External Review of Graduate Programs in the Department of Psychology at San Francisco State University

Transcription

1 External Review of Graduate Programs in the Department of Psychology at San Francisco State University Dates of Visit: April 21-22, 2008 Site Visitors: Ken Green, California State University, Long Beach Donald Truxillo, Portland State University Materials Reviewed: 6th cycle Self Study. Psychology Faculty CVs Appendix A. Summary Reports and MOU from Program Review Appendix B. Responses to the MOU Undergraduate items Appendix C. 5-Year Assessment Plan and Assessment Reports Appendix D. Communications Materials Appendix E. Sample Syllabi Appendix F. Publications and Presentations with Student Coauthors Appendix G. Grade Analysis Department Web Site Enrollment Management Plans Proposal for Revision of the Psychology Major Executive Summary The two master's degree programs and six concentrations are performing well, despite shoestring levels of support. The graduate programs provide valuable service to the profession and community, and maintain excellent town-gown relations. Consolidation of courses across concentrations is being implemented carefully and cogently. More faculty positions are needed, especially in the MS Concentration in School Psychology which is down to 0.5 position (1.5 with a new hire coming in fall 2008). More faculty positions would reduce the overall SFR and facilitate all concentrations. More support, in both space and funding, is needed to support the research-oriented concentrations. The Department s SFR is an outrageous 42:1 and needs to be reduced immediately. An acceptable target is 25:1. The Department serves its graduate and undergraduate students well, but at major personal and professional cost. All other issues pale in comparison to the issue of overload. Overview of Department of Psychology The Department of Psychology in spring semester 2008 has: 24 tenured and tenure-track faculty, including 4 on FERP, one on 0.8 leave, and the Department Chair; 3 additional

2 faculty who are in administrative posts; and 17 lecturers, due to be reduced in fall by 5. In addition, there are 5 people working in the department office. These faculty and staff provide courses for a large number of undergraduates, including about 1,650 majors, as well as service courses, GE courses, and courses of interest to the general campus community. The department also serves a large number of graduate students. There are two Master s degrees: Master of Arts (MA) and Master of Science (MS). The former is traditionally intended to prepare students for doctoral study, while the latter is intended to prepare students for jobs in specific areas of practice. Both undergraduate and graduate programs are thoughtfully constructed and carefully executed. They provide students with solid instruction and training. The Department of Psychology is a Center of Excellence within San Francisco State University. What is remarkable and unique about the Master s Programs is that there are six (!) concentrations: within the MA there are concentrations in Developmental Psychology, Social Psychology, and Psychological Research; within the MS there are concentrations in Clinical Psychology, Industrial-Organizational Psychology, and School Psychology. By means of their highly dedicated instructors, all six concentrations effectively serve an appreciable number of students providing academically solid training. But all concentrations show signs of significant strain in terms of faculty workload, facilities, resources, and support. The Student-Faculty Ratio (SFR) serves as an important index of this strain. The SFR advertised by the California State University as a desirable level is 18:1 (see, e.g., BudIndex/SupportBdgt_Book1/challenges_faculty.shtml). Other Departments of Psychology on large campuses around the CSU system tend have SFRs that are above this desired level, specifically about 25:1. However, the SFR of the SFSU Department of Psychology is a shocking 42:1. This enormous SFR is attributable to a history of reduced instructional support against a will to maintain and increase the level of instruction that was present when the department was much larger. The department members have adapted by using a strategy of holding many undergraduate classes in large classrooms that enroll high numbers of students while keeping graduate classes relatively small. The faculty have a nominal 9- unit load, which might be viewed as ameliorative. But there are hidden loads that come in several forms: The huge clerical and grading load associated with the large undergraduate classes; The fact that psychology majors can go through their entire undergraduate experience and never be in a class of 40 or fewer students, even in their upper division courses; The practice of giving 6 units of credit for enrollments of 120 or more students against the normal practice of 3 units credit for 40 students;

