new” system, however, it seems clear that
there is some arbitrariness in assigning numbers to teaching loads, scholarship, and
service on the workload plan and even more so on reporting activity where the emphasis
seems to be on making the numbers “add up” regardless of the actual work accomplished.
I was told it was frowned on to have “activities which are in excess of your last approved
workload plan.”
-Recognition of First author/PI, vs. co-author/PI
A specific problem related to reporting is the differential credit received for publications
and grants. Especially today with many interdisciplinary projects, the effort contributed
by multiple individuals is equal although only one person can be listed first, whether it is
a manuscript reporting the results of research or a grant proposal to support future
research. This is a national and international trend in the sciences and journals are
beginning to recognize this by allowing multiple authors to indicate equal contributions
with a footnote. Several of the very large grants which include biologists as co-PI’s fall
into this category. The university should devise a mechanism to allow multiple faculty
members to indicate appropriate sharing of effort, including primary responsibility. This
is a professional judgment that can best be made by the scientists involved.
-Recruiting better students – undergrad and grad
Entrance data on incoming students, and results of the major field exam for graduating
undergraduates suggest that CWU students are average or slightly above. The self study
documents a desire by the department to improve the quality of both undergraduate and
graduate students but does not provide specific mechanisms for doing so.
-Support for graduate research
The graduate students as a group, and several faculty members, indicated that support for
undergraduate research, particularly during the summer, is better than support for
graduate student research. The primary focus of the university is on undergraduate
7
education and it is implicit that the spheres of influence address primarily
undergraduates. However, given the college goal to “Provide for outstanding graduate
programs…” that ties to the sphere of distinction of recognizing regional needs and
enhancing regional resources, the graduate program should not be a “foster child.” A
traditional strength of the UCW biology graduate program relates to environmental
biology and natural resources which have a direct impact on the region. This said, an
important caveat is discussed in the first section below.
Curriculum
-GRADUATE PROGRAM - - focus and implementation.
Perhaps the single greatest challenge the department faces is to define its mission in
graduate education. The department lists as a goal to “Provide a rigorous program of
graduate training at the Master’s level” yet the current program is small and its viability
is marginal. Its traditional emphasis has been in environmental biology and here it has
successfully placed a number of alumni in state and/or federal agencies. Because of its
small size, there are large swings in annual degree completions, e.g., 9 in 2003-4 but 0 in
2006-7. The five year average is less than 4 per year a marginal number for a faculty of
this size.
There does not seem to be a consensus in the department about whether they should have
a graduate program (or does it siphon limited resources from undergraduate research) and
if it is kept, should it be more focused or broad-based? It is critical that the department
have serious discussions about what should be the role of graduate education in the
department given the limited level of support that can be provided by the university. A
decision to grow the program, particularly in the cell/molecular area, will require a
commitment by the faculty as a whole to more aggressively seek external funding. The
department must be proactive in supporting any additional programmatic growth.
An institutionalize problem that does not help the faculty is the limited funding available
to support travel to meetings. If the university was solely an undergraduate institution,
equitable travel support as faculty development would be appropriate. But with a
graduate program, participation at professional meetings is a very important recruiting
tool as well. It is an opportunity to network with colleagues from other institutions and
demonstrate the vitality of the program to potential applicants to the graduate program.
The College should find a way to provide additional support for this recruiting function.
The graduate students uniformly commended the commitment of faculty to mentor their
students but also had some uniform complaints related directly to curriculum. The most
problematic is the complaint that there are not enough upper division/graduate courses to
support their interests. The conundrum is that to add more courses without increasing the
size of the graduate student body will reduce course enrollments to an insufficient level.
A second uniform complaint was the need for graduate-level biostatistics in addition to
the research methods course. I was impressed that even the student working in the
molecular area agreed with this concern. A final curriculum concern was that there
should be more external speakers brought in for department seminars.
8
Both faculty advisors and students felt that the current rigid thesis guidelines are an
unnecessary obstacle to satisfactory completion of the degree. The current trend for
scientific theses and dissertations is to permit individual chapters to be formatted for
direct submission as a journal manuscript following the guidelines for authors of the
targeted journal. An introductory chapter forms a unifying bridge between subsequent
chapters. This should be an easy change in university policy that would have an
immediate positive impact.
