Masters of Science in Organizational Development (MSOD)
Program Review Self Study
Year 2006 - 2007
I. Program Mission and Goals
A.
General Program Description and Mission
Overview of the MSOD Program: The Masters of Science in Organizational Development
(MSOD) program evolved from an interdisciplinary graduate program shared by the psychology, sociology, and business administration departments. It is now administered by the psychology department and maintains an interdisciplinary flavor. Adjunct professors who are successful managers of human resources in business, government, and service settings teach many courses. The curriculum was built on a foundation of social science research and students are trained in objective methods of analyzing organizations. This program also prepares students to facilitate improvements in productivity and quality of work life in a variety of public and private sector organizational settings. It is an applied program that teaches managers how to understand and effectively control organizational transitions.
Every course in the program is based on the following assumptions: (a) all organizations are confronted with significant change on a regular basis; (b) similarities in the effects of change between public and private organizations outweigh the differences, and (c) managers can be trained to distinguish between practices that lead to successful or unsuccessful organizational transformation.
This program applies theory and research in the field of organization development to the practice of managing institutional change that faces each professional in the workplace. Through the project or thesis, students gain the skills to integrate theory, research and practice.
Student learning outcomes in the MSOD program include skills in the following areas: (a) analyzing workplace behavior at the individual, group, and organizational levels; (b) diagnosing needs and problems that lead to proactive interventions
(change programs); (c) conducting successful interventions that achieve desired outcomes; and (d) evaluating actual outcomes against the desired outcomes.
The MSOD program is designed for students who currently are full time employees seeking skills that will enhance their careers. Each course spans the academic year.
Class meetings take place during an entire weekend about every third weekend of the year. The typical capstone thesis or project applies research or organizational change tactics to a problem in the student’s workplace.
The program is currently on reserve, pending decisions about its future that will be advised by this review and other factors.
Mission Statement: The overall mission of the MSOD program is to train private and public organization managers and change agents in the Pacific Northwest. The specific objective within this
Page 1
4/10/2020

mission is to prepare managers to deal proactively with continuous organizational change, by teaching them a variety of skills in problem diagnosis, organizational intervention, and intervention evaluation.
B.
MSOD Program Goals
Continuously improve the MSOD curriculum.
a.
Program Activity: The MSOD program periodically solicits feedback from current students, alumni, employees, organizational development (OD) consultants and MSOD and CWU faculty and administrators regarding the program. b.
Program Activity: The CWU MSOD program periodically benchmarks its curriculum against the OD programs at Pepperdine University and at Case
Western University, rated as the best U.S. organization development master’s degree programs. The three MSOD courses that have been developed in the last decade (Organizational Planning and Strategy
Simulation, Interpersonal Simulations, and Applied Group Process) were partially based on benchmarking comparisons with these two programs.
Continuously improve student performance in specific competencies, and at the same time improve the program and course assessments and evaluations of those competencies.
Program Activity: The MSOD Program directors used formal and informal end-of-the-year student evaluations to reveal program strengths and weaknesses, including those in basic competencies.
Periodically the evaluations themselves were altered to fit any changes that were made either in courses or other aspects of the program.
Maximize the on-time project/thesis completion rates of current students, and help former
MSOD students who have not finished their project or thesis to achieve completion.
Program Activity: The MSOD Program directors integrated the thesis/project process into the course curricula in various ways in order to assure a high on-time completion rate. For example, students were asked to complete their thesis or project method sections as one of the assignments in the Research Methods course. We periodically invited non-finishing students to re-enroll in order to finish their theses, and we frequently petitioned the Office of Graduate Studies to extend a student’s allotted time in order to finish.
C.
Centrality/Essentiality : Following is a list of the CWU’s six strategic goals and how they are addressed within the MSOD program.
CWU Goal 1 : Provide for an outstanding academic and student life on the Ellensburg campus a.
Program Activity: The curricula for our graduate program is periodically reviewed and revised for currency and functional effectiveness. This process is
Page 2
4/10/2020

