UNIVERSITY OF BALTIMORE
2003 UNDERGRADUATE PSYCHOLOGY PROGRAM REVIEW
EXTERNAL REVIEW REPORT
BY
NORINE L. JALBERT
This review focuses only on the undergraduate psychology program at
the University of Baltimore. The review is based on written information that has
been provided to me by Dr. Margaret Potthast, Associate Dean of the Yale
Gordon College of Liberal Arts at the University of Baltimore. These materials
included the March, 2003 Program Self Study for the Bachelor of Arts in
Psychology; the University of Baltimore June, 2002 Periodic Review Report; the
2001-2003 University of Baltimore Undergraduate Catalog; a 2003 University of
Baltimore application booklet; a Psychology Department brochure, and email
responses to my query about research and extracurricular activities of the
undergraduate students. I did also visit the University of Baltimore website to
see if additional information was available, but did not find anything new from
what I had already been provided.
I.
Reviewer’s Assumptions
The comments and suggestions contained in this report are best understood if
the reader is aware of the reviewer’s point of view. To that end, this report
begins by enumerating some of the assumptions I have made in my review of the
Undergraduate Psychology Program at the University of Baltimore. In the event
that any of these assumptions are disputable, incorrect, or in any way “off the
mark,” then the substance of my observations will need to be modified
accordingly.
1.
The University of Baltimore focuses on career-oriented upper division
undergraduate programs and graduate programs. Given the historical
development of the institution, its self-description as “Maryland’s transfer
university,” and its career-oriented focus, I am assuming that
undergraduate education is not the major mission of the Yale Gordon
College of Liberal Arts. Rather, undergraduate education shares the stage
with graduate programs and, in terms of student numbers, actually serves
fewer students than the graduate programs.
2.
To the extent that an institution and a department are involved in
graduate level education, it is reasonable to expect that, in addition to
2
their teaching, faculty will be actively engaged in their profession and in
research within their discipline. In addition, of course, active research
programs enhance the extent to which faculty serve as role models for
undergraduate students and also set the occasion for undergraduates to
gain their own research experience, which is critical for graduate school
acceptance.
3.
It is in the best interest of the institution and its students that both
administrators and faculty commit themselves in good faith to reach
agreement on the most feasible courses of action to enhance the overall
quality of a program. It is nonproductive to expend one’s limited time and
energy trying to fix blame for past or present difficulties.
4.
The purpose of a Program Review is not meant to be pro forma. Rather,
the program review is a vehicle by which a program’s strengths can be
lauded and its weaknesses identified and, hopefully, ameliorated.
5.
The function of an external reviewer is to bring an outsider’s point of
view, so that the parties involved can see the forest and the trees. The
limited information available to the reviewer in this instance precludes the
likelihood of an in-depth understanding of some of the major issues to be
addressed.
II.
The Department: Faculty & Facilities
The department self-report lists nine faculty members in psychology, all of who
devote “one-third of their teaching effort to the bachelor’s program.” It appears,
however, that, out of this list of nine faculty, one is temporarily assigned to
administrative duties, two are half-time, and three are involved in administrative
duties for the department. Additionally, two of the nine faculty are located at the
Shady Grove campus. Due to a series of unforeseeable circumstances, the
department reports the loss of several faculty members over the past several
years. These departures have left the department extremely short-handed.
Because there was no on-site visit, I can make no judgments about the extent to
which faculty morale and unity have been affected by the reduction of full-time
faculty. Nor can I fully judge its impact on the undergraduate program.
Given that the department supports an undergraduate program, Master’s
program, and a PsyD program, I would venture that the department must be
utilizing a sizable number of adjunct faculty. However, the self-report does not
indicate how many adjunct faculty are employed by the department on a regular
basis.
3
Faculty have individual offices whose adequacy has been questioned with regard
to soundproofing and perhaps size. The self-report alleges that private or
confidential conversations are not possible in the offices nor are meetings with
more than one student at a time. Library and Technology facilities appear to be
more than adequate to meet the needs of the undergraduate population.