There also was a general concern among graduate students that they are the “step
children” in the department. They are competing with undergraduates for research space,
summer support, travel support, and mentor’s time - - and their impression is that they
lose in every case.
An additional question raised in my mind during the meeting with graduate students
concerned the availability of GIS for those students, the majority, working in
environmental/ecological areas. Today this skill should be in every field biologist’s tool
box but it did not come across as an emphasis in the curriculum
-Undergraduate research
As mentioned above, undergraduate research is a department strength, but the senior
groups I met with had concerns about its availability. In a survey by hand-raising most of
these seniors did not know that undergraduate student research was an option for them
until late in their junior- or even the start of their senior year. Even now the majority
thought it was an opportunity you were “invited” to do, not something you could
proactively pursue.
Off-campus summer research opportunities such as NSF-REU, HHMI, NIH, others were
not widely know by the students and there does not appear to be a general mechanism for
providing general information about such opportunities.
-Senior Seminar
Both the students and faculty had concerns about the senior seminar. Faculty were
unclear about the purpose of this required course except as a vehicle to administer the
Major Field Examination (MFE) as part of their assessment program. They readily
acknowledged that this was not ideal. Students were puzzled that there was no
consistency to course and that what was covered seemed to be the whim of the particular
instructor. The opinion of some was that they found it useful - - others found it to be
busywork. A unanimous recommendation was that there should be some focus on career
opportunities specific to biology. They also had a uniform complaint about the added
“graduation fee” represented by the cost of the MFE.
-Course Scheduling
9
The self review acknowledges the need to “fix scheduling problems within the
department as well as cross-disciplines.” The seniors complained that they had multiple
required courses scheduled at concurrent times both within and between departments.
They also complained that it was difficult for them to plan ahead. A rotation of courses is
posted (which semesters a particular course is offered) but this does not include times so
the student cannot anticipate potential time conflicts. The department is working to
minimize such conflicts among its own courses by offering sections at alternative times
and by coordinating with the Chemistry Department on a semester by semester basis.
This suggests that the problem is in large part related to inadequate advising throughout
the students’ careers.
A related problem voiced by students is the number of courses still “on the books” that
have not been offered for some time or on a regular basis. The department should
carefully consider these courses as it moves curriculum assessment into the upper level
courses.
-Course Content
Inconsistency in the senior seminar course was mentioned above, but students felt that
there is a general lack of coordination between multiple faculty members teaching the
same course. In addition to the seminar students pointed to virtually all of the core
courses.
A second general concern with the fact that textbooks are required in all courses, it is
quite possible to get through a course without “cracking” the textbook. Students felt that
if they were required to purchase a book, it should specifically be used in the class.
Some classes use a computer lab for testing and for other class activities, but apparently
there is only one computer lab in the department capable of this function - - the lab
provided for general student use. Therefore, whenever a class schedules use of that room
it is unavailable to the students for whom it supposedly is dedicated. The students noted
that there are other computer labs used by faculty for a variety of other functions, but
only one, “the students’” has the capability for use in testing.
In a related matter, students expressed dissatisfaction with the “scroll” function when
taking exams on the computers. Apparently if you use this function you are unable to
check on what answers you’ve previously provided.
-Pre-professional Preparation
Pre-professional students expressed concern with acceptance rates of CWU students
getting into professional schools vs. the success of students from other schools. Their
perception is that students from the University of Washington in particular have an
advantage for gaining entry into professional schools there. Students have the
impression that their test scores, MCAT, etc. are not up to desired level. I suspect that
the success rate of CWU students is comparable to that of the other public institutions - this information should be publicized to dispel misconceptions.
10
-Grants
Some faculty are very successful in grantsmanship; others have little to no record of
success. Faculty concentrating on teaching should be encouraged to develop a formal
program in the scholarship of teaching and learning. Faculty with a record of success in
obtaining small, in house grants should focus on including student collaboration.