3 The large number of graduate courses needed by the six different concentrations; The need to supervise about 60 Culminating Experiences (CEs; e.g., thesis) each year over the six concentrations. The CEs are individualized projects that are inherently very time consuming; supervision of them is done without explicit credit; at least two faculty members per project are required on each committee; and all work by faculty on CEs is done essentially for free. Thus from a brief glance it is obvious that the faculty of the Department of Psychology at SFSU are carrying far more than their share of instruction. That they are doing it exceptionally well is a testament to their high standards and will to maintain them. But it is clear that many faculty are at the breaking point. There needs to be immediate attention to a plan (5-year plan?) to address the extreme instructional overload. This constitutes an acute issue. This is not a short-term issue. This is an emergency situation and action needs to begin now. Issues Cited for Examination in Initial Meeting with SFSU Administrators A number of questions were raised during our initial meeting with SFSU administrators. Should the undergraduate program undergo impaction? Impaction would provide a means to limit the number of majors (and possibly minors) by setting a cap on their number and by setting criteria for admission to the major. Clearly an enrollment cap of some sort would be useful in reducing the SFR, and it is likely that setting a minimum GPA for the major would also prove helpful by reducing the numbers of less well-performing students (the numbers of Ds and Fs might decrease, and along with them the hours spent grading poor writing might also decrease). Additionally the department could consider reducing the number of service courses, general interest courses, and GE courses that they offer to non-majors. What is the equivalency of culminating experiences s (e.g., thesis vs paper) across different Masters Degree Concentrations? Are the different culminating experiences appropriate to the different concentrations? We believe that the CEs are generally appropriate to the concentrations. Students in the two MS concentrations (Clinical and School) generally opt for a paper, whereas those in the MS-IO and all MA concentrations generally opt for an empirical research project. Given the large numbers of CEs per year, the relatively small number of faculty, and limited facilities, the choices appear to be efficiently determined, assuming that papers put less demand on space and equipment than experiments. Also the types of employment expected of MS-Clinical and MS-School students are less likely to require training in conducting empirical theses (e.g., experiments) than are the types of experiences likely to be faced by MS-IO and MA students.

4 We were also asked to consider whether the different CEs required equal work from students across concentrations. The consensus appeared to be that the coursework in the different concentrations was equally demanding. But the CEs may differ: certainly the time commitment for empirical theses is greater than that for papers, especially considering IRB reviews. Whether faculty time differs much between types of CE is not clear; certainly editing is laborious no matter what form the writing takes. What is the state of writing across the curriculum? The quality of student writing is a recognized problem. The undergraduate class sizes are huge and there is little TA support. To us, it appears that the solution lies in more writing assignments, with opportunities to rewrite and put feedback into practice. This approach, to be performed in a meaningful way, requires more instructional resources than is currently available. For graduate students, a standardized test like the GRE seems efficient and useful as a benchmark. Any test using home-grown methods requires instructional resources. However, as discussed later, we also recommend that a pre-thesis course be used for the graduate program. Is the governance structure of graduate programs appropriate? Psychology as a discipline includes a very wide range of interests and concentrations, with over 50 divisions within the professional organization (American Psychological Association.) With that in mind, it is not unusual to find specific concentrations in a department and hiring is often around individual concentrations. At one time the identification of at least some faculty with concentrations was greater than their identification with the department. To us the identification between concentration and Department seems balanced now, and faculty we talked with appeared to view themselves as members of both. The Department consensus on the value of the six programs appears to be that all concentrations are of equal value. Sadly, resources are so thin that when faculty from one concentration leave, replacement is hardly automatic. As a consequence, all concentrations need support, and one in particular School Psychology is quite shaky, with only 0.5 position currently available (a new hire is due in fall 2008 to bring this concentration to 1.5 positions). But despite this low level of support, the Department keeps the programs going, and the sense of esprit de corps among the students is high. In addition, all of the Department s masters concentrations provide value to the Department, to BBS, to SFSU, and to the community. Indeed some of the MS concentrations provide the best possible town-gown affiliations. Recently-hired faculty seem appropriately socialized into the department; most work well across concentrations, and we view this as a healthy practice.

