Academic Program Review 2005-2006
Executive Summary
Department of Sociology
The Sociology Department was included in the fourth cycle of academic program review for the
2005-2006 school year. Based upon feedback from the previous cycles, the contents of the selfstudy 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. The visitation by an external
reviewer, Dr. Theodore Wagenaar, Professor, Miami University, who read the self-study,
interviewed faculty, staff, administration, and students, and submitted his 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 2006-2007 academic year as a consequence of the
program review.
It should be noted that Dr. Wagenaar’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 department of Sociology was informative in nature.
It was clear in reading both the summary comments of the reviewer and the College Dean that
the department has several strengths and challenges. After reading the self study, I have also
come to the conclusion that the department is integral to the mission of the university and should
be commended in the following areas:
Departmental Goals and Plans: The department has developed very thoughtful and achievable
goals. As per the reviewer comments, I would also encourage the department to better align their
own goals with professional standards (ASA). It will also be important for the department to
routinely measure their progress of achievement in all goal areas.
Peer Evaluation of Instruction: The department should be commended for devising multiple
ways of assessing faculty teaching. Although SEOI data is collected, peer review offers
additional information that might be useful as feedback to the individual faculty member and to
the department as a whole in aggregated form. The department would then be able to use the
aggregated information to plan for departmental professional development opportunities.
Faculty Involvement: The department should be commended on their involvement with and
supervision of undergraduate research. Equally impressive was the department’s involvement in
graduate research. Continued efforts in these activities should be encouraged and rewarded.
Recommendations
Although the department has reported some evidence of success and should be commended in
many areas, there is also a need to continuously improve. Following are areas that should be
addressed to improve the functioning and quality of the department and its associated programs:
Curriculum & Assessment: Although there are departmental goals, there is a need to define
where the goals in each program are developed and how they would be assessed. In addition,
courses themselves should have goals and be assessed through individual course activities and
methods. Effort should also be made to collect, analyze, and make relevant interpretations of
program assessment data. It should be noted that little if any student learning data was provided
in the self-study. This is problematic as outcome attainment, including interpretation and
conclusions about program quality could not be definitively made for each separate program.
This is a major weakness of the programs. Results (quantitative and/or qualitative) should also
be disseminated to internal and external groups once these data are available.
I would agree with the reviewer that the department needs to review its degree options, and
curriculum scope and sequence as compared to ASA standards and best practice. Courses need
to be sequenced in ways to develop increasingly more difficult concepts/content/skills within
students. Presently, this does not seem to be the case and is perceived by the reviewer to be a
major weakness of the programs offered. The reviewer also suggests the addition of a capstone
course. I would agree that this should be one (but not the only) time the department should
define where competencies are assessed before transitioning further through the program. At the
very least, admission to the major should be another point in time where competencies are
assessed. In addition, program goals need to be made known and reinforced to all constituents.
The addition of a student advisory committee might be positive for the department to obtain
regular student feedback regarding curriculum and other areas of perceived need.
Advising: An area of concern for all majors is advising. Good advising improves degree
efficiency and overall satisfaction with the program and institution. This should be an area of
increased and focused effort on the part of the Sociology department. Course specific and major
advising is certainly important, although other aspects of advising and student development can
be addressed through various peer, faculty, and alumni mentoring initiatives. The extra effort in
this area will go far in improving the overall quality and satisfaction of Sociology students. It is
suggested that the department review its current advising practices and initiate activities and
strategies to strengthen this aspect of the program.
Summary
Overall, the department is an important part of Central Washington University. The department
chair and faculty should continue to be instrumental in upholding the high standards and
reputation of their programs. If the department continues to improve its advising, curriculum,
and assessment processes, it will certainly help meet their own mission and goals as well as those
of the college and university.