[This text is machine generated and may contain errors.]

EAST CAROLINA UNIVERSITY

GREENVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA 27834

DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY March 16, 1983 Telephone: (919) 757-6800 or
(919) 757-6634

To: Dr. Eugene Ryan
Acting Dean
College of Arts and Sciences

he 1
From: William F. Grossnickle Bik f)
Chairman of the Psychology Department's Evaluation Committee

On Monday, March 14, 1983, the faculty of the Psychology Department
met and voted by secret ballot on the effectiveness of its chairperson,
Dr. Rosina Lao.

On the question "In your opinion, is the departmental chairperson an
effective one?", 14 responded yes, 3 responded no, no one abstained.

The faculty also voted to accept the four-year evaluation report by
a vote of 18 to 0.

Three copies of the report are enclosed.

WFG:pf

Encl

East Caroline University is a constituent Institution of The University of North Caroline

PSYCHOLOGY DEPARTMENT EVALUATION

March, 1983

Il.

IIl.

IV.

VI.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Faculty Evaluation of Chairperson ... ++ ++ sess

Faculty Opinion Concerning Research, Teaching and
Allocation of Funds . ... ec ee © 2 © © eo oe ©

Faculty and Student Evaluation of the Graduate and
Undergraduate Programs, . ...«+seeeer2e © e @ ©

Professional Activities of Faculty Members. . .. «= «

Departmental Breen tae oS gs es sg 6 Oe einen} 6 6 Re

Conclusions and Recommendations . . + « «+ « + © © e @ «

Appendix A: Department-Developed Student Questionnaire

Appendix B: Analyses and Comments on Student Responses
to Opinion SurveyS . 2... «essere 2

PAGE

14

18

23

28

PSYCHOLOGY DEPARIMENT EVALUATION

1983

The following is a report of the Evaluation Cammittee of the
Psychology Department. The report follows the format of the 1979
eeeT: and includes five sections: I. Faculty Evaluation of
Chairperson; II. Faculty Opinion Concerning Research, Teaching, and
Allocation of Funds; III. Faculty and Student Evaluation of the
Graduate and Undergraduate Programs; IV. Professional Activities of '
Faculty Members; V. Departmental Activities; and VI. Conclusions and

Recommendations.

I. Faculty Evaluation of Chairperson

To assess faculty opinion concerning the chairperson's execution
of duties and responsibilities, an eleven-item rating form was
distributed to each faculty member. Faculty members were asked to
rate the chairperson on each of the eleven items according to a
four-point scale (strong, satisfactory, weak, undecided). Ratings
were made anonymously and returned to the evaluation committee. Of
the 29 forms distributed, 21 were returned by the faculty and provide
the basis for the following comments.

Generally, the faculty overwhelmingly views the chairperson's
overall level of functioning as satisfactory-to-strong in nearly all
areas tapped. The strongest areas were: (I) support of departmental
interests, (2) congeniality and friendliness, and (3) effort to

improve the department.. The weakest areas appeared to be: (1)

effectiveness in conducting faculty meetinas, (2) success in

maintaining morale, and (3) use of faculty input in decision-making.
Table 1 contains the frequency count for each of the response
categories for each question. A median of the "strona",
"satisfactory", and "weak" categories is provided for each item.
("Undecided? is a non-scale category, SO the data within that category
were excluded from the measure of central tendency.)
From these data, it follows that the Department as a whole is

satisfied with the performance of the chairperson.

II. Faculty Opinion Concerning Research, Teaching, and Allocation of
Funds | :

Twenty-four faculty members returned the questionnaire concerning

these topics.

Research:

Most faculty members who responded to the questionnaire felt that
adequate time is available for research (15 yes, 8 no) and that there
is sufficient access to research subjects (18 yes, 5 no). ~The faculty
is divided on whether enough space is at hand (12 yes, ll no). A
majority feels that research efforts are adequately encouraged,
supported, and recognized (15 yes, 9 no); abthoush the indication was
given that there is "too little" research activity (13) within the
department as Ma a an "adequate" feta t 5).

The major areas of Akeentintdetton among the faculty on this
topic are related to funds and equipment. The response was rather
decisive that sufficient equipment was not available for research (2

sufficent, 21 not sufficient), and there was essentially an opinion

split as to satisfaction with the allocation of available research

10.

il.