5 What is the value of a graduate concentration in Health Psychology? Would focusing masters programs on health psychology be appropriate? Yes, if broadly conceived: most of the subject matters of psychology can be brought to bear easily on health-related issues, so training for students interested in this area could be quite beneficial. Would a focus on Health Psychology provide a basis for joint a Ph.D. with UCSF? Perhaps, but there are many reasons for caution. First would be the need to hire at least a couple of specialists in Health Psychology to coordinate the program. Liaisons with UCSF could prove profitable if SFSU faculty could use UCSF facilities, and it is clear from Dr. Morsella s experience that UCSF would be delighted to have access to the human resources and subject pool provided by SFSU. But SFSU should be VERY careful about resources, especially related to faculty workload: in joint programs there would be a tendency to have SFSU do the teaching, and have UCSF do the research and thus receive the large grants and overhead -- SFSU would need to be certain of receiving compensation that would improve its situation, not worsen it. What is the state of student advising? There is great reliance on web materials for advising. Individual contact with students about general advising matters seems to rely on office staff and . With regard to graduate students, use of is increasing; its effectiveness seems to vary across concentrations; we did not have a sense of its effectiveness at the department level. In-person advising was seen by students as good. Faculty are accessible and informative, and faculty refer students to individual faculty experts as needed. We recommend developing a peer advising system for undergraduates, and understand that such a program is indeed under consideration. A peer advising program would need more resources, at least one position and some space (e.g., an adapted classroom), to be executed effectively. Other Issues A number of issues were raised based on discussions with faculty, administrators, and students, and by the Department of Psychology s Self Study. Integration across concentrations of curriculum, admissions, and culminating experiences: Curriculum: Curriculum consolidation was encouraged in the last review and is already in progress, particularly in the MA concentrations where some overlap of academic materials occurs naturally. There appear to be less interests in common among the MS concentrations; nonetheless we recommend that both MA and MS concentrations continue to seek common ground for efficient teaching and combine classes where it

6 makes sense to do so. However, consolidation results in increased class sizes, and this will dilute student contact with professors, so careful planning is needed. Admissions: We recommend common procedures across concentrations, including timing of submission and review of applications, and announcements of acceptances. Although the different concentrations may look for different criteria in admitting their students, efficiencies may be gained to the degree that the application forms are common to different concentrations. We recognize that some concentrations may require unique forms, however. We also recommend requiring applicants to specify their top three choices of potential faculty advisors: this practice would have the advantage of forcing applicants to consider the best fit of their interests and those of the faculty prior to applying, would emphasize the opportunities available (and not available) in the Department, and might start the students thinking about their CEs early. CEs were considered with respect to possible differences in level of effort. To the degree these differences do exist across concentrations, they need to be leveled so that neither students nor faculty perceive concentrations as differing in strength or rigor. Standardized writing rubrics: For graduate students, we recommend pre-thesis courses for all concentrations to get students started on their thesis projects. In addition to training in writing, the prethesis course should cover the basic content areas available for research and scholarship, as well as ethics and practical matters such as dealing with IRBs and IACUCs, legal regulations, and employment options. Whether this is one course or several courses that vary with the concentration should be discussed. Writing rubrics should be extended to undergraduates only if additional resources such as teaching assistants are provided. Revise concentration in Psychological Research: The new name (Mind, Brain, and Behavior) is in line with current trends within Psychology. Hire at least one more faculty for Concentration in School Psychology: The School Psychology concentration is well established, has an enthusiastic cadre of students, and provides excellent town-gown benefits. However, even with the use of lecturers, the present 0.5 position is impossibly overloaded. A new faculty member is due in fall 2008, bringing the position count to 1.5, which still leaves the program short. We recommend that at least one additional faculty be hired for the School Psychology concentration as soon as possible. Expand culture of research and professional development:

7 Faculty are particularly dedicated in keeping graduate students involved in their research as evidenced by the active research laboratories. We recommend both departmental colloquia and concentration brown bags. Both programs exist; currently, and a balance is being sought. In addition, while faculty are making excellent use of their lab space, more lab space is needed to accommodate the active research agendas of faculty and students. Summary Recommendations The Psychology Department provides outstanding instruction to both graduate and undergraduate students. At the same time, faculty have generally maintained their research productivity. While faculty have continued to function successfully because of their positive, can do attitude, faculty are stretched to the breaking point, and student/faculty ratios are at an unacceptable level. In our view, the Department has adjusted and leveraged its resources as much as possible, and there is little more that can be done without compromising the quality of instruction beyond an acceptable level. This is now a problem for the University to solve. More instructional resources are needed if the University is to profit from the popularity and high enrollments of the Psychology Department. We recommend that a long-term plan be implemented by the University to significantly increase tenure-line faculty in the Department. In addition, undergraduate enrollment should be reduced through impaction.