described in the section of this document dealing with the currency of the curriculum. b.
Program Activity: There is close faculty-student contact in academic advising. c.
Program Activity: Faculty members mentor students in the master’s thesis or an approved project executed at the student’s place of employment.
2.
CWU Goal 2 : Provide for an outstanding academic and student life at the university centers.
Program Activity: Between 1997 and 2002, the MSOD program was taught at
Ellensburg, Des Moines, and Lynnwood. The MSOD program had plans to move entirely to the Des Moines Center prior to the program’s reserve status.
3.
CWU Goal 3 : Develop a diversified funding base to support academic and student programs.
a.
Program Activity: Faculty members are encouraged to submit proposals for external funding of scholarly projects, although none have been submitted.
4.
CWU Goal 4: Build mutually beneficial partnerships with industry, professional groups, institutions, and the communities surrounding the campus
Program Activity: The program draws students who are currently employed in industries and organizations in either the local community or elsewhere in
Washington State. Students are encouraged to complete research projects in their employment setting. Most students continue to work in these industries and organizations after graduation.
5.
CWU Goal 5: Strengthen the university’s position as a leader in the field of education
Program Activity: Our faculty members publish some of the results of MSOD thesis projects with their students, and they make scholarly presentations to local, regional, and national meetings of professional educators. See faculty vitae and the section of this document on scholarly productivity for examples.
6.
CWU Goal 6: Create and sustain productive, civil, and pleasant campuses and workplaces.
a.
Program Activity: The skills addressed in the MSOD program specifically prepare students to help organizations and workplaces function in a productive, civil, and cooperative manner.
D.
Describe programmatic governance system: Dr. Schepman and Dr. Stahelski have both been involved in program directorship at times during the past five years. More
Page 3
4/10/2020

recently, Dr. Stahelski has served as the sole program director. The MSOD program resides within the Psychology Department, which is within the College of the Sciences
(COTS).
II. Detailed description of program
A.
Currency of Curriculum: Organizational development practitioners rate the OD programs at Pepperdine University and at Case Western University as the best U.S. master’s degree programs. The CWU MSOD Program periodically benchmarks its curriculum against these two OD programs. The three MSOD courses that have been developed (or are being developed) in the last decade (Organizational Planning and
Strategy Simulation, Interpersonal Simulations, and Applied Group Process) were partially based on benchmarking comparisons with the two programs.
The Pepperdine MSOD program has two courses related to practicing organizational development in the global arena, International Organization Development, and Strategy and Organizational Design. Elements from each of these courses were used to create a
CWU course entitled Organizational Planning and Strategy Simulation, which involves competing student teams in the planning and strategic decision making process in a simulated dynamic global environment.
The Case Western MSOD program has a course entitled Developing Executive
Leadership Skills, which focuses on the development of students’ interpersonal and group process skills. Elements of this course were used to develop two CWU courses,
Applied Group Process, and Interpersonal Simulations. Applied Group Process focuses on dyad and trio (small group) workplace interpersonal skill practice and application.
Interpersonal Simulations focuses on large group (4 to 20 members) facilitation and meeting management skills.
B.
Process for reviewing curriculum and making alterations to programs: In addition to curriculum benchmarking, informal assessment through feedback has shaped the program. MSOD Program uses ongoing feedback from current students, program graduates, current and former adjunct faculty members, and employers to make minor course adjustments, and to provide ideas for major course additions or deletions, and other program changes. For example, consistent current student and graduate feedback over a number of years led to the addition of the project option to the traditional thesis option as an end-of-program assessment product.
C.
Effectiveness of instruction
1.
Effectiveness of the program’s instructional methods. a.
Collaborative research between student and faculty: MSOD students have the option to do a research thesis or to plan and execute a professional project in their organizational settings. These projects have many of the qualities of experimental thesis research.
Page 4
4/10/2020