Facilities
-SPACE
Currently all faculty members have an office and small research space and there are two
common research labs. One of these, set up for cell and molecular biology, is optimally
used and has no space for expansion. The second is set up for field and organismal
research and is underused. Some graduate students share office space in the departmental
office suite which others share space with chemistry graduate students in a graduate
student “bullpen.”
Research space for faculty and graduate students is barely adequate. Some
undergraduate work is done in faculty lab spaces but much occurs off-hours in the
teaching labs. As student investigation permeates undergraduate courses and the faculty
grows (from 1 to 3 positions in the next year depending on some interdisciplinary
programs) additional space will be needed. Every effort should be made to keep that
space in the new science building as opposed to splitting the department among
buildings.
-Service Contracts
Lab-based sciences, including biology, depend on a variety of sophisticated and
expensive laboratory instruments and equipment. As the equipment ages components
wear out and must be replaced and/or upgrades are required as the edge of science moves
forward. The ideal situation is to purchase service contracts to ensure that periodic
maintenance is performed so as to avoid catastrophic failure and to have priority
assistance should such a failure occur. Granting agencies assume this as part of the
infrastructural support provided by the university and supported by overhead.
The department is to be commended for prioritizing it needs and maintaining a service
contract on one (of several) autoclaves that is essential for routine media preparation in
virtually all courses and research involving microorganisms. Additional funding should
be made available specifically to provide service contract support for expensive and
critical instrumentation that supports teaching and research in the department.
-Periodic Equipment Upgrades
Certain types of equipment require periodic upgrade to be useful at the current state of
the art. The most familiar example relates to computing. Both hardware and software
11
continues to evolve at a rapid rate often making older equipment obsolete for its intended
purpose long before it ceases to function. Central Washington is the first university I
have visited that does not have a regular cycle of computer upgrades in “smart”
classrooms. Some campuses extend this cycle to faculty computing (although this may
be a 5-year cycle rather than a 3-year cycle). The usually policy is to regularly upgrade
classroom computers and cycle the replaced computers to faculty.
In biology, periodic equipment upgrades should extend to some of the equipment
supporting cell and molecular biology teaching and research. One candidate for
immediate upgrade is a gel reader in the shared research space. A second candidate is a
new field vehicle with a trailer hitch. The current vehicle is unreliable and faculty must
use personal vehicles to pull field equipment to study sites. Both are critical to the
program and necessary for any further program expansion.
- Electron Microscope
My tour of the facilities did not include the SEM laboratory and I did not meet with any
faculty members who mentioned using the microscope in their research or teaching.
According to the self review document this piece of donated equipment is “Used heavily
in research and in some classes.” As noted in the document, the microscope, and to a
lesser degree the sputter coater, “Requires regular maintenance and parts replacement.”
My reason for including it as a separate category, rather than including it in the section
above, is that graduate students specifically noted the EM space as being unused and a
potential source of office and/or research space. This inconsistency is troubling
especially given that scanning electron microscopy is a relatively simple technique to
learn (relative to transmission EM) and is readily applicable to undergraduate research
projects.
-Collections
The herbarium and animal range share a modern space and the size of the collections is
significant for a comprehensive state institution. For some time taxonomy has been in
decline nationally, however we are on a cusp of resurgence with recognition of the
importance of biodiversity and the significance of invasive species. A key to this
resurgence is the construction of electronic databases of collection information. Neither
the plant nor animal collections have been entered into a database.
other
-Publicity
The department feels under appreciated on campus and in the broader statewide and
regional community. In large measure this is self-inflicted by not publicizing its
accomplishments more vigorously.
12
-Summer Program
The department grew used to the summer program providing a regular source of
supplemental funds to support programs within the department - - this is no longer the
case. Particularly if teachers are to be attracted for continuing certification and potential
M.S. degrees, the summer program must be reinvigorated.