*

Strong = l,

RATINGS* OF DEPARTMENT CHAIRPERSON

Fairness in running the department
Use of faculty input in decision making
Effort in improving the department

Support of departmental interest in
interacting with administration

Availability to faculty members
Availability to students

Effectiveness in conducting faculty meetings
Success in maintaining morale

Openness and candidness in interacting with
faculty and students

Congeniality and friendliness in interacting
with faculty and studentsT

Concern and assistance to faculty members
and students

OVERALL FREQUENCY

Table l.

Responses
Strong Satisfactory Weak Undecided Mdn
7 11 2 1 2
5 12 3 1 2
13 7 1 0 ]
18 0 1 r I
10 9 2 0 2
6 6 2 7 2
3 10 8 0 2
5 10 5 i 2
12 5 4 0 i
15 6 0 0 1
12 8 1 0 1
106 84 29 12

Satisfactory = 2, Weak = 3. Lower numbers reflect greater approval.

funds within the department (9 yes, 10 no). It would appear that
faculty members tend to feel that enough time and subjects are
available for research projects but that a problem continues to exist
with regard to funds and equipment. It would seem that the issue of
space has tilted slightly in the positive direction since our last

evaluation.

Teaching and Other Duties:

The faculty feels, generally, that committee work and thesis
supervision are adequately encouraged, supnorted,. and recognized
within the Department [(16 yes, 7 no), (15 yes, 7 no) respectively],
but opinion is mixed on the recognition of student. advisement (12 yes,
1] no). Overall, the feeling was favorable regarding the
encouragement , support, and recognition of teaching efforts (14 yes, 9

no).

Allocation of Funds:

The faculty was asked to rate theT allocation of departmental
funds with respect to each of Biane Rae Pa With regard to the
three graduate programs - General, Clinical and School - the
distribution was considered to be oabout right" /"too little" in the
following balance respectively: 13/6; 12/6; 14/5. The imbalances

tending in the negative direction were as follows:

Funding Area Too Much About Right Too Little Uncertain
Teaching supplies 0 3 21 Q
Faculty office supplies 0 7 efile: t 0
Departmental office 2 7 14 0
supplies

Lab equipment 1 6 10 4
Lab supplies 4 7 6 A

It can be seen from the above responses that greater concern is
with deficit areas which receive "too little" funds rather than with
concern over "too much" funding being available for different areas.
As was found in the 1979 evaluation, the area in which the faculty
feels the greatest lack of financial support is in the areas of both

undergraduate and graduate teaching supplies and resources.

General Comments:

wher

At the end of the questionnairé was a section for general~ ~- ~~
comments. Nine faculty members made additional written comments. The
only additional comment which appeared more than once (4 responses)
was that the lack of funds - not the allocation of funds - lies at the

heart of our difficulties.

III. Faculty and Student Evaluation of the Graduate and Undergraduate
Courses

A questionnaire concerning the performance of the Psychology
Department was administered between October, 1982 and January, 1983,
to faculty members, graduate students, and a sample of undergraduate
classes. Three hundred forty-five questionnaires were obtained fram
ra~jors, minors, and other undergraduates taking psychology courses as
cognates or as free electives. Responses were also obtained from 38
graduate students and 14 facultyTmembers. Students were chosen from
reauired courses for psychology majors, courses frequently cognated by
other departments, and service courses for teacher education programs.
Introductory Psychology classes (Psychology 1050, 1051) were not
included as it was believed students would not have acquired enough
experience with the Department to give meaningful answers to many of

the questions.

This questionnaire is show in Appendix A. In addition to three
items permitting classification of the respondent, the questionnaire
contained 12 items relating to instruction, 16 items relatinc to the
curriculum, 7 items on facilities, and 5 items concerning advisinao.

All items were worded in 2 positive direction; item #22 was
judged to be ambiguous and was dropped from the tabulation of results.
The response categories and their values used in analysis were:
Strongly Agree (5), Agree (4), Undecided (3), Disagree (2), and
Strongly Disagree (1).

Although most of the items were relevant to each of the five
categories of respondent, some concerned only specific groups (such as
advisees, graduate students, those who had taken independent study or
reading courses, etc.). Thus, the number of responses to a few items
was small.

Students participating in the survey also were encouraged to
write corments on a separate sheet, and eighty persons did so.