Page 5
4/10/2020 b.
Inquiry-based, open ended learning: Learning by inquiry, observation, and discovery is at the heart of all sciences. In the MSOD program, much of the learning is inquiry-based and experiential. However, the program does not emphasize open-ended learning, since proficiency in the field requires a specified set of knowledge and skills.
c.
Use of field experiences: Students in the MSOD program are employed in organizations that provide daily laboratory experiences in field settings.
Additionally, several MSOD courses have fieldwork assignments where students are required to work with actual organizations. In fact, one of the courses is totally devoted to student-team field projects. d.
Classic lectures: The classic lecture format, where a prepared presentation is delivered without interruption, is not used by any MSOD faculty member.
Instead, MSOD faculty members use the lecture-discussion format described below. e.
Lecture and inquiry based guided discussions: The lecture-discussion format remains the most commonly used teaching method in the MSOD program.
Typically, the instructor prepares a lecture that is interspersed with instructor questions, student discussion, small group discussions, exercises, simulations, problem-solving applications, video clip discussions, and many other techniques to heighten the effectiveness of the instructor’s presentation. Lectures are often accompanied by judicious use of electronically presented outlines, images, video segments, and Internet content. f.
Service learning or civic engagement: Several student projects include civic engagement with social service providers, schools, youth groups, battered women’s services, crisis line services, or other community service settings. The thesis or end-of-program projects is, in essence, a service learning collaboration.
2. Information technologies faculty regularly and actively utilize in the classroom.
Many instructors use PowerPoint slides or HTML pages to present lecture outlines, illustrative images, tables, and other visual aids. Motion pictures have given way to mpegs, DVDs, and videotapes projected on a digital projector. Some faculty post their notes, syllabi, and assignments on the web for equally convenient access in the classroom or the student’s room. In addition, some faculty use Blackboard, primarily to mediate discussion groups. Faculty members typically do not administer tests electronically, and the campus has not adopted electronic administration of student course evaluation.
A few courses use an instructional laboratory with computers dedicated to a few software packages for instructional simulations and statistical packages.

3.
What evidence is gathered and used in the program to evaluate the effectiveness of instruction?
The MSOD program elicits student feedback regarding instruction using the university’s standard Student Evaluation of
Instruction (SEOI). Additionally, the program directors gather informal evaluations during the end-of-year assessment period.
There has been no formal multi-component peer review of instruction, neither has their been a self-reflection process. A more fully integrated, multi-component evaluation of instruction is mandated by accreditation standards. New policy in the recently negotiated collective bargaining agreement establishes a procedure for meaningful post-tenure review.
D.
Required measures of quantity for academic programs for the last five years.
1.
FTES. The MSOD program had the following numbers of students enrolled in the program from 2001 through 2005. All students were fulltime. The decline in enrollment from 2001-2002 to 2002-2003 is due to the discontinuation of the west side cohort. a.
2000-2001: 17 first year students; 18 second year students b.
2001-2002: 10 first year students; 17 second year students c.
2002-2003: 10 first year students; 10 second year students d.
2003-2004: 9 first year students; 10 second year students e.
2004-2005: 9 first year students; 8 second year students
2.
Graduation Efficiency Index (2 year completion rate). a.
Class of 2001: 12 out of 18 completed in 2 years (66%) b.
Class of 2002: 14 out of 17 completed in 2 years (82%) c.
Class of 2003: 8 out of 10 completed in 2 years (80%) d.
Class of 2004: 9 out of 10 completed in 2 years (90%) e.
Class of 2005: 8 out of 8 completed in 2 years (100%)
E.
Required measures of efficiency for each department for the last five years
1.
Student-Faculty Ratio (FTES/FTEF) a.
2001: 35/2.50 = 14.00 b.
2002: 27/2.63 = 10.26 c.
2003: 20/2.64 = 7.57 d.
2004: 19/2.30 = 8.26 e.
2005: 17/2.24 = 7.58
Page 6
4/10/2020

2.
Average class size : From the Class of 2000 to the Class of 2002, the average class size within the MSOD program was about 20; from 2003 to 2005 the average class size was about 10, with the sharp decline due to the discontinuation of the west side cohort.
F.
Planning and Assessment of program
1.
Describe and provide results of how students are assessed as they enter the program.
Graduate students are evaluated during the admission process. We assess the student’s prior coursework, undergraduate grades, achievement test scores, personal statements of educational goals, and letters of reference. Additionally, all
MSOD applicants are interviewed prior to admission to the program. We have established limits on the number of students who can be admitted to the MSOD program. The MSOD program is limited to 12 students per year, somewhat less than the number of applicants.
There is no formal assessment of students relative to program goals and student learning objectives that use applicant evaluation for comparison purposes.
2.
Describe and provide results of how students are assessed as they exit the major/program. What data exists within the program to demonstrate that students achieve the program and student learner goals? The MSOD program maintains active liaisons with alumni who provide feedback regarding the program as well as suggestions for program development
There is no formal assessment of students relative to program goals and student learning objectives upon graduation.
3.
What data are gathered about program graduates and their successes? e.g. survey data about employer and student satisfaction, alumni? (Include data from Institutional Research surveys.) Graduate surveys were mailed out in Fall,
2006 and the results will be compiled by the time of the site visit.
There is no regular formal assessment of graduates relative to program goals and student learning objectives that use applicant evaluation as a benchmark. This survey was conducted to support this self study.
4.
Describe faculty involvement in assessment. Faculty members evaluate student achievement in the program, but have not identified specific exercises that demonstrate student outcomes have been met in the context of program assessment.
Detailed descriptions of assessment tools for each class are found in course syllabi.
For several years, faculty members have been required to list the learning objectives for each class and the assessment methods for each goal. Some syllabi are very detailed in this regard and others are more general. We discuss our assessment methods in small groups during our spring faculty development day meeting.
Page 7
4/10/2020