Recommendations
Personnel
-Advising
Advising for incoming students is centralized. Responsibility for advising majors is
diffused throughout the department with faculty members assigned responsibilities for
students interested in their sub-disciplinary areas or related preprofessional areas. The
department aspires to hire a professional advisor for the pre-professional programs. For a
department of this size this probably would be counter productive due to the loss of direct
faculty contact with such a large group of the undergraduate majors. The quality of
advising varies considerably with pre-medicine being the one area consistently
acknowledged as being very good by students. The university does not require students
to meet with their advisor each semester prior to registration, which may be done on-line
by students which leads to a number of problems addressed above.
Recommendations:
1) In addition to providing the Academic Advising Center a listing of the new
introductory biology sequence, the department should provide a recommended
schedule to include recommended mathematics and co-requisite chemistry
courses. More ideal would be to have a biology faculty member (or two) trained
and assigned as freshman advisor, working through the Center, for all incoming
students who express an interest in any life science discipline. This assignment
should be credited as course release time equivalent to at least 3 workload units.
2) Advising should remain a shared responsibility with faculty responsible for
students interested in their specialty areas but “refresher” training should be provided
to ensure that faculty advisors are familiar with all university and department
requirements. One exercise could be to prepare an advising template for each area
with a recommended schedule for all core courses in the discipline and in ancillary
fields that could be provided to every advisee. In the first semester after declaring a
major, the student and advisor should outline a draft graduation plan that will
minimize potential course conflicts and optimize “on time” graduation.
To facilitate this planning, the department should amend their schedule of class
offerings, which currently indicates only quarters in which a class is offered, to reflect
the usual times of offerings. The schedule must now be basically set between the
science departments to facilitate room scheduling and minimize course conflicts, so
this should be simply a matter of formalizing the current schedule and making it
available to advisors and students.
13
3) The department should request that the university put a hold flag on registration of
all majors that can only be removed by the advisor (or chair) after a meeting with the
student. Many of the student complaints, outlined above, are most likely the result of
lack of scheduling guidance over a period of several years. The limited classroom
and laboratory spaces necessitate concurrent offerings. The department already
attempts to at least offer multiple sections of core courses when there might be a
conflict between courses. This scheduling already considers required ancillary
courses, particularly chemistry. The students I talked with were seniors and several
of them were upset to find themselves in a situation where it was impossible to take
courses they needed in a given quarter. It is likely this situation arose because for a
year or more they registered for courses they wanted and were not planning ahead for
courses they needed. A hold flag will ensure that students interact with their advisors
before scheduling classes for the subsequent quarter and this will minimize potential
scheduling conflicts, especially during the senior year.
-Recruiting
The department states the desire to recruit stronger students, at both the undergraduate
and graduate levels. There are some things that can be done immediately and with
relatively little effort, and some things that will be more long term.
1) Keep the department web page current. Some of the highlighted activities on the
current page are outdated. Emphasize student research opportunities and successes.
All areas available for graduate study should be listed (Cellular/molecular are
conspicuously absent on the current page and this is an area especially attractive to many
students, including foreign students). There is more specific information about the
Resource Management program, in which the department is a contributor, than there is to
the graduate opportunities in the department itself.
2) The department feels underappreciated on campus. To remedy this they should begin
to produce a newsletter for college and university distribution on a monthly basis and a
more formal alumni newsletter on at least an annual basis. The former is to keep
colleagues and administrators aware of the ongoing activity in the department and may be
a bridge to further interdisciplinary collaborations. The latter is to engage the outside
group most likely to be of assistance in placing graduates and in providing support for
current students and programs in the department.
3) The best recruiting is good word of mouth. Faculty should make a concerted effort to
encourage students, especially their best students, to visit their old schools and talk with
students in their home towns about the excitement, opportunities, and challenges they
have at CWU. The recognition of being singled out by a professor is esteem building
and it should not take much additional encouragement to have students talking up the
program. Send abstracts or photos of student posters back to their home high school
science teachers as a “news release.”
14
Faculty should be proactive in classes about undergraduate research opportunities in the
department. Most seniors interviewed did not know about research opportunities until
late in their junior year and even then most thought a student had to be “invited” by a
professor to participate. The department web page could be used to advertise
opportunities.
