1
Program Review
Department of Psychology
College of the Sciences
Central Washington University
Respectfully submitted by:
Dr. Dale L. Dinnel
Professor and Chair
Department of Psychology
College of Humanities and Social Sciences
Western Washington University
March 2004
2
Commendations or Strengths within the Department of Psychology
While reviewing the materials submitted by the Department of Psychology and talking with
administrators, faculty, staff, and students, I have identified a number of strengths. While I am
certain that other strengths can be identified, I will address the strengths that stand out in my
mind in the paragraphs that follow.
1. The Department of Psychology has a well-articulated, comprehensive set of objectives, goals,
and activities that are consistent with the mission and goals of the College of the Sciences
(COTS) and Central Washington University. These objectives, goals, and activities have strong
links to the curriculum in the Department of Psychology and provide an excellent basis for
assessing student learning. The faculty members within the Department of Psychology have
done an admirable job of communicating these goals and objectives in their course syllabi in
conjunction with methods of assessing student learning. Through these procedures students have
a clear idea of what is expected of them and how they will be assessed. This level of
organization should serve the Department well for the accreditation review by Northwest
Association of Schools, Colleges and Universities.
2. The faculty members within the Department take pride in their excellence in teaching which
is clearly demonstrated by high student ratings on instructor effectiveness. In the last five years,
the average instructor effectiveness ratings have ranged between 4.4 and 4.6 on a 5-point scale.
These averages are higher than the average instructor effectiveness ratings of the University and
College of the Sciences. Surveys of graduating seniors as well as alumni reinforce these ratings
of instructor effectiveness. During my visitation, students that I interviewed stress that the
strength of the faculty was in their teaching skills and their willingness to work with students
outside of class. Students also viewed the varied approaches of faculty in teaching classes,
pointing to their willingness to use available technology as well as varying format (i.e., lecture,
discussion, small group discussion) as a strong point of the faculty in the Department of
Psychology. The faculty members have begun to integrate Blackboard technology into their
class content as well as the use of PowerPoint presentations. Faculty who teach in the research
methods, learning, cognitive psychology, and environmental psychology utilize a 16-station
computer laboratory to run simulations and computer-supported laboratory exercises.
3. While the teaching load seems somewhat heavy, it is commendable that first-year faculty
members are given a one-course reduction in teaching load and that all faculty members are
given credit for directing independent study, involving students in faculty research labs, and
directing theses.
4. Approximately half of the faculty members are committed to consistently involving
undergraduate students in their research labs. This typically involves 4-6 students each term and
allows students to experience the difficulties and joys of research directly. These collaborations
often lead to student presentations of research, usually at local (SOURCE) and regional (WPA)
conferences. In the student interview on campus, students applauded faculty for their efforts to
involve students in research. This level of involvement of faculty and students is highly
commendable in an undergraduate program. The requirement for collaborative research in the
graduate programs is also strong with four of the five graduate programs requiring a thesis.
3
While a majority of the faculty members are actively involved in research in some form, the
research of a few faculty members is nationally and internationally recognized.
5. The faculty members of the Department of Psychology have been involved in a few
interdisciplinary efforts such as the Gerontology program, and the Primate Behavior and Ecology
program (with anthropology and biology). While Women Studies was also listed as an
interdisciplinary focus, faculty members readily admit that this interdisciplinary effort is no
longer viable. An interdisciplinary focus is also encouraged through the 45-credit major in
psychology, which also requires either a second major or minor in a related discipline. The
Department of Psychology also contributes to the Law and Justice program, the teacher
preparation program, and the general university requirements by offering courses in support of
those programs.
6. While the graduate programs, in general, appear to provide strong preparation for professional
careers in psychology, the school psychology and the mental health counseling programs stand
out. The school psychology program has achieved accreditation from the National Association
of School Psychology (NASP), attesting to its quality. The mental health counseling program is
in the processing of conforming to the standards of the Council for Accreditation of Counseling
and Related Educational Programs (CACREP). If the CACREP accreditation is successful, it
will result in employment and licensure advantages for students in the program. It will also
provide advantages for seeking employment and licensure in other states. In general, the
graduate curriculum is comprehensive and is especially strong in mental health counseling and
school psychology.
7. Students in the school and mental health counseling program, as well as the school
psychology program, receive quality supervision that results in students who are well-trained
professionals who have little difficulty being employed upon graduation. Thus, the Department
of Psychology is training students who fulfill the needs of state of Washington.
8. The students and faculty also provide a valuable service to the Ellensburg community by
providing psychological services through the Community Psychological Services Center. They
also host the Ellensburg Developmental Preschool which provides an opportunity for students to
interact with or observe preschool students firsthand. The Department of Psychology also
provides pre-professional interns to the schools and mental health service providers throughout
the region. Finally, valuable service to the community is provided through service learning
opportunities.
9. The faculty members are not only active in their service to the Ellensburg community but also
are active in their service to the department, the college, and the university. Faculty members
serve on a number of committees and task forces that insure the continuation of a quality
experience at Central Washington University. In addition, several faculty members are active in
their service to the discipline, serving as reviewers for conference proposals and professional
journals, as well as serving as officers in professional organizations.
10. The Department of Psychology contributes to the various centers throughout the state of
Washington. While much of the focus on at these centers is in the teacher preparation area, the
4
centers at Edmonds Community College and Pierce College are notable exceptions. These
centers offer a minor in psychology to place-bound students. These two centers have two
exceptional faculty members who are highly regarded by both staff and students. The Lynnwood
facility has impressive Distance Education technology capabilities that will soon be matched at
Pierce College. There seems to be support at these two locations for offering a psychology
major. The faculty members at these sites feel supported in their efforts to offer a quality
program at the centers and feel especially supported by the Chair of the Department of
Psychology, Dr. Warren Street.
11. The faculty members of the Department of Psychology have made efforts to strengthen the
quality of their advising. While an Advising Center concept did not work well due to lack of
use, students indicated that faculty members were readily available to assist them with advising
questions. Students pointed out that faculty were especially helpful in answering questions to
help them select courses to complete their major or to assist them in making decisions about
graduate school issue. Graduate students found the faculty to be extremely helpful in career
advising issues.
12. The faculty members of the Department of Psychology are to be commended for addressing
issues of diversity within the curriculum. The preferred approach involves an infusion approach,
where gender and multicultural issues are incorporated within each content area, rather than a
special course approach, where diversity issues are addressed in a designated course. The
infusion approach is what is practiced by the faculty members of the Department of Psychology.
13. The emphasis on research methods and statistics at the undergraduate level is a strong point
of the curriculum. It not only provides students will excellent critical thinking skills but also has
the benefit of providing students who plan to continue their education in graduate programs in
psychology or social work with a strong research skills and tools.
