Date:
July 1, 2010
To:
Tracy Pellett
Associate Vice President for Undergraduate Studies
From:
Kirk Johnson
Dean, College of the Sciences
Subject:
2009-2010 Program Review, Science Education
You have asked me to provide commendations and recommendations as part of the
program review process for Science Education. These observations consider the selfstudy, the external evaluator’s report, as well as on the context and resource issues with
the college.
The department prepared a self-study and hosted the campus visit of the external
reviewer. Dr. Laura Henriques, chair of the Department of Science Education at
California State University, Long Beach was selected because it is one of the few
similarly structured science education programs in the nation. Dr. Henriques provided a
detailed discussion of department successes and challenges in her report. My
commendations and recommendations closely follow the points she raised.
COMMENDATIONS:
The external reviewer notes several critical department strengths:




Science Education faculty members have embraced a department culture that is
student-centered. The engagement of students in the department is one of its
major strengths. The value department members place on student/faculty
interaction is evident in the consistently high frequency with which undergraduate
students are involved in research projects and in the level of student praise for
faculty accessibility and quality of performance.
The department offers a collegial working environment for its faculty and
students. This cooperative or supportive environment is reflected in department
decision making processes, an active faculty mentoring program, integration and
collaboration with natural science and mathematics departments, the College of
Education and Professional Studies, and CTL.
Department philosophy and practice reflects the teacher/scholar model. The
department’s SEOI scores, student comments, and faculty instructional awards
attest to the quality of instruction provided by the department.
The faculty are engaged in the four cornerstones of the Boyer Model (the
scholarship of discovery and teaching, integration and application) as evidenced




by the department’s rate and range of publications, conference presentations and
grant applications.
The department has developed a credible programmatic assessment plan, and
several of its members are routinely asked to assist in efforts to improve
assessment activities in their assigned home departments and other COTS
departments. SCED is one of the few departments in COTS to close the loop in
its assessment strategy; not only does it utilize assessment-based findings to
improve its curricular offerings and when proposing the establishment of new
programs, but it tracks the performance of its revisions and new initiatives.
Science Education faculty members participate in a broad array of service
activities in the community that bring state and local recognition to the university.
The faculty are active in university governance, local community and school
leadership activities, as well as in several key K-12 state-level governing bodies.
Science Education has embraced state mandates (and inherent challenges) to
increase the production of graduates earning STEM field teaching credentials and
has expanded its program offerings to university centers in order to serve place
and time bound students.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
The external reviewer identifies several issues that require planning or support. The
following recommendations reflect the issues identified in the report.



Student Advisement and Undergraduate Curriculum Planning: the external
reviewer’s findings suggest attention is needed in the area of advisement. It is
recommended that the department provide students with a clearer pathway to
success via the provision of better online advising information. Students report
some confusion as to the exact CEPS, SCED, and science content area courses
they are required to complete for their program and when would be the most
appropriate time to complete qualifying examinations. Students also reported
challenges in meeting core requirements because courses were taught in
overlapping time frames. The lack of coordination in scheduling between
academic units should be attended to, and ideally students ought to be able to
have access to an annual spreadsheet or table that displays the quarter and time in
which required courses are customarily taught. Together these recommendations
should reduce student complaints about advisement and curriculum.
Recruitment and Public Relations: Update the department webpage to include all
current programs and include a section emphasizing student and faculty research
opportunities and successes. The reviewer also makes a number of specific
recruitment and in public relations recommendations regarding advertising and
signage that will enhance the visibility of the department and its programs in both
Ellensburg and at the university centers.
Role and Scope of Center Program Faculty: Given the size (enrollment numbers)
of department programs at the centers, the external reviewer expresses multiple
concerns about faculty working in isolation at these sites. Most of Dr.
Henriques’s concerns focus on the equitable treatment of faculty at those sites.


Do they receive adequate collegial support and mentoring, have the proper tools
at their disposal to successfully engage in both instruction and scholarship, and if
their formal workloads accurately reflect the demands placed upon them. A
portion of the next year should be devoted to the key question raised by the
external reviewer: would it be in everyone’s best interest to hire FTNTT faculty
rather than TT faculty at the centers?
A recent position search for a faculty member with a shared appointment in
Geological Sciences and Science Education revealed that Geological Sciences
department members were unaware of the mutually agreed upon standards of
evaluation between the two departments. This suggests Science Education faculty
should review the standards for those occupying shared appointments with their
partner departments to minimize any misunderstanding that may exist. In
addition, SCED should make sure departments with shared appointments
recognize that the primary reason these faculty lines exist is to further the mission
of science education.
Prioritization of Effort and Differentiation between CESME and Science
Education: One of the strengths of SCED is a willingness to tackle virtually any
challenge or charge placed in front of it. Taken as a whole the department is
composed of a small number of high energy faculty and as a result they are spread
fairly thin between instruction at multiple locations, multi-dimensional service
commitments (SCED, faculty members’ home departments, two colleges, and
greater university, their scientific professions and numerous K-12 organizations,
the broader community, etc.), and they are engaged in diverse applied and
traditional grants work. In essence Dr. Henriques is wondering whether they have
committed themselves to more than they can humanly deliver. A small
department easily runs the risk of spreading itself too thinly and placing too many
demands on its members. Moreover, it was not entirely clear to the external
reviewer where the role of Science Education ends and CESME begins. The
follow-up report should address the external reviewer’s concerns over the
departments’ tendency to take on more responsibilities than it can reasonably be
expected to handle and more clearly differentiating between the responsibilities of
CESME and SCED.
SUMMARY:
In summary, the Science Education Department has a strong student-centered identity
with a well defined disciplinary focus when it comes to its undergraduate mission. The
department faculty maintains a strong record of instructional performance and
scholarship. However, there is work to be done when it comes to student advisement and
recruitment, clarifying or differentiating between the scope and mission of CESME and
Science Education, science department “buy in” to the existing SCED faculty evaluation
standards, and the duties and treatment of faculty attached to center programs.