Classroom facilities are reportedly adequate if one can get them. The greatest
problem appears to be the availability of enough “smart technology” classrooms
to meet the demand. Dedicated laboratory space for psychology seems to be the
one bright note, and the new Wagman Applied Psychology Laboratory promises
to serve multiple teaching and research needs in the department.
Reviewer’s Comments.
1.
It seems as though there are only six, full-time faculty, who are staffing
the undergraduate psychology program at one-third effort. This seems
incredibly inadequate given the size of the program. I have to assume
that class sizes are quite large and/or the program depends heavily on
adjunct faculty, neither of which is optimal for a comprehensive
undergraduate experience. I fully support the department’s request for
four new faculty lines. If the new faculty are also only going to devote
one-third effort to the undergraduate program, I suggest that even four
might not be sufficient.
2.
Based on the department’s self-report, the faculty in the psychology
program are professionally active and have a “modest yet consistent”
research record. Research and professional activity are essential for a
graduate program and extremely desirable for an undergraduate
program. As I mentioned in my initial assumptions, “active research
programs enhance the extent to which faculty serve as role models for
undergraduate students and also set the occasion for undergraduates to
gain their own research experience, which is critical for graduate school
acceptance.” I have no basis to comment on the adequacy of the faculty's
accomplishments as I was not provided with curriculum vitae, and I have
no information about the normal teaching load at the University of
Baltimore.
3.
The Wagman Applied Psychology Laboratory promises to serve multiple
teaching and research needs in the department. I am not clear how much
actual space is involved, but it is clear that the department has already
begun to put the space to good use. I have no data about the extent to
which this space and its resources are available to undergraduate
students. I also have no data about whether or not undergraduate
research is being conducted in this space.
4
4.
The lack of real privacy in faculty offices is a serious problem. Students
today approach faculty advisors and mentors with a multitude of issues,
many of which are personal and confidential in nature. Additionally, the
clinical aspects of psychology programs involve dealing with clients, and
discussion of client issues with professors requires confidentiality. Faculty
offices need to be conducive to these purposes. If redesign and remodeling
is not a financially feasible option at this time, then other measures need
to be explored to insure privacy. Noise maskers might be one short-term
solution.
5.
It is not clear from the self-report what specializations are represented
among the psychology faculty. The Psychology program brochure that I
was given is apparently out of date since five of the eleven faculty listed in
the brochure are not listed in the self-report. What I did notice in the
outdated brochure, however, does raise a point. There was a strong
representation of people with an Industrial/Organizational Psychology
background. This is atypical for an undergraduate program. The
department needs to grow in the direction of a more balanced
representation of the diversity of interests and specialties within
psychology. Additional lines in the areas of developmental, personality, or
community psychology would be particularly appropriate.
III.
The Undergraduate Program
The information presented in the department’s self-study report and ancillary
materials indicate that the undergraduate psychology program has grown over
the past several years. Much of this growth is attributed to the establishment of a
degree program at the Shady Grove campus. With over a hundred majors spread
across two campuses, the psychology undergraduate program has its job cut out
for them, especially in light of its graduate programs and its service courses to
other programs.
Based on data about their majors, the undergraduate psychology major is
“enrolling at a younger age, is ethnically representative of the city, and is a
female resident of the state of Maryland who is focusing on a full-time college
experience.” This profile of the current undergraduate psychology major has
emerged since the department’s last review period (date not given, but I surmise
over five years ago). If the trend continues in this direction the department will
need to make adjustments in their program to meet the needs of this increasingly
full-time student population.
The curriculum described in the self-report and in other ancillary materials is
solid, comprehensive, and up-to-date. It conforms admirably to the American
5
Psychological Association’s guidelines for undergraduate education in
psychology. The program strikes a good balance between required and elective
courses and between specialization and breadth. Psychology is a diverse
discipline involving many different career tracks, and students need guidance
about which courses best suit their specific career or graduate school interests.
From what I have been informed, there are currently two undergraduate
students assisting the Program Director in a research project and there are
usually two to four students a semester engaged in PSYC 499, Special Projects in
Psychology. To date there has not been any sustained emphasis directed toward
getting undergraduate students involved in presenting papers at undergraduate
research conferences or at psychological association meetings.