14. The Major Field Test provides evidence that undergraduates in the Department of
Psychology at Central Washington University are receiving a solid education in most areas of
psychology with research methods and statistics being exceptionally commendable.
Recommendations or Areas of Concern
While there are many strong points about the Department of Psychology at Central Washington
University there are also areas that could be improved. I will provide my assessment of these
areas and provide some suggestions to consider with respect to these areas. I hope that these
suggestions will serve as a beginning point for some larger discussions. While I will present
these ideas in a linear fashion, many of the areas of concern are interactive. I apologize in
advance for redundancy of the issues I will address but it is unavoidable in some cases.
1. One of the areas of concern that I have is a concern that affects not only the Department of
Psychology but the entire university. It seems that Central Washington University is struggling
with its identity--Does it want to be a university that is known for its excellence in teaching or
does it want to be a university that is known for its research? While the obvious answer to both
questions is “yes”, the realities are that it is difficult to achieve high standards in both areas. This
5
is an issue with which many universities of this size and character, including my own university,
Western Washington University, are struggling. In talking with faculty and administrators, this
tension was evident in the teaching load requirement versus the requirements for research. The
general view of the faculty members of the Department of Psychology is that the research
requirements have been increased in recent years at Central Washington University while the
teaching load has remained constant. While some faculty manage to find the appropriate balance
between these issues, many faculty struggle to find that balance.
I firmly believe that a good research program informs excellence in teaching. From my
perspective, the teaching requirement of 36 credits per year is demanding, especially for
probationary faculty who may be involved in numerous class preparations for the first time.
While it is commendable that first-year faculty members are given a one course reduction during
their first quarter at Central, the teaching load seems rather heavy given that many new
preparations are required of first-year faculty. With this number of preparations, first-year
faculty members have little, if any, time to devote to research. The second year of teaching is
also demanding because teaching assignments may involve new preparations or because there
are numerous revisions of classes for which new faculty members have preparation the first time.
In addition second-year faculty cannot get teaching reductions based on directing independent
study, having undergraduate students in their research labs, or directing thesis studies for a
variety of reasons. Thus, the teaching load is heavier in the second year. From the large
research base on teaching, researchers have concluded that it takes a minimum of four years of
teaching before faculty begin to feel comfortable about their level of preparation. If we accept
that probationary faculty members spend a great deal of time preparing for classes in their first
few years of teaching, there is very little time left for research and service. In looking at the
research in faculty development, researchers have fairly consistently concluded that the first
three years are critical for establishing a program of research. Given the teaching load and the
number of different preparations that are required at Central, it may be difficult for probationary
faculty to achieve the level of scholarship required for tenure and promotion. In addition, the
best predictor of whether faculty members continue to be productive career-long researchers is
their initial successes in establishing a research program.
In the paragraphs that follow, I will offer some suggestions to address the issue of the teaching
load. These are not a comprehensive list of suggestions. Some of the suggestions may be
untenable because of funding considerations. However, they may provide a basis for ongoing
conversations that may have a long-term solution rather than an immediate solution. These
suggestions may also reflect a lack of knowledge about the current procedures at Central so I beg
your indulgence.
a. A new faculty member should be assigned to a faculty mentor or a group of
mentors to assist with basic procedural factors that may take time away from preparing
for classes or from research. These mentors could assist in providing sample syllabi,
discussing assignments and providing sample assignments for particular classes,
discussing teaching approaches and activities, the processes involved in student
evaluation of teaching, etc. In addition, Central Washington University might consider
creating a center assist faculty, at all levels, with issues surrounding the delivery of
instruction. There are many excellent examples of this teaching center approach. At
6
Western Washington University, the Center for Innovative Instruction and the Teaching
and Learning Academy provide an opportunity for faculty development in teaching (see
http://pandora.cii.wwu.edu/cii/ and http://www.wwu.edu/depts/tla/).
b. As much as possible, the Chair should consider assigning classes in such a manner
that the number of new preparations is kept at a minimum in the first three years. This
could be accomplished by assigning the same classes over the different quarters of an
academic year whenever possible. In my position as a chair, I have not assigned more
than three preparations to first-year faculty. This is made somewhat easier by the fact
that our teaching load requirement is 30 credits (Please note that independent study,
involving undergraduates in research labs, and directing theses are done independently of
this teaching load). Thus, a first-year faculty member is assigned a five-credit class in
her or his first quarter (We also give a one-class reduction in the first quarter to new
faculty). Ideally, this is a class that she or he has taught during graduate training and thus
is at least prepared to some degree. During the second quarter, I assign the faculty
member that class to teach again plus an additional 5-credit class. During the third
quarter, I assign one of the two classes that the faculty member taught in the first or
second quarter plus an additional 4-5 credit class. The following year this same schedule
is offered with the addition of a new preparation in the fall (because of the one-class
reduction policy for first-year faculty yielded an incomplete second-year schedule). I
realize that this is only workable if classes are offered on a repeating basis.
c. Consider reducing the teaching load to 32-33 credits. This might not be economically
feasible because it may require the University allocate additional faculty positions to
meet the demands for classes. Under this suggestion, an additional two faculty members
would need to be hired to cover the current content.
d. Under the present plan, faculty members can reduce teaching load by earning load
points by offering independent study, involving undergraduates in their research labs, and
directing thesis studies of graduate students. A maximum of 6 load points can be
achieved in this manner. Based on this year’s teaching load, seven faculty received 5-6
load points, three faculty received 2-3 load points, and seven faculty received no load
points, yielding an average 2.88 (SD = 2.68) load points for the 17 faculty members in
this database. I think it is important to understand why at least seven faculty members
have not received any load points. In my meeting with the faculty of the Department of
Psychology, there was an indication that faculty members may have participated in some
of these activities but not at the level to which they qualified for load points. In my
opinion, this area needs to be re-examined to determine how more faculty members could
be involved in these activities. It is my understanding that the issue of directing theses is
not completely in the control of the faculty members. A university committee determines
who is designated as graduate faculty and thereby allowed to direct graduate student
theses. While the intent is to allow first-year faculty members time to develop their
teaching skills, I have been informed that the committee has recently extended this
beyond first-year faculty. However, this policy may also prevent them from an important
means by which to establish their program of research as well as to reduce their teaching
load in subsequent years while adding to the thesis supervision load of their colleagues. I
7
cannot understand why this policy would extend beyond first-year faculty members.