The predaminant tendency for most categories of respondent and
most categories of item response was approval, with the modal response
in most cases being Agree (4). The responses for undergraduate
students are shown graphically in Figure ] for the areas of
instruction, curriculum, facilities, and advising. Mean responses to
each question (and the number of respondents) by undergraduates,
graduate students, and faculty are shown in Table 2. We have chosen
for discussion those instances in which the mean responses deviated
0.3 or more from this typical value of 4.0. Combined percentages of
Strongly Agree and Agree will also be noted for these items.

Drawing from both the denartment-developed questionnaire and from

the university-wide survey, it appears that from the viewpoint of

bien SUMMARY OF RESULTS

for undergraduate respondents

100-- 7-100
90-+- 4-90
80-- --80
/0-- -|-70
AVERAGE 7% 60-- ca 4-60
OF eee
50-+- ae 4-50
RESPONDENTS 53
= i
40-- Se othe 4-40
30-- a -|-30
20-- és es 4-20
10-- ne ee ee 4-10

KEY: STRONGLY AGREE UNDECIDED DISAGREE STRONGLY
a AGREE DISAGREE
Instruction - °¢:

Curriculum -

Facilities
RESPONSES

Advising -

ummary of responses.

i
i
|
i
|
4
:
;

co

VARIABLES

I4

I5

16

17

18

19

110
Ill
112
I13
114
115
C16
C17
C18
C19
C20
C21
C22
F23
F24
F25
F26
F27
C28
C29
C30
C31
C32
C33
C34
C35
C36
F37
F38
A39
A4O
A41
A42
A43

LABELS

Instructor well prepared for class
Lectures understandable

Instructor has knowledge

Instructor speaks clearly

Opportunity for opinions and questions
Good balance between lecture/discussion
Outside readings effective

Test coverage relates to texts and lecture
Grades reflect learning

Textbooks well chosen

Instructor provides out-of-class help
Required work appropriate for credit hrs.
BA curriculum prepares for graduate work
BA curriculum prepares for Psyc-related work
BA curriculum is comprehensive overview
Adequate variety of courses scheduled
Schedule conflicts minimized

Prerequisites provide adequate preparation
(Question omitted - ambiguous)

AV equipment well maintained & adaptable
Classroom temperature comfortable
Classroom adequate for class size
Classroom acoustics satisfactory
Lab/research facilities adequate

Cognates provide appropriate material
Independent study useful

Independent study rarely misused

Courses prepared for field experience
Field experience adequately supervised
Field experience workload fair

Field experience appropriate experience
MA curriculum prepares for further education
MA curriculum prepares for employment
Computer facilities accessible

Graduate student office adequate

Advisor knows degree requirements

Advisor available during office hours
Advisor available by appointment

Advisor provides career counseling

Advisor has genuine interest in me

Table 2.

WHER CPR ADUATE
jay LE NAN iJ US at

» i

N

345
345
345
345
345
344
341
345
343
344
343
345
265
2 86
311
337
335
331

325
345
345
343
271
216
90
82
24
23
22
20
35
33
31
32
101
101
100
98
96

GRADUATE
STUDENTS
2 BEA
38 = 4.24
38 =64.08
380s 4.37
38 4.16
38 4.29
38s 3. 79
38 «= 33. 84
°38 4,16
38. = -3e2)
ao wae rd
38 4.05
38 = 33.61
29 3.02
30.0 3.30
37. 3. 86
BT eet
36 - 3.47
34 3.76
36 «=.2.94
38 = 2.50
38 =. 33. 34
36 7? 3450
3D: gas
2 4.00
9 4,11
a. Wet
13: 3009
13. 4.08
ta" 3.69
12 4.50
37-3. 86
37 3.68
35° 3.28
TMs Oe
36 4.00
36 = 3 86
36 «= 3. 92
36 «=. 3.64
36 «= 3. 94

FACULTY

i.

eS
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
12
13
13
13
14
13
13

14
14
14
13
13

7
10
11
10
10
10
10
12
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10

M

4.23
4.15
4.23
4.23
4.38
3.77
4.00
3.92
3.69
4.08
3.92
3.75
4.15
3.62
4.31
4.21
4.08
3.92

2.71
2.36
3.21
2.92
1.69
3. 86
3. 80
2.45
3.40
3. 30
3.50
3.90
3.67
4.10
2.40
2.80
3.90
3.60
3.90
3.70
3.90

undergraduate students, graduate students and faculty, the Department
is doing a good job in the areas of instruction, curriculum, and
advising. Undergraduates seem reasonably satisfied with facilities,
but graduate students and faculty are not. Graduate students show
overall dissatisfaction with audio-visual equipment, classroom
temperatures, and graduate student office/workroom adie . Faculty are
dissatisfied with audio-visual equipment, classroom temperatures,
classroom acoustics, computer facilities, office/workroom space for
graduate students, and they are very dissatisfied with laboratory and
research facilities. Specific analyses and comments are in Appendix

B.