5.
Describe and provide evidence of how programs are assessed in the department and how these assessment results are used to change or adapt program/major curriculum, faculty, or resources. The program directors conducted individual and group interviews with members of both the 1 st and 2 nd year cohorts, in order to assess the strengths and weaknesses of each class and the overall program.
At the college level, chairs are working with the dean to review to ensure that program assessment is more fully implemented. This work will be expanded to include interdisciplinary program
6.
What steps need to be taken in order to ensure that all of the appropriate assessment activities including programmatic and student are being accomplished? An assessment plan has been developed for the MSOD program that includes degree program goals, student-learning outcomes, assessment instruments, where student learning is assessed, and the party responsible for assessment (see Table 1).
III.
Faculty
A.
Faculty profile : During the past five years, the MSOD Program has been staffed with two to three tenured faculty members and several adjunct faculty. Other full-time faculty and professional consultants have served on master’s thesis committees.
Because the adjunct faculty potentially differs from year to year, this profile will only address the tenured faculty (Dr. Schepman and Dr. Stahelski for all of the five previous years and Dr. Eubanks for Fall, 2000 through Spring, 2003). Faculty mentoring of student research, professional service activities, scholarly activities, and grant writing are summarized in Table 2.
B.
Copies of faculty vitae (see appended documents)
C.
Departmental teaching effectiveness: Normally, a program would report a five-year history of the “teaching effectiveness” means as reported on SEOIs, indexed to college and university means on a quarter-by-quarter basis. However, the MSOD program poses some challenges in this regard. First of all, the MSOD classes are year-long courses, so many times SEOIs only are administered in the spring. Secondly, there is one year (2000-01) where SEOIs either were not administered or not submitted to the
Testing Office for scoring. Therefore, the ratings below in Table 3 will reflect only the terminal course ratings (generally spring) for winter 2002 through spring 2005. Fall and winter averages generally reflect only 2 to 3 classes (See Table 3).
Plans for routine implementation of a more comprehensive evaluation of the effectiveness of instruction is outlined in section III.C.3.
D.
Faculty awards for distinction : None during this evaluation period.
Page 8
4/10/2020

IV. Students – For five years
A.
Numbers of degrees awarded per major program.
1.
2001: 13
2.
2002: 13
3.
2003: 10
4.
2004: 11
5.
2005: 10
B.
Student accomplishments. List those graduate students working in field; those placed in doctoral programs. Graduate working in the fields of organization development, human resources or training include:
1.
2001: Rebecca Graham, Lexie Looney
2.
2002: Janice Bristol, Timothy Morris, Mark Rogstad, Bruce Cole
3.
2003: Shannon Barnes, Alan Buford, Kevin Kearns
4.
2004: Nancy Jewett, Lisa Richins
5.
2005: Kelly Johnston, Craig Sabol
The majority of students receiving the MSOD degree used the degree to enhance their careers in management areas not specifically related to organizational development.)
One student, Tim Morris, Class of 2002, is enrolled at a doctoral program in
Organizational Leadership at Gonzaga University.
C.
Provide one master’s project; two additional will be randomly selected during site visit.
D.
Advising services for students : Students are advised by all faculty, program directors, and their thesis chairs. Adjunct faculty are especially active in career advising.
V.
Library and Technological Resources
A. Describe program’s general and specific requirements for library resources in order to meet its educational and research objectives. Indicate ways in which the present library resources satisfy and do not satisfy these needs.
The university’s Brooks Library has been very active in developing access to full text electronic journals and web access to library services, including PsycINFO. Summit
Alliance has provided us with access to the holdings of academic libraries in
Washington and Oregon. We can order books from member libraries and delivery is reasonably prompt. Individual journal articles may be provided from a member library in photocopy form. We can borrow from the holdings of member libraries if we are on that institution’s campus and return the item at our own campus library. Students at our
Page 9
4/10/2020