Since the committee who makes this designation is a university committee, I would urge
the administration to take this issue under advisement. I would further add that
probationary faculty might be, in some ways, better suited to direct theses since they are
potentially the most current in their knowledge of specific areas as well as newer
statistical procedures. While I do not necessary want to hold up Western Washington
University as the standard, I do want to inform you that we designate all tenure-track
faculty members as graduate faculty. However, through our mentoring and advising
process, we advise first-year faculty not to direct a thesis until at least their second year.
e. If the best predictor of research productivity over time is initial experience in
establishing a research program, consideration should be given to how the Department of
Psychology, as well as Central Washington University, supports this process. At Western
Washington University, we offer a summer research grant of $5,000 to every new faculty
member. This provides them with an opportunity to establish their research labs
following their first year when their primary focus is on teaching. It also provides them
with a summer income so they do not feel compelled to teach even more classes to
generate income during the summer. However, they are offered the opportunity to teach
one and only one class for additional income. It is rare that a faculty member will want
both the summer research grant and one teaching assignment. However, when that has
occurred, the teaching assignment has always involved a class that the faculty member
has already taught. Thus, the time spent on preparation is minimized. Our experience
with offering this grant is that our probationary faculty members have become more
productive in terms of research earlier in their probationary period. We require that they
submit a proposal for the Summer Research Grant and that they submit a report about
their research activities that were supported by the grant. Similar research grants at other
universities have also been used successfully for first-year faculty members.
f. The tension between teaching and research can be alleviated to some degree by
collaborative research activities. In a manner similar to tenured faculty mentoring
probationary faculty in teaching, collaborative research efforts can prove to be beneficial
to probationary faculty. From looking at the scholarship of the faculty in the Department
of Psychology at Central Washington University, the collaborative publication seems
minimal. It is not clear why there is an absence of collaborative research. However, I
would encourage the faculty members of the Department of Psychology to seek out
opportunities for research collaboration with colleagues from within the department as
well as in other departments. We have emphasized collaborative research in the
Department of Psychology at Western Washington University in several ways. First, it is
an important component of our unit evaluation plan, which is the document that provides
a basis for tenure and promotion decisions. Second, collaboration often does not occur
because faculty members are not always fully aware of the research programs of other
faculty members. We attempt to enhance this awareness through a department
colloquium series in which faculty present their research. Third, we encourage
collaboration within and between departments through various “centers”. We have an
established Center of Cross-Cultural Research in which associates of the center have as
their goal collaborative research in the interaction of culture and psychology. While this
8
center has only associates from the Department of Psychology, we have recently
discussed opening membership to faculty members from other departments such as
modern languages, communication, and anthropology. We recently established a Center
for Healthy Lifestyles which brings together faculty from different departments such as
psychology, exercise physiology, biology, etc. for the purpose of providing educational
opportunities to the community (continuing education courses), writing interdisciplinary
grant proposals for external funding, and conducting interdisciplinary research. A
byproduct of this collaboration has been to have conversations about interdisciplinary
course offerings that will involve team-teaching approaches. We have begun
conversations with biology and computer science to establish a Center of Neuroscience.
We have found that collaborative and interdisciplinary efforts have increased faculty
members’ enthusiasm for research. These centers have developed through the combined
efforts of the Provost, the Vice-President of Research, the Deans of the respective
colleges, and the Chairs and faculty of the respective departments. It takes the initiative
of only a few interested parties to establish these centers.
g. While the tension exists between teaching and research, the Department of
Psychology is blessed with a large number of graduate assistants (N = 19). It is not clear
how these graduate assistants are used to support teaching and research. I would
encourage the department to assess if the graduate assistants are being used in a way that
will provide more relief for the tension that exists in these two areas.
h. Four of the five masters’ degree programs in the Department of Psychology require a
thesis. From evidence provided in the self-study as well as additional information I
requested from Dr. Warren Street, this results in approximately 24-35 completed theses
per year. This requires a large commitment to directing and serving on thesis project
committees. Given the number of faculty members in the Department of Psychology,
this could result in each faculty member needing to supervise 1.5 theses per year and
serve on 3 thesis committees per year. This is a large time commitment that contributes
to the tension between teaching and research. In this regard, the faculty may want to give
serious consideration to not requiring a thesis in some of the master’s degree programs.
While some faculty members were not receptive to this suggestion, I believe it deserves
further serious discussion, especially for those students in applied programs. When I
discussed this issue with the students from the school counseling and the school
psychology programs, approximately half of them supported the thesis option while the
other half support either a project option or a comprehensive exam option. It is unclear if
these two options would result in a significant reduction in the demands on faculty time
since a project would need to be directed by a faculty member and the comprehensive
exams would need to be written and graded by faculty members.
The supervision and membership on thesis committees is also not equitable. The faculty
members need to discuss ways to more equitably distribute these responsibilities. One
suggestion was to admit a maximum of two graduate students whose research interest
match those of a particular faculty member.
9
Finally, it seems that many of the master’s theses are not presented at professional
conferences especially at the national level. Furthermore, master’s theses do not appear
to be frequently submitted for publication consideration and eventual publication. This is
an excellent opportunity for faculty to produce peer-reviewed publication. Perhaps lack
of publication of theses is an issue of the quality of the theses or an issue of who has the
ownership to the thesis data. These issue need to be discussed and clarified so that theses
can support the research programs and peer-reviewed publications of the faculty. This
discussion should also address the faculty members’ expectations for the quality of a
thesis.
i. There does not seem to be a concerted effort on the part of the faculty of the
Department of Psychology to seek grant money from external sources. It is not clear why
this has occurred. Dr. Wayne Quirk indicated that the university provides support in
terms of grant-related activities (e.g., grant proposal writing workshops) as well as
encouragement for purchasing release time from teaching to work on the grant and
research assistantships. A few of the faculty indicated that there was very little real
support from the University for developing grant proposals. This discrepancy is
somewhat startling but needs to be addressed. Perhaps a grant proposal-writing
workshop could the focus of one of the faculty retreats. In addition, collaborative efforts
within the department as well as between departments often lead to an increase in the
desire to seek external funding. I have already proposed some ideas for establishing
interdisciplinary centers as one way of addressing external funding issues.
j. Faculty members have made a commitment to using technology in teaching through
the use of Blackboard and PowerPoint presentations. However, because not every
classroom is mediated for technology purposes, faculty members often have to prepare
different sets of materials based upon whether technology is available or not. This
contributes to the stress between teaching and research. While the Department of
Psychology has made a commitment to address some of the technology needs within their
building by their internal funds, the university needs to address this issue from a campuswide perspective to assisting in updating the technology in older buildings.
2. There seems to be a great deal of tension about the standards required for tenure and
promotion primarily in the area of research. Faculty members are anxious about the lack of
consistency in requirements for research productivity over the recent years. According to the
faculty, this problem has been a function of the seemingly continual changes in the people
occupying the positions of Dean and Provost with the Dean of the College of the Sciences
changing more frequently. Faculty stress that they believe that research is an important
consideration in tenure and promotion decisions. Many of the faculty seemed to indicate that
some level of peer-reviewed research was important for growth and development as a faculty
member. There appears to be two primary issues in this regard.