IV. Professional Activities of Faculty Members

Over the past four years, we have witnessed a substantial
increase in the productivity. of faculty members in the Department of
Psychology. The number of publications, for example, has increased by
a factor of three since 1978-79. Approximately $13,500 in internal
grants and $225,000 in external grants have been obtained by members
of the faculty. ~The number of papers presented at professional
meetings has doubled in the past four years. Several faculty members
have held offices of chair or president in professional organizations,
reviewed articles for scholarly journals, and served ? consultants
for a wide variety of organizations. In addition, psychology faculty
members have been involved in a wide range of campus and community
activities, participated in standardization of new psychological
tests, improved their knowledge of computer technology and gained new

research and clinical skills. Faculty members have received numerous

\

10

honors, including mention in various biographical dictionaries,
membership in honor fraternities, an Outstanding Service Award from
the Pitt County Mental Health Association, an Outstanding Alumnus
Award from the Phi Sioma Pi National Honor Fraternity, and an ACE
Fellowship in Academic Administration.

From the year-end reports of 1978-79 throuch 1981-82, we have
compiled data on each category of professional activity below. These
numbers are based on a total of 29 faculty members. While personnel
changes have occurred each year, the number of faculty in the

Department has remained almost constant.

1. Publications:
Fourteen faculty members (48%) have published 47 articles and 1
book in the last four years. The number of publications per year

shows a three-fold increase since 1978-79.

Year Articles Books
1978-79 6 1
19 79-80 10 -
1980-81 12 -
19 81-82 18 -
since May, 1982 2 7

(incomplete data)

il

2. Grants:

Twelve faculty members (41%) have received a total of 17 University
grants totalling $13,402.40 and 42 external orants totalling $221,399.40.
Totals by year areas follows: mt

Year University grants. External grants.
Number $ amount Number $ amount

1978-79 (data no longer available) 18 $90., 201.00

19 79-80 5 $4297.00 11 $24,265.60
1980-81 7 $4968 . 40 10 $81, 333.00
1981-82 ' $4137.00 3 $25,600.00
Since May, '82 1 unspecified 2 $3 ,000 .00+

(incomplete data)

3. Paper presentations:

Twenty-six faculty members (90%) have presented papers at
professional meetings. The number of papers presented in 1981-82 was
more than double the number presented in 1978-79, despite the

ever-dwindling travel funds.

- Year Number of papers presented
1978-79 17
1979-80 } 34
19 80-81 26
1981-82 45
Since May, 1982 11

(incomplete data)

4. Attendance at professional meetings:

, in addition to paper presentations, approximately 50% of the
faculty have attended at least one incisive s meeting each year in
the past four years. |

Year No. of faculty attended No. of meetings

1978-79 16 ~ 31

1979-80 1?,? 32
1980-81 14 33
1981-82 15 , 34

5. Offices in professional organizations:
The following offices in professional organizations were held by
faculty. in the department in: the past four years:

Chair,-Subconmmittee on Accreditation, Division 14, American
Psychological Association

President, Eastern North Carolina Chapter of American Society for
Training and Development

Chair, Program Committee, N. C.) Mental Health Association
Chair, Reaqion 2 Consortium School Psychology Cammittee

Chair, various committees, N.C. School Psychology Association

&

6. Reviews:
A total of 10 faculty members (35%) have reviewed at least 31
books and articles in the past four years. These include reviews of

articles for scholarly journals such as The Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, Journal of Educational Psychology,

Developmental Psychology, and Science, as well as papers for a

conference sponsored by the National Institute of Education. The
number of reviews has. increased substantially from none in 1978-79 to

eight in 1981-82.

Ta Consultantships:

Twenty-nine faculty members have served a consultants for a wide
variety of local, state, national and international. organizations. A
partial list of these agencies follows. The number of consultantships

has shown a steady increase since 1978-79 as seen below:

Year

1978-79 17 faculty held 28 consultantships
1979-80 18 7 4 35 ?
1980-81 19 . , 19 .

