Seven-Year Program Review
Utah Valley University
College of Humanities and Social Sciences
23 October 2011
External Reviewers:
Lisa Flores, Associate Professor of Communications: University of Colorado-Boulder
Victor Benassi, Professor of Psychology: University of New Hampshire
Dennis Cutchins, Associate Professor of English: Brigham Young University
Dan Stout, Associate Professor of Communications: University of Nevada-Las Vegas
John Granrose, Professor of Philosophy: University of Georgia
Norma Thompson, Senior Lecturer in Humanities: Yale University
Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities
Program Description:
The College of Humanities and Social Sciences comprises six academic departments: Behavioral Science,
Communication, English and Literature, History and Political Science, Languages, and Philosophy and
Humanities. The administrative structure of each department includes a department chair, at least one
administrative assistant, and at least one full-time academic advisor. Larger departments with multiple
programs may include program coordinators or directors. Additionally, the director of the Integrated Studies
Program and the Chair of the Committee on Interdisciplinary Studies report to the Dean of CHSS. These
latter two units share an academic advisor and an administrative assistant.
The College is led by the Dean. His staff includes an Associate Dean and Assistant Dean. Additionally,
there is an Administrative Assistant and a Finance Manager that report directly to the Dean. The college is
also supported by a computer technician and a development officer with dual reports to Information
Technology and Institutional Advancement, respectively.
Each department in the college offers Bachelor Degree programs and Associate Degree programs.
Additionally, several departments offer minors and certificate programs. In collaboration with the School of
Education, the college offers education degrees in ASL, English, History, and Spanish. The college also
plays a major role in the university’s General Education program. Each department offers a substantial
number of General Education courses. In fact, more than 50% of the GE requirements are housed in the
college.
Data Form:
R401 Data Table
Department or Unit-College of Humanities and Social Sciences
Year
2007
Year
2008
Year
2009
Year
2010
Year
2011
Faculty
Headcount
With Doctoral Degrees (Including MFA and other
terminal degrees, as specified by the institution)
Full-time Tenured
Full-time Non-Tenured
Part-time
With Master’s Degrees
Full-time Tenured
Full-time Non-Tenured
Part-time
With Bachelor’s Degrees
Full-time Tenured
Full-time Non-Tenured
Part-time
68
85
87
94
94
37
31
37
43
42
41
43
44
58
60
34
68
58
36
75
24
16
8
30
15
15
30
15
15
29
16
13
33
17
16
150
141
149
169
198
0
0
22
0
0
10
0
0
13
0
0
16
0
0
19
Other
Full-time Tenured
Full-time Non-Tenured
Part-time
Total Headcount Faculty
Full-time Tenured
Full-time Non-Tenured
Part-time
1
1
1
1
1
93
53
40
116
58
58
116
58
60
124
76
48
128
76
52
209
192
220
253
292
Year
2007
FTE (A-1/S-11/Cost Study Definition)
Full-time (Salaried)
Teaching Assistants
Part-time (May include TA’s)
Total Faculty FTE
Year
2008
Year
2009
Year
2010
Year
2011
93
116
116
124
128
209
197
192
212
220
226
253
250
292
274
142
226
115
361
115
434
115
584
159
754
Number of Graduates
Certificates
Associate Degrees
Bachelor’s Degrees
Master’s Degrees
Doctoral Degrees
Number of Students—(Data Based on Fall Third
Week)
Semester
_______________,
20__
Totalof#Data:
of Declared
Majors
Total Department FTE*
Total Department SCH*
2956
2793
3938
4420
4531
2069
2911
2717
3325
3903
127,710 131,166 143,427 165,807 180,282
*Per Department Designator Prefix
Student FTE per Total Faculty FTE
Cost (Cost Study Definitions)
Direct Instructional Expenditures
Cost Per Student FTE
Funding
Appropriated Fund
Other:
Special Legislative Appropriation
Grants of Contracts
Special Fees/Differential Tuition
Total
10.5
13.7
12
13.3
14.3
$7,050,979
$7,720,545
$10,834,177
$11,239,045
$12,376,245
$3,408
$2,652
$3,988
$3,380
$3,171
$431,129
$507,674
$454,893
$431,173
$464,397
$7,482,108
$8,228,219
$11,289,070
$11,670,218
$12,840,642
Program Assessment:
Strengths
The faculty is active and engaged, and highly dedicated to the education of their students. While faculty
loads remain high, the faculty participates both in scholarly projects and in service to the institution. Most
faculty are engaged in ongoing scholarly work and many have successfully incorporated students into their
research. In particular, the faculty is effectively participating in the institution’s engaged learning initiative.