First, the lack of stability has created a situation where probationary faculty members were given
different standards for research requirements in order to achieve tenure and promotion. Some
were told that teaching was the most important activity and that peer-reviewed published
research was not necessary as long as there was evidence of research activity in other ways such
10
as conference presentations and directing undergraduate and graduate research. At that time, the
administration seemed to reinforce these standards by granting tenure and promotion to
probationary faculty who did not have any peer-reviewed publications. More recently, the
emphasis has been on peer-reviewed publications. The number of peer-reviewed publications has
been established at three as the standard. The concern is that the present standards will be
invoked for faculty who were hired under different standards. Thus, it would be difficult for
faculty members to achieve these standards if they were in their fourth or fifth year of the
probationary period in which lower standards for scholarship were conditions under which they
were hired. This issue could be averted in the future by clearly defined and articulated standard
in faculty evaluation plans (or faculty handbooks) that are consistent within the department, the
college and the university. Furthermore, this problem could also be addressed in the future if the
conditions for tenure and promotion are clearly specified in a letter of offer at the time of hiring.
Many universities, including Western Washington University, use the letter of offer as a baseline
for tenure and promotion decisions. It is a component of faculty members’ portfolios and is the
basis for yearly reviews as well as tenure and promotion reviews. If the standards change over
time, faculty members are evaluated on the basis of the letter of offer that reflects the standard at
the time faculty members were hired. I have provided a template of the letter of offer that is used
at Western Washington University merely as an example from which to begin discussion if you
feel this suggestion has merit (see Appendix A).
The second issue involves what should be counted as fulfilling the research requirement. While
some faculty members stress that attending a professional conference is evidence of research, I
would strongly disagree. Keeping current on research is an important component of faculty
development but it relates more to currency in teaching than research endeavors. Actually
producing research not only keeps faculty members current in a particular area but it requires
additional components that are important to the profession, including generating new knowledge
in the field. It also provides faculty members with a richer knowledge base from which to teach
students about the process of research. Peer-reviewed conference presentations are a higher
standard for the research requirement and certainly allow for the strengths mentioned earlier.
However, the standards for acceptance at many peer-reviewed conferences are lowered than the
standards for publication in professional journals. I believe that some level of peer-reviewed
journal publications is essential in tenure and promotion standards. The higher standards for
acceptance that are utilized results in a level of development that exceeds conference standards
because of the process of review and revision. I believe that the revision process allows for a
deeper level of thinking that culminates in professional development at a much higher level. I
would also emphasize that this process is achieved in most external grant applications as well as
edited book chapters and books. While I believe that the present standard of three (3) peerreviewed publications is reasonable, I would caution that in some areas of psychology peerreviewed publication is much more difficult to achieve. Thus, some flexibility needs to be built
into the final decision process. In talking with Dean Meghan Miller about this issue, she and I
agree that the better approach is to take a look at the “pipeline” approach. This consists of
evaluating research in progress, research under review/revision, and research in press/published
during the review process. To assure continuing research productivity, faculty members should
have research in at least two stages every year in the review process with at least one publication
every 2-3 years.
11
3. The Department of Psychology provides two options for the baccalaureate degree: a 45-credit
option and a 60-credit option. The core requirements are the same for both options. They differ
in that the 45-credit option requires students to complete a second major or a minor whereas the
60-credit option has more elective courses that must be taken in psychology. In the last five
years, slightly more undergraduates have selected the 60-credit option (N = 154) over the 45credit option (N = 120). I discussed these options with the students who came to the scheduled
session. Only two students were pursuing the 45-credit option and both expressed
disappointment in that option. They felt that the minor they chose did give them the breadth of
knowledge that they desired. This could be a function of the minor they chose or a function of
their desire to be accepted into a graduate program in psychology. A majority of the students
who attended the session indicated they chose the 60-credit option because they believed it
enhanced their chances of being accepted into a graduate program in psychology. My personal
perspective is that the 45-credit option is too minimal for applying to graduate programs in
psychology. Students need to be carefully advised in this regard. I also believe that careful
advising needs to take place with respect to the second major or the minor selected. In exit
interview, as well as surveys of alumni, I would strongly encourage specific questions related to
these issues. While the theory of the 45-credit option and the second major or a minor is based
on the value of interdisciplinary exposure, it is not clear that this value is, in fact, realized.
Perhaps an interdisciplinary major might be designed that will serve these needs better.
Students who attended the session felt that the 60-credit option provided an excellent foundation
for graduate studies in psychology. They pointed to the research methods and statistics
sequence as being extremely valuable as well as the opportunity to conduct research with faculty.
Since all of the students in the session were either currently enrolled in the graduate program or
were applying to graduate programs, it is unclear how students who planned to terminate their
education at the baccalaureate level felt about this option.
Students expressed concern about the lack of depth in content areas. They suggested that the
department offer strands that would provide more depth in areas such as developmental
psychology or educational psychology. In reviewing the curriculum, I was also concerned about
the issue of depth in content areas. The current trend is away from a broad-based undergraduate
program to a more content-focused set of options. For example, at Western Washington
University we have structured our curriculum such that students must take at least one course in
five areas (cognitive psychology, physiological psychology, developmental psychology, social
psychology, and clinical/counseling psychology) thus providing some breadth and obtain depth
in at least two of these content areas. We have made a concerted effort to hire faculty in these
areas as current faculty retire. I am not suggesting that the Department of Psychology use the
model from Western Washington University but rather survey a sample of psychology programs
across the nation to help inform them on issues of currency of the curriculum and the issue of
breadth versus depth in the curricular offerings. The students also expressed frustration that
some of the courses they wanted to take for breadth were only offered periodically, adding to
their frustration regarding the issue of breadth. The faculty felt that breadth was important as
opposed to depth. I would suggest the issue of breadth versus depth be explored with a larger
number of current and former students and that the faculty members look at other programs to
determine the current trends.
12
The emphasis on breadth seems to be supported by the results of the Major Field Test (MFT) in
psychology. In most areas, the students perform well. Of note, however, are lower scores in the
cognitive and physiological psychology areas. The more recent trend in psychology programs
across the nation is to emphasize more content in cognitive and physiological psychology and
build relationships between these two areas as well as with the other areas in psychology (e.g.,
developmental, clinical/counseling, social, evolutionary/comparative). I would suggest that the
faculty members of the Department of Psychology consider expanding the course offerings in
these areas.
The undergraduates who attended the student session also suggested that some level of depth
could be provided by more service learning activities. Faculty should be encouraged to contact
the administrative branch that is responsible for service learning to determine how they can best
incorporate service learning opportunities into the existing curriculum. This could be a focus of
a department meeting or a department retreat if a more extensive focus is desired.