1981-82 18 Hs ss 47 e

12

The following partial list of consultant organizations indicates the

breadth of service our faculty has provided:

American Guidance Service

South Carolina Department of Mental Health
N. C. Department of Corrections

Mew Rern-Craven County School District
Greenville City Schools

Greenville Psychological Associates

N. C. Consortium School Psychology Ccammittee
Fastern N. C. Day Care Associates

MN. C. State Board of Education

Pitt Cammunity College

Wilson School for the Deaf

Virginia Division of Litter Control
City of Greenville

Caswell Center

Edgecombe-Nash Mental Health Center
Pitt Memorial Hospital

Tideland Mental Health Center

Blue Bell, Inc.

Burroughs Wellcome Ccmpany
Roanoke-Chowan Mental Health Center
Republic of China

Wayne County Mental Yealth Center

N. C. Mental Health Association
Tennessee Department of Public Health
N. C. State Dept. of Public Instruction
Martin County Board of Education
E.C.U. Medical School

N. C. Psychological Association

NASA

National Science Teachers Association
Eastern AHEC

REAP

Developmental Evaluation Clinic

UNC-CH School of Social Work

DuPont

Prentice-Hall

Addison-Wesley

Holt, Rinehart & Winston

National Institute of Education

Lenoir County Mental Health Center
Jacksonville-Onslow County Mental Health Center
Halifax County School District

O'Rerry Center

Cincinnati Public Schools

Winthrop Publishing Company

Saunders Publishing Canpany

Faton Corporation

13

14

&. Other noteworthy activities:

The faculty have served on innumerable departmental and
university-wide committees and task forces, including .the search
committees for the Chancellor, Vice Chancellors, and Deans. Three
faculty members have received permanent tenure in the past four years,
five were promoted, and one completed a doctorate. Faculty members
have given numerous talke-iand workshops for campus and community
groups, and many have appeared on or organized local television shows.
Several faculty members have Carts a pated in the collection of
standardization data for new intelligence and adaptive behavior
scales. Several members have served me Koanis for local, state, and
national agencies, such as the City of Greenville, the Energy
Commission of Greenville, Pitt County Council on the Status of Wemen,
Developmental Evaluation Clinic, North Carolina Mental Health
Association, the American Psychological Association, and review boards
for the National Institute of Mental Health. Others have attended
workshops to improve their professional skills in a wide range of
areas from the use of computer facilities, leadershin and personal

growth to neuropsychological assessment.

V. Departmental Activities

During the 1978-79: year, the Psychology Department was very
active in supporting and working with the local Mental Health
Association, providing speakers, reacorciditescitiay and helping to
sponsor various programs, ~This involvement continues through the
present time. Brochures for student recruitment were develoned, and

faculty members began formal contact with colleagues at other schools

as a recruitment tool. At least a half-dozen different teaching
technicues were applied during the year with results made available to
the faculty. As usual, the student-faculty ratio was extremely high,
over 40 to 1. Psi Chi, the National Honorary Society, was very active
as usual, both within the University community as well as working with
public agencies (@onating books to the Public Library, volunteer work
with civic groups, etc.).

During the 1979-1980 academic year, there was increased emphesis
on interdepartmental cooperative efforts in the areas of teaching and
research. Canmittee memberships and assignments within the Department
were to be studied to make them as representative and equitalile as
possible. A major step was the full accreditation of the School
Psychology Program. The Devartmental Advisory Canmittee began a study
to set up behavioral criteria for evaluation, merit, promotion, etc.

A study was begun to re-evaluate the opveration and requirenents of the
undergraduate program. Plans were cota hadnhed to look at a possible
doctoral program. Dr. Charles Mitchell resigned as Chairperson,
effective September, 1980, and Dr. Rosina Lao was selected to replace
him, Dr. Lao was the recipient of an ACE Administrative Fellowship
and worked during this academic year with the Chaco Tous dndutneatics
Chancellor for Academic Affairs. Dr. Wilbur Castellow very ably
functioned as interim Chairperson this year. ~The Department continued
to work closely with the Cooperative Education Program, placing

students: in jobs providing direct experience.

15

During the 1930-81 year, the Department experimented with a large
section ~of Introductory Psychology (over 200 students), and the
results were positive. This type of approach enabled us to more
effectively utilize our faculty. Five special colloquia were given on
various ~research activities of our faculty. Several faculty were
working with other faculty in the Medical School on common research.
Innovative teachina methods continued to be usec and evaluated.
Student evaluations of faculty are very positive, overall, and are
heing used by the faculty to further improve teaching methods.
Emphasis and support for continuing research were increased this year.
A Teaching Effectiveness Cammittee began work to set up procedures to
evaluate, encourage; and stimulate better teaching. Closer and more
intensive supervision of graduate teaching fellows was begun to
enhance the cuality of their teaching.