-Professional Development
Professional development is factored into the bargaining agreement. This is equitable
for the purpose of individual professional development but it is inadequate to use
professional meetings for their broader impact on program development in the
department. Student participation in faculty research, presented at state-wide and
regional conferences, builds the regional reputation of the program and has a direct
impact on student recruiting. Faculty participation in regional and national meetings
strengthens the social network not only to recruit students but to place students into
graduate programs.
Overhead from grants is currently distributed at multiple levels all the way back to the
investigator. I recommend first, that a larger share be distributed down to the department
and second, that it not be further split back to the investigator. Rather, these funds should
be dedicated to providing additional travel support to faculty and students. The
investigator plans the budget to support all the requirements of the proposal, including
travel. The calculated overhead is designed to provide the institutional support required
to accomplish the objectives of the proposal. Supporting activities that build the
university and its programs is part of the expected institutional support.
The current workload interpretation builds inequity into the rewards system that
discourages the very interdisciplinary nature of science we are trying to build. For
logistical purposes, granting agencies require that a single person be designated as the PI
on a grant proposal to facilitate communication. THIS DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY
MEAN THAT THE PI HAS MORE RESPONSIBILITY OR DOES MORE WORK
THAN CO-PIs. Similarly, when a manuscript is submitted with multiple authors, only
one person can be listed first. There are accepted rules for order of listing IF there are
different levels of contribution to the project. However, it is also accepted practice to
indicated equal contribution of lead authors. The judgment of collaborating faculty
members should be used to assess
Curriculum
-Graduate Curriculum
The faculty must first decide if the graduate program should continue to be offered by the
department. If so, there should be an agreement on two or three major areas of focus and
curriculum, resources, and recruitment should be focused on these areas. Environmental
biology is a current strength. I recommend that the department continue to build on that
15
strength and add an emphasis on organismal and a second on cellular/molecular. Each
current faculty member could contribute to one, or two, of these general areas. These
areas are informally recognized by having a specific graduate course in each area (if
conservation biology is considered an environmental course). A more specific focus on
these areas should aid in recruiting graduate students. However, not many graduate
courses are offered in any area. Many of the upper division courses listed at the 400 level
are usually offered as dual enrollment – with credit for either undergraduate or graduate.
The department should consider broadening offerings in this way.
The web page and catalog both indicate opportunities for inservice teachers to earn
credits for continuing certification in pursuit of a M.S. degree. However, none of the
graduate courses are listed in the Schedule of Course Offerings as being offered in the
summer. In fact, 3 courses listed in the catalog are not included in the Schedule of
Offerings: BIOL 500, Professional Development; BIOL 592, Biological Field Studies;
and BIOL 598, Special Topics. A regular rotation of courses should be scheduled during
the summer that would permit a school teacher to complete a M.S. degree in 3-4
summers. The rotation should include most of the faculty members to even out the
burden of summer teaching responsibility.
-Course Coordination
As mentioned in the advising recommendation above, course coordination both within
and between departments has most likely already been done and is part of a regular
schedule. However, this should be reexamined to be sure that the current arrangement is
not simply a holdover from an earlier time as the curriculum has evolved.
An effort should be made to standardize the syllabi of core courses, including the senior
seminar, to insure that assumed prerequisite material is covered in all sections, regardless
of instructor.
The department is aware of the lack of pedagogical justification for the senior seminarbeing a vehicle for the Major Field Examination (MFE) is not sufficient. Students
wanted more career guidance specific to biology and information about possible
internships. I would suggest a capstone approach to a contemporary issue that is writing
intensive, requires some mathematical reasoning, and requires analysis and interpretation.
With a formalized rubric this would provide additional program assessment information,
especially with qualitative information to “fill in the details” that are generally outlined
by the MFE.