The faculty members of the Department of Psychology have discussed an option of offering a
Bachelor of Science degree in psychology. During my session with the faculty members of the
Department of Psychology, there was very little input into what this might entail. One faculty
member suggested that the research methods and the statistics courses in the current Bachelor of
Arts degree might well qualify it for a Bachelor of Science degree with no changes. Another
faculty member suggested that a Bachelor of Science degree option might merely require a
senior thesis in addition to the Bachelor of Arts requirements. I disagree with both of these
perspectives. In reviewing Bachelor of Science requirements throughout different programs
across the United States, a majority of them required coursework in physiological psychology,
biology, physics, calculus, and computer science in addition to a required senior project or a
senior thesis. The few suggestions I heard from the faculty members of the Department of
Psychology fall short of the typical curricular structure for a Bachelor of Science degree in
psychology in the United States. I would recommend against a Bachelor of Science degree if it
did not include a significant number of the components that I have mentioned. Furthermore, the
requirement of a senior project or a senior thesis would add to the workload of the faculty who
seem to be doing a lot of thesis supervision at the graduate level.
Students indicated that they would like to receive some instruction in using the SPSS statistical
software package. Since the Department of Psychology has a 19-station computer lab and
requires two quarters of statistics, it seems that instruction in SPSS analysis could be
incorporated into the statistics sequence. This would require a commitment from the Department
and/or the University to purchase additional site licenses for this purpose. It may also require
some expenditure for upgrading the equipment in the computer lab. For example, if the lab does
not contain an instructor station and projection equipment they would need to be purchased. For
a number of years, we have incorporated SPSS instruction into our research methods and
statistics sequence at Western Washington University. Both the students and the professors have
judged this to be an important component of the undergraduate curriculum. Some alumni have
reported that have the ability to use SPSS helped them in finding employment or was an
advantage in gaining a research assistantship to fund their graduate studies.
13
4. I am surprised by the number of masters’ degree programs offered by the Department of
Psychology at Central Washington University. Five programs is a large number given the size of
the university. Graduate programs are also very expensive to operate in terms of labor and time.
Because the division of resources is disproportionately given to graduate programs, the
undergraduate program may suffer as a consequence. One consequence seems to be related to
class sizes at the undergraduate level. While the class sizes at the lower division course level are
acceptable, the class sizes in the upper division course level may be somewhat large, especially
in the senior-level classes. In particular, I was struck by the absence of seminar courses in the
senior-level experience. I was also struck by the absence of a true capstone course in the
undergraduate major. This course is usually a history and systems course in most psychology
departments across the nation. While this course is offered in the Department of Psychology at
Central, the size of the class (N = 30-40) prohibits conducting the class as a capstone experience.
In order to offer the capstone course and senior seminars, more faculty members would have to
be involved in teaching these classes. This would imply that either more faculty would have to
be hired (a low probability occurrence), larger classes would have to be generated at the lowerdivision level and the 300-level (this may be restricted by the number of larger classrooms that
are available), or some of the graduate programs have to be eliminated (an issue that probably
won’t receive a lot of support). I think it is a worthwhile endeavor to discuss the possibility of
reducing the number of graduate programs in favor of possibly strengthening the undergraduate
program. Factors that might be considered include graduate program applications and
enrollments, successful completion of the graduate degree, and the need that each program
fulfills with respect to the community, the state and the profession.
5. While students in the graduate programs that involve practica felt that they were beneficial, a
majority felt that they were too many practica. Of the twelve students who attended the session,
a majority favored restricting the practica to the first year or the first four quarters and offering a
longer internship experience perhaps three days a week for either two or three quarters. They
felt that they would receive greater variability in training with this arrangement. In addition,
they felt it might be easier to obtain an internship if it were for a longer period of time. Most
masters’ level programs with which I am familiar have adopted a similar structure to that
suggested by the students. However, since the number of students represented was fairly low, I
would suggest that the Department of Psychology survey its graduates on this issue as well as
potential agencies that could offer an internship experience.
In addition to the practicum versus internship issue, students also expressed some frustration
about the lack of standardization across the different practica. While they recognized and
endorsed the value of different approaches, they were frustrated by differences in procedural
issues (e.g., whether the informed consent should be read versus summarized) and conflicting
feedback about counseling approaches. It would be beneficial if the faculty who supervise the
counseling students’ practicum discuss their differences with respect to procedural issues and
formulate a standard procedure. It would also be helpful if the faculty were more supportive in
their feedback regarding counseling approaches, respecting the strengths of each approach while
carefully explaining why the approach they advocated may be desired.
6. The number of majors in the Department of Psychology is such that it does not seem
necessary to invoke additional entrance requirements for the major. The number of majors has
14
remained stable over the last 10 years according to the administrators with whom I talked. They
expressed that it was one of the few departments that failed to experience a “rebound” effect as a
result of more recent increases in enrollment. In the self-study, the faculty members briefly
mention recruitment efforts but little elaboration was provided. Approximately 67% of the
undergraduate students at Central and in the Department of Psychology are transfer students.
One way to enhance the enrollment is through outreach programs and campus visitations to the
community colleges in the area. This might be especially beneficial on campuses that serve as
centers for Central Washington University. In addition, the faculty might begin an outreach
program with the high schools in the area. This can be accomplished by having faculty visit
appropriate high school classes to discuss the scientific study of psychology and what the career
opportunities are for students who major in psychology or by sponsor information sessions for
visiting groups from high schools in the area.
7. The Department of Psychology currently has two interdisciplinary programs. One program
involves the primate-behavior and ecology program as well as the departments of psychology,
anthropology, and biology. Given the national and international reputation of the primate center,
this seems like a natural interdisciplinary program that has great promise. In addition, there is
some talk of establishing a joint program with a “sister” university in China to extend the type of
experiences for students and faculty with respect to the study of primate behavior. While this
concept is exciting, the program may not have achieved its full potential due to a lack of active
collaboration. An interdisciplinary program needs to be more than a set of courses from different
disciplines. Faculty need to be intensely aware of the content offered in each course so that
information can be linked across disciplines. In addition, efforts at designing and teaching
classes in a collaborative manner add to the strength of an interdisciplinary program. Similarly,
the interdisciplinary program in gerontology has a lot of potential value considering the increase
in the number of elderly people in the United States as well as the projections for the future.
From the review materials and the visitation, I was not clear about the departments involved in
the gerontology program but I would urge a level of collaboration similar to that mentioned
earlier in this section. I would also urge the Department of Psychology to look at other
opportunities for interdisciplinary offerings such as with biology and computer science as well as
business and criminal justice at the undergraduate level.