In the Fall Semester of 1981, Dr. Rosina Lao took over as
Chairperson. Four new faculty were hired, Dr. Larry Bolen was elected
Director of the School Psycholoay graduate program, Dr. R. S. Tacker
was elected as Director of Junior Instructors, and Prof. Myree Hayes
was elected the first Director of the Undergraduate Program. The
nlacement of a computer terminal within the Department oreatly
improvedT the research capability of our faculty. Over 20 faculty and
graduate students participated in 16 hours of training on the use of
the terminal. A Faculty Evalvation Cammittee was formally established
to develop criteria for faculty performance. As usual, a number of
innovative techniques were introduced into the classroom to improve
the learning process. The Department continued to work with comunity
agencies, helping to sponsor programs and to provide resource people.

Student evaluations of teaching showed very positive ratings in the

16

47

Fall survey. There was continued emphasis on the assignment of
faculty to teaching in those areas for which they are most qualified,
and this goal continues to be met. Junior Instructors now receive
didactic aid with respect to teaching, grading, etc., and each one is
evaluated by a senior faculty member sitting in one class at least
once each semester. A Word-Processor has been installed in the
Department, and this should simplify and speed up much of the recuired
paper work.

Over the past four years, there has been a significant increase
in publications and papers. In spite of space and budget
restrictions, our faculty will continue to produce. Greater emphasis
on quality of Lebéhine ei improved. instruction, and efforts will
continue in this area. As can be seen in Section IV of this report,
the iSeries a thiredieecds the amount of grant monies since our last
evaluation, and even though there are continuing recuctions in
federal, state and local budgets, we will seek out as many external
sources as we can. Continuing education projects by and for faculty
are being encouraged as are our University and community activities.
The Department will continue to work with large classes in order to
provide courses for students who need them and also to contribute to
cost-effectiveness in a time of reCuced budgets. Psi Chi, the
National Honorary Society in Psychology, now awards two scholarships
at the graduate and undergraduate levels. The Department continues to
receive the David W. Hardee Scholarship for a graduate student every
year from the Mental Health Association in Pitt County,.and the
Department awards the Patricia Clarke Endrikat Scholarship from an

endowed fund.

18

VI. Conclusions and Recommendations é

The following recommendations take into account the material

presented earlier in this report, the 1979 Departmental Evaluation,

and the Long-Range Planning Document, 1982-1992.

pt

The faculty rated the chairperson's performance as
satisfactory to strong in most areas rated. It is,
therefore, strongly recommended that the chairperson ke
retained.

Since the last four-vear evaluation, research activities and
productivity have increased substantially. Publications and
professional papers have more than doubled. Over 60% of the
faculty believe that research efforts are encouraged and
recognized, although 59% of the respondents believe there is
still too little research activity. In effect, the
Department's activities and results have shown a marked
change since the last evaluation. lie seem to be working
toward the 10-year document statement that the Department
"eventually should be in a position to make a plausible claim
that it can support a Ph.D. program". It is, therefore,
recommended that the chairperson and faculty continue to
support and reward research activities.

Despite some additional space in Ragsdale, faculty opinion
strongly supports the recommendation that we need more
research space and facilities. The faculty office situation
has improved, but some members are still in space originally
allocated for research/skill training or closets.

Office-workroom space for graduate students is still marginal

19
- little or no improvement. Classroom facilities are
"acceptable". We therefore recommend that the Department be
allocated more office, research, graduate student, and
classroom space.
The shortage of funds makes research (and teaching)
cifficult. We recognize that nearly all departments are in a
similar position. Yet we feel we should point out that
ablethg faculty members to do research, present paners, etc.,
without monetary reward from the University, often requiring

non-reimbursed personal expense, is likely to affect

satisfaction and perhaps productivity. We have no

réeconmendation as we believe the Aci nistration is cognizant
of tits problem and is doing its best to deal with a
difficult situation. i)

We have presented documentation that the Department is doing
a fine job of teaching/advising. oe recommend that the
desire for research not overshadow these efforts.
Svecifically, we recommend that teaching/advising be
equivalent or superior to research in recommendations for

tenure, promotion, and merit raises.

above are our broad, most important, recommendations. Same
more specific ones follow:

Some faculty expressed a desire for greater input on some
major decisions. We reccumerc! more opportunities for faculty
involvement concerning major decisions.

