Academic Program Review 2006-2007
Executive Summary
Resource Management Graduate Program
The Resource Management graduate program was included in the fifth cycle of academic
program review for the 2006-2007 school year. Based upon feedback from the previous cycles,
the contents of the self-study were modified as were some of the implementation details.
Included in the process was the composition of a self-study document based upon faculty’s
analysis, a departmental retreat where the data were reviewed and the final two sections
discussed. External reviewers, Dr. Linda Whiteford, professor, University of South Florida, and
Dr. Martha Works, professor and chair, Portland State University, visited campus, read the selfstudy, interviewed faculty, staff, administration, and students, and submitted their collaborative
analysis.
The departmental self-study completed by the faculty and staff is the major document for this
program review. This complex document reveals the strengths and challenges through the
departmental perspective and reflects the commitment of the department for self-analysis,
reflection, and evaluation. The institutional expectation is that the department and college
administration will use the self-study document, the dean’s report, and the executive summary as
guides to the faculty, staff, and administration for the next several academic years as the
department addresses the recommendations and continues its record of excellence.
Since this process requires an enormous amount of time and effort from all of the participants, it
is necessary to ensure that the results are used to inform decisions and future course of actions.
Therefore, the department faculty and college administration will be expected to provide a
summary of activities undertaken during the 2007-2008 academic year as a consequence of the
program review. This report will be due to the provost in October, 2008.
It should be noted that Dr. Whiteford’s and Dr. Work’s analysis is very thorough and detailed
and, along with the dean’s report, provide the depth and context for the faculty and
administrators to move ahead in addressing the recommendations and celebrating the
commendations.
Commendations
The self-study document as submitted by the Resource Management program was
understandable and informative. It can be determined from reading the self-study report, the
observations of the external reviewers, program director response, and the summary comments
of the college dean that the program has several strengths and challenges. It should also be
concluded that the program is integral to the mission of the college and university and should be
commended in the following areas:
Program Innovation:
It is clear from the self-study, external reviewers, and dean’s comments that the program is
strong, innovative, and collaborative. Faculty work effectively across various departments to
plan and deliver curriculum. In addition, there has been considerable creativity in making
additional internal connections and external collaborations to support program content delivery.
Innovative strategies have been employed to enhance teaching. Faculty should continue to offer
innovative courses and initiatives to strengthen student learning.
Program Funding Base:
The Resource Management program has been effective in generating funding through various
external grants. These grants have created several avenues for minority students and enhanced
program delivery. Funding initiatives and possibilities should continue to be explored and
developed particularly in relation to alumni and business opportunities.
Program Partnering:
The Resource Management program has developed several meaningful partnerships through
collaborative research, student internships (e.g., Bureau of Land Management; Washington State
Parks) and various service opportunities to the community (e.g., presentations to community and
school groups) and professional organizations (e.g., Washington Archeology; Governor’s
Advisory Council; Association of Washington Geographers). This is laudable and an example
for all programs across the entire campus. Partnerships tend to be mutually beneficial and the
program is encouraged to continue to develop these as is reasonably possible.
Student Orientation:
Program faculty are highly engaged with students through courses, field experiences,
collaborative research projects, and service learning programs. It is clear that a major
programmatic focus is to develop student learning in a variety of practical and meaningful ways.
Faculty should be encouraged to continue these activities and engage students even further
outside of traditional classroom experiences particularly in relation to mentoring and community
building activities.
Facilities:
The renovation and remodeling of Dean Hall has great potential in advancing programmatic
offerings and student learning. The program is encouraged to make full use of the new facilities
in achieving programmatic, college, and university goals.
Recommendations
Although the program should be commended in numerous areas, there are also areas for
continuous improvement. Following are areas that should be addressed to improve the
functioning and quality of the program and its associated programs:
Teaching Approach:
The program has employed a team-teaching approach to content delivery in core courses.
Although this strategy has obvious benefits with regard to collaboration and disciplinary
integration, it has not been reported to be more highly preferred or rated as compared to students
completing other university courses (See SEOI data). The efficacy of this model of delivery
needs further scrutiny as it limits the number of courses program faculty can teach and electives
offered. These issues are especially relevant with limited funding and critical program needs in
the affected departments. Elective availability in the program is an area of concern and could
certainly be enhanced if faculty teaching time availability was improved.
Assessment:
Although programmatic goals and general assessment measures were mentioned (i.e., student
completion of courses and thesis requirements), no student learning data was provided to
demonstrate student goal attainment in this review. A concerted effort must be made in the
future to collect, analyze, and discuss assessment data. Measures should extend beyond mere
completion of items and courses. Data should provide information that sheds light on specific
program strengths and challenges. Results should be explicitly linked to programmatic and
student learning outcomes and include interpretation. Data should also be compared to
established standards of mastery and be disseminated and discussed with various stakeholders
(students, faculty, administrators). Based on the new assessment planning and reporting
expectations of the college and university, it is hoped that assessment will play a more prominent
role in programmatic decision-making and continuous improvement efforts.
Faculty:
There is an identified need (from the dean and external reviewers) to engage more faculty in the
instruction, advising, and thesis completion process of the program. Currently, there is uneven
participation within and between departments. Greater involvement and faculty spread will
enhance program viability and decrease faculty burn-out.
Summary
Overall, the program of Resource Management is an important part of Central Washington
University. Faculty are energetic, innovative, and have developed an effective funding base. In
addition, a major programmatic focus is to develop student learning in a variety of practical
ways. Program faculty should strive to improve in terms of assessing program goals and in
analyzing current curriculum and staffing configurations to minimize faculty overload and
improve course scheduling. By examining curriculum delivery strategies and course scheduling
and improving assessment processes, the program will certainly achieve its goals and those of
the college, and university.