8. While the Department of Psychology seems to have been successful in infusing gender and
multicultural content into their courses, it is not clear how much infusion has occurred with
respect to global or international perspectives. Given that the explosion in technology has
allowed us to become more knowledgeable about other cultures and that improvements in travel
have allowed people to travel more broadly, we remain a world that is unable to effectively
understand the perspectives of other countries and cultures. In recent years, this has been evident
in the increases in acts of terrorism. Infusing international perspectives on psychology may
begin to address some of these misunderstandings. There are many resources available for this
purpose including numerous professional journals (e.g., the Journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology) and books. In addition, the Center for Cross-Cultural Psychology at Western
Washington University offers a collection of informative readings on psychology and culture that
serve as a free resource to instructors around the world and serve as supplements to standard
textbooks in psychology. These readings can be accessed at http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~culture.
15
9. In my session with the students, they expressed support for the level of advising they received
as undergraduates. However, since a majority of these students are currently enrolled in the
graduate program, their perceptions of the quality of the advising may have been limited by the
need for advising for the purpose of gaining graduate admissions. On surveys, alumni generally
expressed a high level of satisfaction with advising. They felt that faculty members were
available for advising on a need-to-know basis. Undergraduate students in the Department of
Psychology are not typically assigned to a specific advisor. However, this does not appear to be
problematic since most students self-select an advisor. This process, however, may be
problematic in that the advising load is distributed inequitably. Self-selection of an advisor can
be beneficial in the sense that students are more likely to seek out advising if they select their
advisor. One notable exception to the positive view on advising was that alumni felt that
advising did not adequately prepare them for career decisions. This may be especially true for
students from whom the baccalaureate degree is the terminal degree. Students who were
accepted into a graduate program may have felt that they received good career advice because
academic advising is so intricately related to career advising for them. In my experience, faculty
often have difficulty in advising students for whom the baccalaureate degree is a terminal degree
because they have little relevant experience from which to draw. There are a number of valuable
resources that can assist in career advisement. These resources include a number of web sites as
well as a number of books. I have listed a representative sample of these web sites and books in
Appendix B as a starting point for faculty to familiarize themselves with these career issues. I
would also encourage the Department of Psychology to incorporate an advising page on their
web site that addresses advising issues. One component of that advising page could be answers
to frequently asked questions (FAQs). Faculty could generate this list of questions from their
experience in advising and students could be referred to the advising page. In addition, the
advising page could contain links to web sites that address the issue of careers for students with
degrees in psychology as well as a list of books that also address this topic.
10. Issues of assessment of student learning seemed to concern the administrators and some
faculty members. At the present time, pre-admission (to the major) assessment is not utilized.
Since there are presently no requirements for admission into the major, this assessment process
may not be essential. However, if one measure of assessing student learning is to demonstrate
what they have learned as a result of their education in the Department of Psychology, then preadmission assessment is important. There are a number of problems that must be addressed with
regard to pre-admission assessment. First, what form should the assessment take? Should this
assessment be the Major Field Test (MFT) in psychology which is also used as an exit
assessment? When should this assessment be administered for native students and community
college transfer students? Are the community college transfer students less likely to show
improvement merely as a function of the number of psychology classes they have taken toward
the major compared to the native students? As mentioned earlier, the exit assessment is
presently the Major Field Test in psychology. The grades students receive in their classes are
consistent with their scores on the MFT. While this is a validation of the strength of the
undergraduate program in psychology, it may have limitations. The major limitation might be
the degree to which the items on the MFT correspond to the goals and objects of the Department
of Psychology. There is no evidence to demonstrate concurrence between the items on the MFT
and the goals and objects of the Department of Psychology.
16
A second form of exit assessment that has been popular in recent years is portfolio assessment.
Despite its popularity, portfolio assessment has been criticized on several accounts. First, in
many cases, students select the items that are in their portfolio. This self-selection may result in
a biased presentation of the students’ skills and abilities. Second, it is sometime difficult to
relate the contents of student portfolios to the goals and objectives of the department. Third, the
evaluation of the portfolio involves faculty assessment. This is a time-consuming process that
only adds stress to a faculty who experience high-level demands for teaching and research as
they are presently constituted. The faculty members in the Department of Psychology have
discussed portfolio assessment as a form of exit assessment but have concluded that the
drawbacks far outweigh the benefits. I agree with this assessment.
Another form of exit assessment is a capstone course at the end of the senior year. The function
of this course is to draw together the various themes of the coursework at the undergraduate level
in a final paper. The paper forms the basis of the assessment of student learning over the
curriculum. In most programs throughout the United States, this capstone course is the history
and systems course. While that course is offered by the Department of Psychology, the structure
of the course does not allow for a capstone experience. The primary drawback is that the class
size is too large to function as an effective capstone course. Ideally the class size would be 1012 students. This would allow faculty an appropriate avenue for discussion as well as an
opportunity to give extensive feedback on written assignments and to devote a lot of time to
assessing the final paper. If this model were to be adopted by the Department of Psychology, at
least five sections would need to be offered each year. At this time, the Department of
Psychology does not have enough faculty members to offer this many sections in an academic
year given the current structure of the curriculum, class sizes, and teaching loads. I would
encourage the faculty members of the Department of Psychology to give serious consideration to
this method of exit assessment. This would require some careful planning of teaching loads on
the part of the Chair.
11. The self-assessment, as well as conversations with faculty and administrators, addressed the
issue of problems with collegiality among the faculty members of the Department of Psychology.
To this point, it appears that the department has taken some important and appropriate steps in
this regard by reminding each other of the need to have respectful conversations. These issues
have been discussed at department meetings and retreats. While there have been some progress
in this regard, the general feeling of some faculty members and administrators is that there is
significant progress yet to be made. Some universities have addressed this issue by making
collegiality a part of the evaluation process. Faculty members are assessed on collegiality along
with excellence in teaching, research, and service. Within Central Washington University, the
Department of Philosophy has included the collegiality component as part of its assessment. The
Department of Psychology may want to discuss this issue with the Department of Philosophy. In
addition, the Chair of the Department of Psychology may want to consult the literature on how to
address problems of collegiality. Robert F. Bales is well-known for his work in this area. His
Systematic Multiple Level of Observation of Groups (SYMLOG) program has been used
effectively in many different settings to enhance group cohesion. Dr. Susanna Hayes has used
this approach effectively in working with two departments at Western Washington University to
enhance the collegiality of the faculty in these departments. In addition, Dr. Warren Street may
want to consult the following resource:
17
Gmelch, W. H. (1993). Coping with faculty stress (Vol. 5). Newbury Park, CA:
Sage Publications.
If the situation does not improve, the Department of Psychology may want to consider bringing
in a consultant to work with the faculty on this issue. Dr. Warren Street also suggested that if the
situation becomes more extreme or does not improve, the administration should consider hiring
an outside Chair.