In spite of decreased full-time staff and what I assume must be increased staffing
and scheduling pressures, the department has apparently been successful in
serving its constituents. The survey of alumni of the psychology program
suggests that alumni are mostly satisfied with their degree, which they view as
personally and professionally enriching. The majority of alumni completed their
degree requirements in four years, which might shorten if the trend toward more
full-time students continues. A small handful of students (3, on average)
participate each year in the accelerated BS/MS program and usually go on to
complete the Master’s program.
Advising in the program is covered by a designated Program Director, and new
students must meet with the Program Director before registering for the first
time. Student records, including advisement forms from each advisement
session, are maintained by the Program Director. Additionally, faculty are
available to meet with students about specific courses and/or information
regarding psychology specialty areas. There is no indication in the self-report
about the availability of any printed advising information specific to psychology
that students could pick up at their leisure.
Reviewer’s Comments
1.
The department has not articulated a mission statement of its own, but it
has clearly articulated the manner in which the psychology program is
consistent with the mission of the university. A mission statement unique
to the psychology department, which defines and distinguishes
psychology from other similar programs at the university, might,
however, serve a useful purpose. It is much easier to make a case for staff,
equipment, lab space, etc. if one starts with a specific list of objectives than
cannot or will not be met without the additional staff, equipment, or lab
space.
6
2.
Perhaps what stands in the stead of a psychology program mission
statement (although it is not the same thing) is the program’s statement of
student learning goals and outcomes. These are enumerated in the
program self-report and appear to be taken in toto from the American
Psychological Association’s Task Force report on “Undergraduate
psychology major learning goals and outcomes.” What the self-report
does not do is “take into account local factors, such as institutional and
departmental missions and student characteristics,” as recommended by
the APA Task Force. The 10 specific goals and outcomes that are
enumerated in the self-report need to be related to the University of
Baltimore psychology program’s curricular and extracurricular program.
The department includes a learning outcomes matrix in the appendix that
expands and elucidates the 10 specific goals. These also are derived in toto
from the APA Task Force report. The department has more work to do to
link the 10 learning goals and/or the outcomes matrix to its particular
program.
3.
As I commented earlier, the undergraduate psychology curriculum is
“solid, comprehensive, and up-to-date.” I was not surprised, however, to
read that students need an average of four years to complete the program.
The self-report attributes the four-year completion rate to the part-time
nature of the program. I wonder if that is the only reason. There is no data,
but I would venture a guess that another equally valid reason for the fouryear completion rate is the demanding curriculum requirements. I bring
this up not as a criticism because I fully support the program’s
curriculum, but to suggest that even full-time students may still require
the 4-years to complete the program.
4.
In its discussion of “Yield Data,” the self-report states: “while the number
of registrations has risen over the five-year period, the number of
graduates has not kept pace and is quite low.” Any investigation into this
issue might want to take into account the demanding nature of the
curriculum requirements. The rigorous program may not only contribute
to the four-year completion rate but also to the dropout rate. Again, I
bring this up not as a criticism, but to point out that demanding, rigorous
programs sometimes require more effort and commitment on the part of
its students. The four-year completion rate and seemingly high dropout
rate should not necessarily be construed as a negative characteristic of the
program; it may simply be the price paid for a demanding program of
study.
5.
Advising is centralized within the program, and only one person has
responsibility for all undergraduate advising. This approach can work
well if the Program Director is committed to this endeavor and is given
7
sufficient release time and resources to do a good job. I have no
information about either of these factors. The self-report does
acknowledge that “the undergraduate program director’s position has
experienced a significant amount of turnover during the review period.”
From what I can gather, the institution seems to have moved in the
direction of this kind of advising centralization, and perhaps the
psychology program is merely suffering the pains of transitioning from
the old to the new. As part of this centralization, where so much rests on
the shoulders of one person, I would recommend that the department
create multiple brochures and forms designed to inform students about
the program, requirements of the major, research collaboration
opportunities, independent study applications, extracurricular activities,
etc. These could be made easily available to students so that they need not
always seek the counsel of the Program Director.
6.