centers have the same borrowing privileges as those on the Ellensburg campus. A knowledgeable interlibrary loan staff has a good record of finding and ordering items from libraries around the United States.
Each academic department on campus has a library representative, who consults with our professional librarians about the department’s needs. The psychology department has benefited from a series of active and interested faculty library representatives and our holdings are adequate to our needs. The only chronically underrepresented portions of our library collection have been journal subscriptions and video materials. Journal price increases have decimated holdings at many universities, and keeping up with advances in media technology from film to tape to CD to DVD has been difficult for all libraries.
VI.
Analysis of the Review Period
A.
What has gone well in the program? Include major accomplishments of the past five years.
1.
The MSOD program has provided an effective staff development option for midlevel administrators at CWU.
2.
The cohort model of the program has encouraged a strong sense of camaraderie among the students that continues after the students have graduated.
3.
The MSOD program has maintained a strong and consistent graduation rate.
4.
The employment rate of our MSOD graduates is close to 100%.
5.
The MSOD program has been able to maintain its strong academic standards as an applied science, despite pressures to succumb to a non-rigorous “tool kit” emphasis.
B.
What challenges exist?
The program has faced a number of challenges in the last five years, and most of these challenges have existed since the program’s inception in 1982.
1.
The MSOD program would benefit from increased participation of regular faculty.
It has been a vital and viable program, the largest or second largest graduate program in the Psychology Department, and contributed substantially to the university’s graduate education profile. In the last five years, this problem has gotten worse. Dr. Eubanks retired from teaching in the program in 2002, and he was not replaced. Since that time, all of the administrative and thesis chairing load
(10 to 20 students per year), and approximately fifty percent of the teaching load, have been carried out by the two graduate faculty members assigned to the program.
Page 10
4/10/2020

Page 11
4/10/2020
2.
The understaffing problem is partially due to the fact that the MSOD program has never been fully integrated into the Psychology Department. This lack of integration is partially due to the program’s structure, and partially due to its content. The MSOD program has always been a weekend program. This means that MSOD students take classes when none of the other Psychology Department undergraduates, graduate students or faculty are in the building. Consequently, as far as the Psychology Department faculty are concerned, the MSOD program is “out of sight, out of mind.” The lack of integration is further exacerbated by the MSOD program content. Organization Development (OD) is not a traditional program in psychology. In fact, only two of the OD programs in the United States (CWU and
Sonoma State) are housed in psychology departments. The rest are either housed in business schools or something akin to our College of Education and Professional
Studies. Psychology Department faculty have shown little interest in teaching in the
MSOD program, and little or no interest in serving as either chairing or non-chairing members of MSOD thesis and project committees.
3.
Academic psychologists perceive themselves as scientists, and the undergraduate and graduate curricula of the CWU Psychology department emphasizes scientific training. The program has been challenged to effectively balance the basis of theory and research against its application in the workplace. This is exacerbated because students desiring to become practitioners of OD are not commonly interested in science. This incongruity between program content and student desires has plagued the program.
4.
The MSOD program has never had very many applicants in a given year, with little focused recruitment. In comparison to our in-state competitors, we are considered to be the most academically traditional and academically rigorous OD program by prospective applicants. We emphasize science and we de-emphasize “experiential learning”, which is the favored teaching technique of most OD programs.
5.
The low number of applicants may be exacerbated by the fact that the field is not well known to the general public, and that the field of OD is currently undergoing an identity crisis. Many potential applicants and organizational managers have limited or no understanding of the field, and most members of the general public have no idea of what organization development is.
6.
Three types of students have applied to the program. Each year we get some seasoned OD veterans applying to the program. These individuals know what the field is, they have been practicing OD skills either as internal or external consultants, and they want a master’s in OD to add to their credentials. Each year we also get young applicants with limited work experience. They have some vague idea that OD might fulfill their career aspirations based on a very limited experience with the field. Finally, we have eastern and central Washington place-bound applicants who cannot progress further in their fields without a master’s degree.
These individuals have no particular interest in or understanding of OD. Because eastern and central Washington is under-served by master’s programs in general,