12. The Department of Psychology presently has three full-time nontenure-track faculty
members: Dr. Robert Sorrells (CWU-Ellensburg), Mark Soelling (CWU-Pierce College), and
Karen Hendricks (CWU-Lynnwood). These faculty members provide excellence in teaching for
the Department of Psychology. Since these faculty members are rated highly by students and
colleagues, I am of the opinion that the department and university should consider the option of
offering them a three-year contract. This would guarantee their availability for longer period of
time and would be an advantage to the Department of Psychology while providing them with a
greater sense of job security than they presently have. I do have some concerns that students at
the CWU-Pierce College and CWU-Lynnwood centers are receiving almost sole instruction in
psychology from one person. It would be beneficial to the students to experience other the
perspective of other instructors since one of the values of a university education is the diversity
of perspective. I do not intend this to be an indictment of the abilities of Drs. Soelling and
Hendricks. They are extremely competent professionals. Perhaps some of these concerns could
be addressed by involving guest speakers and other innovative technological approaches such as
those used to deliver distance education. It is likely that Drs. Soelling and Hendricks are already
addressing this issue in some way.
13. The self-study review materials also mentioned the possibility of developing a full major at
the CWU-Pierce College and the CWU-Lynnwood centers. It appears that there is interest
among perspective students in developing the full major. Each center might be able to attract 30
majors. The two students with whom I talked at CWU-Pierce College supported offering a full
major. They believed that 20-30 students in the minor would actually be interested in the major.
However, it is not clear how this might impact the Law and Justice program at CWU-Pierce
College. It is highly likely that offering a major in Psychology would reduce the number of
students majoring in Law and Justice. If there are enough students to support a major then
several logistical problems need to be resolved before a major is offer at either of these centers.
Will the appointment of Drs. Soelling and Hendricks be upgraded to tenure-track status? If their
positions are upgraded to tenure-track status, I assume that the same standards of tenure and
promotion will be applied. However, I have some difficulty conceptualizing how research might
be appropriately satisfied in terms of resources and how service requirements will differ.
Certainly these issues must be carefully considered. In addition, peer evaluation of teaching
would need to be addressed. Presently, faculty members on at the CWU-Ellensburg campus are
evaluated by either the Department Chair or a member of the Personnel Committee. How would
this process differ for the faculty at the CWU-Pierce College and CWU-Lynnwood centers?
How many additional faculty members will need to be hired to support a major at these centers?
The suggestion has been made that one additional nontenure-track faculty member would need to
be hired at each center to fully support the major. I have some concerns about the wisdom of
having only two perspectives involved in a wide range of classes offered in a major. With only
18
two faculty members the range of offerings in the curriculum at the CWU-Pierce College and
CWU-Lynnwood centers would be much less than at the CWU-Ellensburg center. These issues
could be addressed by offering course via distance education technology. It is not clear if the
faculty at the CWU-Ellensburg campus would be in favor of offering courses in this format
given the current stress with teaching load and research requirements. Furthermore, the two
students with whom I spoke at CWU-Pierce College were not at all receptive to this approach to
offering classes. I am also concerned about faculty at these centers feeling isolated from the
CWU-Ellensburg campus.
19
Comments About the External Review Process
I will provide some comments about the external review process that may be beneficial in future
efforts.
1. Prior to the external review process, I was uncertain about what the expectations were for me
as the reviewer. I was also uncertain about what form the report would take. This is important
since these expectations would have helped me better formulate some questions prior to the
review. I am willing to admit that some of my concerns were related to my lack of experience in
conducting a review of this type. After I received the self-study from the Department of
Psychology, I had a better understanding of what might be expected of me but there was still a
lot of uncertainty. I then called Dr. Warren Street to express my concern. He admitted to some
uncertainty himself but provided some valuable input. The expectations were further clarified in
my meeting with Dr. David Stolz, Provost, Dr. Linda Beath, Associate Vice President for
Undergraduate Studies, and Dr. Wayne Quirk, Associate Vice President for Graduate Studies. In
the future, it would be beneficial to discuss with the external reviewer these expectations. My
recommendation is that this be done via telephone approximately two weeks before the visitation
but after the reviewer had read the self-study. While this meeting confirmed almost all of the
issues that I intended to review as a result of reading the self-study document, I would urge
caution that this meeting does not result in biasing the review process.
2. While I found the visit to the Centers in the Puget Sound area interesting, I did not gain a lot
of insight into the program. In part, this could be attributed to the fact that I was only able to talk
with Dr. Mark Soelling at CWU-Pierce College and two students in this program. It would have
been much more beneficial to have been able to also talk with Dr. Karen Hendricks at CWULynnwood as well as student at CWU-Lynnwood. The amount of time spent at these times
seemed excessive in comparison to the time spent at CWU-Ellensburg. I think this part of the
visitation might have been more beneficial if it occurred after my visit to the CWU-Ellensburg
campus. I felt the amount of time I spent at CWU-Ellensburg was too short.
3. I felt that I did not have enough time to talk with faculty members of the Department of
Psychology. I would suggest that more time be allocated for this purpose. In addition, it might
be useful to talk with faculty members in smaller groups given the size of the faculty (N = 22).
There are several different groupings that might be beneficial. It might be helpful to talk with
probationary faculty in one session. It might be helpful to talk with faculty who are grouped
according to the masters’ degree program with which they are most strongly affiliated. It also
might be helpful if the Chair of the Department was absent from some of the discussion with the
faculty.
4. While I realize that it is difficult to find undergraduate students to attend sessions, it would
have been helpful to have more undergraduate students involved in the process. It would have
also been helpful if there were undergraduates each of the two major options: 45-credit option
and 60-credit option. It would have been better to have the undergraduate student session
separated from the graduate student session. The issues for these two groups are very different.
20
5. The graduate students were almost exclusively from the school and mental health counseling
programs. While this was good for talking about that program, it would also have been more
beneficial to have representatives from each of the other three masters’ degree programs. It
would be beneficial to talk with graduate students from these programs in separate sessions
based on their master’s degree program.
6. In general, I would recommend scheduling more time for the external reviewer to talk with
faculty and students, particularly at CWU-Ellensburg.
21
Appendix A
Letter of Offer Template
Western Washington University
22
ELEMENTS OF THE LETTER OF OFFER
February 2004
The letter of offer is an opportunity to enumerate not only the recommended conditions of
appointment, but the expectations that the department and College have for the new
faculty member.
The template for the letter of offer provides standard language for the standard elements.
Specific elements which should be included are:
Rank
Beginning faculty with the Ph.D. degree have the rank of Assistant Professor.
Beginning faculty who do not yet have the Ph.D. normally have the rank of Instructor. In this
case, the letter should include the statement: This position is tenure track at the rank of
Instructor, beginning 16 September 20__. Upon receipt of evidence that the Ph.D. has been
awarded, the rank will be changed to Assistant Professor, with no change in salary. It is our
expectation that the degree be completed by ________ and reappointment is contingent upon
completion by that date.