A supportive staff, effective faculty development, support of student research, community outreach, and
participation in programs outside the college are also positive attributes of the college. Advisors and
administrative assistants are well-trained and provide necessary support for the academic efforts of the
college. Support for faculty development (including adjuncts) is widely available at the department level as
well as through the Dean’s Office (Engaged Learning in the Liberal Arts funding, Summer Research
Fellowships, supplemental travel funding through the Faculty Center for Teaching Excellence). The college
also makes substantial funding available to support student research and travel to professional
conferences. There has been an increase in efforts to engage with the community including conferences,
workshops, and seminars. Faculty in the college support programs outside CHSS, such as Honors and the
Center for the Study of Ethics.
Academic programs in the college are well-conceived and well-delivered. The role of faculty in the
curriculum process is clear. In general, faculty have embraced new technologies such as various
instructional platforms, presentation software, and media applications as appropriate.
Weaknesses
The College faces issues and challenges common to other academic departments at UVU. The rapid
growth of the university has brought students and opportunity; while simultaneously stretching resources,
overworking faculty, and exposing policies that have not caught up with the changes in circumstances. In
addition, the faculty identified some inconsistency in policy application, uncertainty over the budget
process, and difficulties in determining faculty load as issues that need attention. In particular, the teaching
load policy seems to discount more intense forms of faculty-student interaction such as independent study,
mentored research, and laboratory instruction.
Assessment efforts are widespread, but programs vary in their usage of assessment data to revise
curricula. Each department participates in student outcomes assessment work and program review. The
analysis of data and corresponding use of that data in program development is mixed.
It is clear that alignment with the articulated strategic directions of the college and the linkage between
planning, assessment and budget allocations will help reinforce the importance of data analysis to the wellbeing of each department. What is less clear is the extent to which the focus on the use of data for program
improvement, in contrast to program expansion, is seen as central to the PBA process. For example,
requests for new faculty and other resources have been primarily driven by program growth.
There is clearly a heavy reliance on adjunct faculty in most programs. Although these faculty are generally
well-qualified and can bring an important perspective into the classroom, they are not as available for
working with students outside the classroom as full-time faculty. This is of particular concern in that many
departments use adjunct faculty to staff their large freshmen survey sections, including General Education
courses, and that these students may not develop the habit of working with faculty outside of class and may
thus lose an important engagement opportunity.
The institution’s increasing emphasis on engaged learning is not reflected in processes such as faculty
workload and Retention, Tenure, and Promotion (RTP).
Recommendations
The college should more clearly articulate its own policies and procedures. In particular, procedures
governing workload, faculty development funds, and student research support should be more widely
publicized. The budget process should be more transparent.
Departments need to explicitly address how they use the results of student outcomes assessment. In
particular, the ways in which outcomes assessment information influences program improvement rather
than program expansion, should be emphasized.
The college should make efforts to reduce its reliance on adjunct instruction.
The college should include engaged learning as an element of faculty workload policy and RTP processes.
Institution’s Response:
The college has developed a faculty resource page for its website (http://www.uvu.edu/chss/
resource/index.html). This page includes college policies and procedures. Application forms for various
college funding initiatives are also available, along with examples of previous proposals. A presentation of
the resource page and review of relevant policies and procedures was included in this year’s back-toschool meeting for the college. The Dean is working more closely with departments regarding the
budgetary process. Additionally, the finance manager is meeting regularly with departmental administrative
assistants to discuss budget matters.
There was also widespread discussion of faculty workload procedures during the back-to-school meetings.
In particular, the distinctions among ICHE, ACHE, and GCHE were highlighted. The Dean’s Office is
working more closely with departments regarding workload planning and reporting. One particular area of
emphasis is better accountability for faculty reassigned time.
Departments are developing a direct link on their websites to outcomes assessment for the General
Education Courses they offer as well as for their particular degree programs. This will include information
on how assessment results are being used to improve the curriculum. The Dean has also made available
summer funding opportunities for departments to engage in outcomes assessment projects. Two
departments completed major assessment efforts this past summer. The college is working more closely
with the university assessment office to improve assessment efforts. A new hire in the Behavioral Science
department has a strong assessment background. He has been appointed the CHSS Faculty Assessment
Representative and is currently developing a robust and sustainable college-wide assessment plan. Some
departments have developed common final exams to assess student learning in specific courses.
There has already been progress made in program improvement, as a result of assessment efforts. The
English Education program revised its curriculum in response to deficiencies identified through their
assessment program. The Behavioral Science department is also engaged in a current review of its
Psychology emphasis to address concerns identified in their assessment work.
Recent faculty hiring has emphasized strengthening existing programs rather than developing new
programs. In particular, priority is being given to programs with heavy reliance on adjunct instruction. For
example, recent hires in Behavioral Science and Communications were driven by the desire to reduce
adjunct ratios. Additionally, several departments have identified areas of expertise in their disciplines which
are not represented by full-time faculty and have requested new hires.
The college has incorporated the engaged learning initiative into its procedures and practices. RTP
documents have been revised to address engaged learning. The Dean has also instituted an Engaged
Learning funding program which is administered by a faculty committee.