and specifically because CWU has no MBA program, these individuals apply to the
MSOD program simply because it is a geographically convenient master’s program.
7.
Each class is made up, in varying proportions, of these three types of students.
Consequently, approximately 2/3 of each class has limited exposure to and knowledge of the OD field. The MSOD program directors made the decision to assume that all students know nothing about OD, and to teach the program at the lowest common denominator of knowledge in the field. We have lost students in the OD veteran group because of our emphasis on basic knowledge in the field.
What has the program done to meet these challenges?
Only a few of the challenges listed above have been addressed in the last 5 years. As indicated, the fulltime faculty understaffing issue has never been addressed. The
MSOD program remains separate from the rest of the Psychology Department. No systematic program-level recruiting has been put in place, and the selection ratio remains low.
The MSOD program continues to be a traditional academic program that emphasizes science. However, in the last five years we have more emphatically informed the OD veteran contingent of each year’s applicant pool that the program starts with the assumption that no one knows anything about OD. This more realistic “job preview” has steered several of these applicants to more appropriate alternative programs.
The MSOD program was reduced to a single-sited program in 2002. From 1997-2002 the program was offered simultaneously via DE technology in Ellensburg and either
SeaTac (now Des Moines) or Lynnwood Centers. During this time period the number of students admitted doubled. Although additional adjuncts were hired, fulltime staffing was not increased to compensate for the greatly increased thesis chairing load.
C. What resources have been provided in the last 5 years?
Between 2000 and 2002 the Psychology Department assigned the equivalent of two full time faculty to the MSOD program. When Dr. Eubanks was reassigned from teaching in the MSOD program in 2002, 1 1/2 tenured faculty members were assigned to the program.
The College of the Sciences has continued to provide support to hire adjunct faculty appropriate to the size of the program, and to provide a travel budget for the full time faculty. The program has benefited from a separate goods and services budget of
$10,000, relatively generous in the institutional context.
The program has not taken advantage of graduate office support for program level recruiting.
VII.
Future directions – Based upon the information and analysis in the self-study:
Page 12
4/10/2020

A. Describe the program’s aspirations for the next three and five years.
This review comes at a critical time in the program’s history. In response to issues raised by graduates, students and faculty, our intent in seeking this review is to seek input several major issues that face program. These include:
Should the program continue to be offered? Does the program meet regional student demand and employer needs? Is it the best investment of CWU’s human and other resources?
Does the program as it has been offered meet national standards for programs of this type? How could it be strengthened?
If the program moves forward, to what extent should it be transformed to address longstanding issues of scope, role and student recruitment?
Should it continue, what is its appropriate residence? Should it continue to reside under and align with the Psychology Department? Or should it become an interdisciplinary program within the College of the Sciences, or within another college at CWU?
What is the appropriate staffing level and faculty profile to support this program into the future? Should current faculty assigned to the program continue as its core faculty, regardless of residence? Or should reassignments of faculty vacant positions be made to this program?
Organization Development is an applied, interdisciplinary field that mixes various social sciences and business administration. Professional Studies already has numerous interdisciplinary programs. Additionally, three Professional Studies full time faculty members (Perkins, Lochrie, Bertelson) are qualified to administer and teach in the
MSOD program, and they currently are unassigned to any specific program.
B.
In this context, describe ways the program or unit might increase quality, quantity, and/or efficiency. The following are recommended:
1.
Reassess the program identity and focus in light of student needs and employer demand.
2.
Assess residence of the program.
3.
Conduct a market study to determine the ideal university site for delivery of the program. Should it remain in Ellensburg, should it be moved to one of the westside university centers, or should it be a multi-site program connected by DE technology?
Page 13
4/10/2020

4.
Increase the number of exit options. Right now students can choose a thesis or a project; should they be allowed to choose from a portfolio and a comprehensive exam option.
C. What resources would the program need to pursue these future directions?
Faculty staffing, appropriate goods and services support, and centralized support for program-specific recruitment.
D. How does the faculty envision their professional career and responsibilities within the balance of teaching, service, research and creative activities?
The faculty members who staff this program have stated a preference for a long-term reassignment to other academic programs in Psychology or General Studies. Thus, they have not articulated a strong integration between their desired research focus and either the likely graduate student research of a revised program or the scholarly work that would be needed for in order to remain current in the field of organization development that they were hired to support.
Page 14
4/10/2020