-Student Writing
Writing is required in most biology courses, whether on essay exams, written reports, or
laboratory write ups. The department self review states that “…we are requiring more
writing assignments…” and “Many of our faculty provide constructive feed back on
assignments…” yet students complained that they receive little or no feedback on their
work. This is in contrast to what they said about chemistry where grading rubrics are
16
provided for all written work. Especially with laboratory notebooks or reports, rapid and
critical feedback is essential to promote learning. A rubric is the minimum that should be
provided to students for all written work, especially in the higher enrollment lower
division courses. In upper division courses critical editing is appropriate, both the assist
student learning and to provide a model. Peer reviewing can be a useful tool to benefit
students and reduce faculty time input
-Biostatistics
Graduate students were in consistent agreement that they wanted a formal biostatistics
course at the beginning of their coursework to be required for the Masters. One student
was working in molecular biology and he was in vocal agreement (this was unusual in
my experience at other institutions). I assumed from the course description that BIOL
580, Research Methods and Techniques, included biometry as part of the “analysis
techniques.” I support their recommendation. A redesign or expansion of the current
syllabus may be sufficient.
-E-learning Tools
All of the lecture rooms and teaching laboratories are “smart,” with web access,
document readers, etc. and Blackboard platform is standard on campus. Students are
concerned that faculty should make more effective use of blackboard. Although most
faculty use the system, it is generally only for posting syllabi and course documents.
Apparently it is used much more intensely in other disciplines and with more student
interaction. In general, younger faculty members were seen as being more “attuned”
than older faculty. This suggests and opportunity for building on the mentoring
relationship but with role-reversal - - the younger faculty member mentoring the more
senior faculty member on more effective blackboard use.
Beyond the classroom, the web could be more effectively used for communication within
the department. A departmental bulletin board or list-serve could be used for
announcements, job or internship possibilities, department events, etc. Some
departments, and individual faculty members, are looking at using “Facebook” to build
community and facilitate communication.
Facilities
-Equipment Replacement / Service Contracts
Some comprehensive state universities plan for regular replacement of all classroom
AND FACULTY computers. Others replace classroom computers on a regular basis and
cycle the older (3-5 yr) computers down to the faculty with the faculty’s older computers
moving down to graduate students or research laboratories. The latter model is a
minimum.
The department is lucky in that most of its equipment is no more than 10 years old and
was new with the building. It is unlucky that all of the equipment is 10 years old and
17
growing older with no plan for replacement and only a very few on service contract.
Funding agencies will support new equipment but it is the universities obligation to house
and maintain that equipment. This is a significant part of the overhead cost awarded to
the university. Equipment essential for teaching and research, purchased with external
support, should be covered by service contracts funded at the university level from grant
overhead.
-Space Allocation
Currently space is marginally adequate in the department, but it will quickly become
critical with new faculty hires, expansion of the graduate program, and expansion of
undergraduate research opportunities.
Room schedules are currently posted outside of classrooms and teaching laboratories.
Superficial examination suggests that there are large blocks of under use, but these
schedules do not include out-of-class use. For instance, students need access to the
laboratory for class projects and independent research projects. The department should
careful inventory room use each semester to investigate the possibility of scheduling two
or more different classes in the same laboratory. I suspect that at least one teaching
laboratory and one of the shared research laboratories could be remodeled to provide
additional office and research space.
-Collections Database
During the last decades of the 20th century taxonomy and university collections were in
decline. However, with the new century and modern techniques the value of these
collections has dramatically increased. Key to this use is that information from these
collections is available in electronic database format. Funding is available to aid
digitization and several states have formed consortia of their institutions to do this.
Central Washington has a valuable collection and this resource should be entered into a
database. Presumably U. Washington, Washington State, or both are doing so with their
collections and if so, there would be an opportunity to “piggy back” on funding proposals
and provide possible assistantship support.
-Funding
In the preceding sections I have made several suggestions to provide additional support
through the university’s allocation of grant overhead funds. These, however, are
relatively small and specific enhancements. Of larger concern is regular state support for
operations – goods and services. The biology department at CWU is not among the
better supported departments I have visited - - in fact it is on the short end. For
comparison, my own department (in conservative Kansas) is of comparable size and
mission with a slightly smaller faculty, significantly fewer support staff, more
undergraduate majors and a few more graduate students. Our general operating budget is
more than $10,000 greater than CWU’s – even considering the additional student lab fees
which we are not allowed to charge.
18