Approximately 70% of the faculty believe that committee work

and thesis supervision is adequately recognized. This is an

20
improvement over the last four-year evaluation, but we

recommend that this support continue to be strongly
emphasized so that the remaining faculty become convinced of
this. Also, no question was asked of the faculty about
recognition for thesis committee work. This is a
time-consuming activity; we recommend that thesis committee
work also be explicitly supported and rewarded.

3. .We recommend that the Department and the Administration try
to develop increased support and rewards for advising
activities.

4, The number of grants has increased. Although we are not as
convinced as is the Planning Commission of the availability
o£ grant money in our areas of concern, we recommend that
faculty members increase their efforts in this area. It
should also be noted that many organizations, instead of
giving training grants to the Department, place students
directly on the organization's payroll. Over the past four
years the Department has, in effect, received considerably
more training grants than appear in annual reports.

5. The 10-year Planning Document recommended that the
Department consider student mental health needs and try to
develop ties with the Regional Development Institute.
Faculty members have met with representatives of the RDI, and
we are actively seeking projects of mutual interest. Certain
faculty members are now actively considering the feasibility

of some mechanism to assist in areas of student mental

health. We recommend these efforts be intensified.

21
The 10-year Planning Document recommended that greater

attention be paid to lower division courses in terms of
resource allotment. We have instituted a freshman honors
course, a 2000-level course in Selected Topics in Psychology,
elected a Director of Junior Instructors to enhance the
quality of teaching in introductory psychology, have assigned
more full-time faculty to the teaching of introductory
nsycholoay because of the increased demand for PSYC 1051, and
we are considering the feasibility of a three-hour
introductory course. We believe we have shown progress
toward the Planning Carmission's proposed goals, and we
recarmend these efforts be continued and, if necessary, be
increased.

In an effort to improve instruction and advising of our
undergraduates, a Director of the Underoaraduate Program has
been elected. In particular, we believe that this position
has contributed to better coordination and advising of
undergraduates.

We have obtained a word processing device and two computer
terminals. Our recommendation is to increase such data
processing canabilities, with the realization that any
increase is dependent on sufficient fundina.

The Unit Code has been approved by the Chancellor, and the
Appendix to bring it in line with Appendix C has been
approved by the Senate's ad hoc Code Cammittee. We believe
we have met the Planning Carmission's recommendation and no

further action is necessary.

In summary, since the last four-year evaluation and the publication of
the Planning Document, we believe that we have maintained the quality
of teaching, service, and advising, and that we have markedly improved
research efforts. We are cognizant of areas which need improvement or
change, and we WLI work to achieve them. Our major concern is that

the level of funding available may not permit us to achieve the levels

of performance which we desire, or may even cause retrogression.

22

APPENDIX A

Department-Developed

Student Questionnaire

EVALUATION OF THE PSYCHOLOGY DEPARTMENT 24

The Psychology Department, along with other units in the University, is conducting
an evaluation of its operations. The Department wants your opinions on various
topics. We want you to consider ALL of the psychology courses you have taken or
are taking in the Department ~ this is NOT an evaluation of just this course or
this instructor. :

Since this information will be used by the Department to improve its courses and
programs, please answer thoughtfully and carefully.

Your name is not requested, so your responses will be anonymous. Some questions
do not apply to all of you - these are clearly marked. There are spaces for you
to make additional comments at the end of the questionnaire if you wish.

In the questions that follow: (A) = Strongly Agree
| , (B) = Agree
(C) = Undecided
(D) = Disagree
(E) = Strongly Disagree

Please. indicate. your choice by filling.in the appropriate circle on the
answer sheet. If the question does not apply to you, do not fill in any
circle for that question.
1. This course is: "
(A) in my major; (B) in my minor; (C) a required cognate (required by another

department) ;
(D) a General Education requirement; (E) an elective.

he tee as

(A) Freshman; (B) Sophomore; (C) Junior; (D) Senior; (E) Graduate Student,

3. If you are a Graduate Student, please fill in the circle for the appropriate
program: :

(A) General; (B) Clinical; (C) School; o(D) another Department.

*Thank you for your cooperation in completing this questionnaire. Do you have any
questions?