Table 1
M.S. Organization Development Assessment Plan
Student Learning Outcomes Assessment Instruments Where Assessed Degree Program
Goals
Develop student competencies as organizational change agents.
Identify organizational problems. Examinations, papers, class projects, field projects, thesis or final project.
Select, develop, and implement appropriate interventions to address organizational problems.
Examinations, papers, class projects, field projects, thesis or final project.
Competency evaluation formed maintained by instructors.
Collect data to evaluate effectiveness of interventions.
Analyze data to evaluate effectiveness of interventions.
Make written and oral presentations of findings and recommendations to key organizational constituents.
Examinations, papers, class projects, field projects, thesis or final project.
Examinations, papers, class projects, field projects, thesis or final project.
Examinations, papers, class projects, field projects, thesis or final project.
By Whom Assessed?
Course instructors give course grades.
Field site feedback forms maintained on file in psychology department.
CWU Registrar maintains transcripts.
MSOD classes, practica, thesis
MSOD classes, practica, thesis
Thesis and final project chairs and committees assess theses and projects.
Application skills are assessed by field setting supervisors and course instructors.
> Faculty
> CWU Library and psychology department maintain copies of
MSOD student theses and projects, respectively
Faculty
Page 15
4/10/2020

(e.g. peer reviewed articles)
(e.g. abstracts/conference proceedings)
(e.g. conference presentation)
Other (book chapters, articles, etc.)
External
Funded / Unfunded
Internal
Funded / Unfunded
CWU Committees
State Committees
Leadership & Service -
Professional Organizations
Community Service
Other (Reviewers, Etc.)
Graduate Committees –
Supervising thesis/projects
Graduate Committees –
Participation thesis/projects
Other -
Publications/Presentations with
CWU students
3
1
0
1
1
2000-2001
# of faculty
% of faculty
Table 2: MSOD Faculty Profile (Tenure-Track Faculty Only)
2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004
# of faculty
% of faculty
# of faculty
% of faculty
# of faculty
% of faculty
2004-2005
# of faculty
% of faculty
5-yr total
1
1
2
2
33%
33%
66%
66%
0
1
2
1
0%
33%
66%
33%
Scholarship
2 66%
1 33%
3
2
100%
66%
2
1
2
1
100%
50%
100%
50%
2
2
2
1
100%
100%
100%
50%
7
6
11
7
3
3
2
1 33%
100%
33%
0%
33%
33%
100%
100%
66%
3
3
2
3
1
0
1
1
1 33%
100%
33%
0%
Grants
1
Service
3 100%
2
0
33%
66%
0%
33%
33%
1
1
33%
33%
Faculty Mentored Research
100% 3 100%
100%
66%
3
2
100%
66%
0
2
0
0
2
0
2
2
2
0%
100%
0%
0%
100%
0%
100%
100%
100%
2
2
2
2
0
0
2
0
1 50%
100%
0%
0%
100%
0%
100%
100%
100%
13
4
0
7
3
4
13
13
10
Annual averag e
% of faculty
1.4
1.2
2.2
1.4
53%
46%
84%
53%
30%
100%
30%
0%
53%
23%
100%
100%
76%
2.6
.80
0
1.4
.60
.80
2.6
2.6
2
Page 16
4/10/2020

Table 3
Central Washington University Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEOI)
Average Response to Question on Instructor Effectiveness (Item # 29)
2001-02
Academic Years 2001-02 through 2004-05
Fall Winter
MSOD No data
Psychology -
The Sciences -
4.03
4.44
4.26
Spring
4.61
4.44
4.32
CWU - 4.30 4.33
2002-03
2003-04
2004-05
MSOD
Psychology
The Sciences
CWU
MSOD No data
Psychology -
The Sciences
CWU
MSOD
Psychology
The Sciences
CWU
4.00
4.57
4.29
4.33
-
-
3.72
4.29
4.28
4.30
4.67
4.55
4.25
4.31
2.93
4.34
4.31
4.33
3.62
4.41
4.27
4.33
3.68
4.52
4.28
4.35
4.56
4.49
4.35
4.35
4.09
4.40
4.37
4.38
Page 17
4/10/2020