The rank for faculty who have rank at another institution or for faculty with exceptional
circumstances should be determined in consultation with the Dean.
Commitments
Commitments (and their source of funding) to be provided to the new faculty must be agreed
upon with the Dean and Provost.
If a Summer Research Grant is provided, the letter should include the statement: The University
will provide a Summer Research Grant of $5,000 for the summer of 20__ to support your
program of research. You will be expected to submit a proposal detailing the specific project you
wish to pursue. You will also be expected to submit a final project report upon completion of the
grant period.
If relocation support is provided, the letter should include the statement: The University will
reimburse you up to $XXXX for relocation support. This amount includes required insurance
coverage. As required by the Internal Revenue Service, relocation benefits will be included in
your taxable wages. Reimbursement for relocation will cover only the expenses authorized by
the state; a copy of the state “Moving Expense Regulations and Guide” is enclosed for your
information. It is also available at http://www.ga.wa.gov/pca/moving.htm. Questions regarding
relocation should be directed to Amber Ray, Travel Desk, 360-650-3341.
NOTE: Be sure to include a copy of the Moving Guide, which can be obtained from the
Purchasing office. Paperwork should be coordinated by the department. Only costs authorized
23
by the state can be reimbursed, and only one move per person is authorized (i.e., If the faculty
moves in order to be on campus for classes, but his family moves later, only one move can be
reimbursed.)
If a computer is provided, the letter should include the statement: The University will provide
you with a personal desktop computer consistent with the College standard to facilitate your
research and instructional needs.
If start-up equipment/materials are provided, the letter should include the statement: The
University will provide up to $_____________ towards the purchase of the equipment and
materials which you have identified to support the teaching and research needs of this position.
The normal expectation is that these funds will be used within two years of initial appointment;
exceptions may be arranged with the Provost’s office.
Expectations
Specific expectations should be described following the general expectations for all faculty.
Such expectations may include such things as: leadership as Director of the _______ Program,
supervision of graduate students or internships, participation on thesis committees, play a strong
role in the development (or continued development) of the department’s _________ program,
etc.
Tenure and Promotion
The Faculty Handbook and the College’s Unit Evaluation Plan should be reviewed.
The normal probationary period is six years. If previous experience is to be counted toward
tenure, it must be noted in the letter of offer. For example: Given your prior academic service,
you will receive two years of credit toward your probationary period.
24
TEMPLATE
LETTER OF OFFER
July 2003
Dear
:
We are pleased that you are interested in joining the faculty of the Department of
_____________. This letter is an offer of appointment to fill the department’s position in
__________and to outline the conditions of your appointment, which I have discussed with the
Dean and the Department Chair. This offer reflects the recommendation of the ___________
faculty.
A formal contract will be prepared upon receipt of receipt of your signed letter. The President, as
appointing authority, must approve all conditions of initial employment and all renewal
agreements until tenure is granted.
This position is tenure-track at the rank of _________. [ See Elements], beginning 16
September 20__. The beginning nine-month salary is $XX,XXX, which corresponds to Step
XX.X on the current faculty salary schedule.
To establish your program of instruction and scholarship the University will provide the
following support: [ See Elements. Commitments to be agreed upon with the Dean and
Provost.]
The Department, the College, and the University value teaching, scholarship and research, and
service. We look forward to your strong contribution in all areas. Since teaching is our primary
responsibility, we expect you to be an exemplary teacher, to engage students actively in their
own learning, including discussion, writing, analysis, and participation in research activities, to
maintain high standards regarding course content, and to contribute significantly to the
development of our programs and curricula. We expect you to carry the standard teaching load
for faculty in the Department of __________ and to teach courses at all levels, including
courses meeting General University Requirements, service courses, and graduate courses
[where appropriate]. We expect you to cooperate in the development of course schedules to
meet the needs of students and to participate in regular curricular revision.
We expect that your teaching will be supported by a sustained program of scholarly activity and
productivity, including regular publication in refereed journals appropriate to your discipline and
other appropriate outlets, and constructive interaction with other faculty with related interests.
We expect that you will participate in departmental, University, and professional service
activities. As a new member of the department your service assignments will initially be
modest, allowing for concentration on teaching and research, but after some time for adjustment
we expect you to become involved in a wider range of service functions.
[ See Elements.]
25
Finally, all faculty are expected to behave in keeping with The Code of Faculty Ethics in the
Faculty Handbook and with conventions within their discipline.
As a probationary faculty member, your performance will be evaluated annually by the tenured
faculty and Chair of the Department of _________ and by the Dean of the College of Arts and
Sciences. These reviews will include an opportunity for you to discuss the evaluation with the
Chair, to plan ways in which to enhance your success, increase departmental support for your
activities, and maintain satisfactory progress towards tenure and promotion. University policies
regarding tenure and promotion, as specified in the Faculty Handbook, will apply. The normal
probationary period is six years, though consideration may occur earlier in exceptional cases.
The decision on your tenure would be made no later than the 20XX-XX academic year [the sixth
year]. [ If a specific arrangement is made in the years of service prior to tenure review, it
must be specified here.] Salary increases, when available, will be awarded in keeping with the
University salary policy.
If you accept the conditions of this letter of offer, please sign below and return this letter to the
Chair of the Department of ___________no later than _____________. After that date, this
letter will no longer constitute a commitment to these conditions on our part unless extended by
mutual agreement. Following receipt of your acceptance of these conditions, a contract will be
prepared.
We hope that you will join us, and anticipate that you will greatly enhance the programs of the
Department of __________ and the University through your strong scholarship, instruction, and
other professional contributions.
Sincerely,
Andrew R. Bodman, Provost
and Vice President for Academic Affairs
Enc: “Moving Expense Regulations and Guide”
CONDITIONS
ACCEPTED:_________________________________________
DATE:_______________________
26
Appendix B
Career Advising in Psychology
A Sample of Web Sites and Books
27
A Sample of Web Sites that Address Career Issues in Psychology
http://www.psychwww.com/careers/index.htm.
http://www.psichi.org/pubs/articles/article_68.asp
http://www.gsu.edu/~wwwpug/appleby.htm
http://krantzj.hanover.edu/handbook/bachpsy2.html
A Sample of Books on Careers in Psychology
DeGalan, J., & Lambert, S. (1995). Great jobs for psychology majors. Lincolnwood, IL: VGM
Career Horizons.
Landrum, E., Davis, S., & Landrum, T.A. (2000). The psychology major: Career options and
strategies for success. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Moran, B.L., & Korschgen, A.J. (2001). Majoring in psych? Career options for psychology
undergraduates. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Super, C.M., & Super, D.E. (1994). Opportunities in psychology careers. Lincolnwood, IL:
VGM Career Horizons.