In discussing their program, the self-report makes no mention of any
extra-curricular activities for the undergraduate psychology students. The
catalog mentions that the Psychology Department has a chapter of Psi Chi,
the national honor society in psychology. There is no mention anywhere
that I could find about the existence of a Psychology Club. In answer to
my query, Dr. Potthast informs me that the Psi Chi chapter is undergoing
restructuring and has recently initiated a monthly speaker meeting. As the
department moves increasingly in the direction of more full-time students,
it will need to direct more attention to the need for and importance of
extracurricular activities. Psi Chi, especially, has created over the past 10
years a number of special programs for undergraduate students that
would make them more attractive and competitive for graduate school or
the job market (i.e., undergraduate small grant program, cash awards for
best research project presented at a regional or national psychology
conference, a quarterly journal of undergraduate research publications,
etc.). Students need to be made aware of these extracurricular
opportunities as a means to enhance their résumés.
IV.
Summary and Final Remarks
The Undergraduate Psychology Program is a strong department within the
university. It has a solid, comprehensive, and up-to-date curriculum, which the
faculty anticipate re-examining on a biennial basis. The department continues to
work on developing an appropriate outcomes assessment tool. They are guided
in this endeavor by the paradigm proposed by the APA Task Force report on
“Undergraduate psychology major learning goals and outcome.” The full-time
faculty divide their efforts across multiple activities/programs, and only onethird of their time is directed toward undergraduate education. Based on alumni
8
data, the students seem satisfied with the program and the quality of their
educational experience. Although library and technology services appear
adequate, smart technology classrooms appear to be at a premium and office
space seems to be less than optimal. Faculty research activity is “modest yet
consistent.” This will probably increase since the department has embarked upon
a PsyD program. It is not clear from the report if increased faculty research will
translate to increased research experience and opportunities for undergraduate
students. Extracurricular activities for undergraduate students do not appear to
be a high priority, but the department does have an active Psi Chi chapter.
Reviewer’s Recommendations
1.
Add at least four, if not more, full-time faculty members to the Psychology
faculty. As the department adds new members, it should keep its eye on
the goal of diversity of specializations. The department might benefit by
new hires in developmental, personality, and community psychology.
2.
When next appropriate, the department should consider formulating a
psychology-specific statement of mission and objectives. It is much easier
to make a case for staff, equipment, lab space, etc. if one starts with a
specific list of objectives that the administration has accepted and then
begin pointing to the objectives that cannot or will not be met without the
additional staff, equipment, or lab space.
3.
The department should try to tailor their learning goals and outcomes and
their outcomes matrix to be consistent with “local factors, such as
institutional and departmental missions and student characteristics” as
recommended by the APA Task Force.
4.
The proposal to re-examine the undergraduate curriculum on a biennial
basis is a laudable one. It will certainly keep the program vibrant and
contemporary. However, curriculum revisions should be done with care,
and they should be accompanied by realistic planning regarding course
and instructor availability. With only six full-time faculty members, I
would caution against designing a curriculum that looks good on paper
but cannot be effectively delivered to the students.
5.
Develop more advising and career planning materials to be made
available to students in multiple formats (e.g., print, online).
6.
The department should begin to think about facilitating the research
opportunities and experiences of its undergraduate majors. There has
been a tremendous increase in the number of undergraduates who are
doing research, presenting research at conferences, and even publishing
9
research. Certainly, these undergraduates are going to be more attractive
and competitive for graduate school admissions and for many places of
employment.
7.
Faculty offices appear to need some attention with regard to size and,
more importantly, privacy. If remodeling is not a viable expenditure, then
sound-masking equipment might be another alternative to consider for
the short term.
Concluding Remarks
University resources are limited, of course. The department needs to be prepared
to face the fiscal reality that nothing is free even if you the clearest of objectives
and a large number of majors. If we assume that all departments and programs
are trying to make equally cogent cases for their programmatic needs, then the
Psychology Department needs to demonstrate that it deserves more
consideration because it does more, it cares more, and its student do and care
more. Data documenting any or all of the above can be more compelling than
anything an external reviewer might say. Finally, I think the department
deserves much credit and praise. Despite limited resources and very limited fulltime faculty, they seem to deliver a program that leaves the alumni satisfied and
gratified. Surely the administration appreciates these efforts.