4. My Psychology instructors have been well prepared for class.

5. In Psychology classes, instructors make ee ee understandable and adequately
explain concepts, = ,

6. The instructors in the Psychology Department have a thorough knowledge of the
subject.

7. %In Psychology courses, instructors speak clearly and distinctly,

There is adequate opportunity for students to express opinions and ask questions
in class.

(A)
(B)
(C)
(D)
(E)

9.

10.

oa

12.
13.
14.

15.
16.

17.

18,
19,
20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

25

= Strongly Agree no
= Agree ,

= Undecided

= Disagree

= Strongly Disagree

In Psychology courses, there is a good balance between lecture and class
participation.

The outside reading assignments effectively supplement the lecture material,

The tests relate directly to the material stressed in lectures and in. the
textbooks,

In Psychology courses, I feel that grades reflect how much is learned.
Textbooks are well chosen and add to the understanding of the course.
Instructors are available for out-of-class assistance.

In the Psychology courses I have taken, the amount of work required has been |
appropriate for the credit hours assigned to the course.

The Psychology curriculum for undergraduate majors prepares one well for
Master's or Doctoral programs in Psychology.

The Psychology curriculum for undergraduate majors prepares one well for
employment in fields where a good general understanding of psychology is
important.

The graduate/undergraduate curriculum (includes all courses offered) provides
a comprehensive overview of psychology.

The schedule of courses offered each year is adequate with respect to the
variety of courses offered.

The schedule of courses offered each year is adequate with respect to
minimizing scheduling conflicts.

Prerequisites provide adequate preparation for the corresponding upper level
psychology courses. (If you disagree, you may comment in the space provided

at the end of the questionnaire.)

The undergraduate curriculum in psychology is useful only for those interested
in graduate study or in the very general goal of obtaining an arts and sciences
undergraduate degree.

Audio-visual equipment is well maintained and adaptable. to each classroom.
Classrooms are generally maintained at a comfortable temperature.

Classrooms are adequate to accommodate the number of students.

Classroom acoustics are satisfactory.

Laboratory and research facilities are adequate for my needs.

(A)
(B)
(C)
(D)
(E)

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

26

Strongly Agree -~ 3-
Agree

Undecided

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

FOR NON~PSYCHOLOGY MAJORS ONLY: The cognate courses in. psychology which are

required for my major provide appropriate parallel study. (If you disagree,
you may comment in the space provided at the end of the questionnaire, )

COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING TWO QUESTIONS ONLY IF YOU HAVE HAD OR ARE TAKING A
DIRECTED READINGS AND/OR INDEPENDENT STUDY COURSE IN PSYCHOLOGY,

Directed readings in Psychology and/or independent study options in Psychology
have been useful in planning my course of study.

Directed readings in Psychology and/or independent Study options in Psychology
are rarely misused.

COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING FOUR QUESTIONS ONLY IF YOU HAVE HAD OR ARE TAKING AN
INTERNSHIP/FIELD PLACEMENT COURSE IN PSYCHOLOGY.

Course work, and other learning experiences provided by the Psychology Depart-
ment, prepared me well for my internship/field placement.

I have received adequate supervision while on my Psychology internship/field
placement.

The amount of work required of me on my Psychology internship/field placement
has been fair.

My Psychology intemship experience was appropriate; it was related in a
practical way to the work I expect to do after completing my degree.

FOR PSYCHOLOGY GRADUATE STUDENTS ONLY: From what I have heard, the psychology

graduate curriculum including the three specialty areas (general, clinical, and
school), prepares one well for continued postgraduate work in psychology or
allied fields.

FOR PSYCHOLOGY GRADUATE STUDENTS ONLY: From what I have heard, the psychology

graduate curriculum, including the three specialty areas (general, clinical,
and school), prepares one well for employment immediately following graduation.

FOR PSYCHOLOGY GRADUATE STUDENTS ONLY: Computer facilities are sufficiently

accessible.

FOR PSYCHOLOGY GRADUATE STUDENTS ONLY: The graduate office provides an adequate

and comfortable work space.

(continued on next page)

(A)
(B)
(C)
(D)
(E)

27

Strongly Agree -~4 =
Agree

Undecided

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

FOR PSYCHOLOGY MAJORS AND PSYCHOLOGY GRADUATE STUDENTS ONLY:

39.
40.

41.
42.

43.

My advisor provides adequate knowledge of degree/program requirements.
My advisor is available during posted office hours.

My advisor is available by appointment if his/her office hours conflict with
my schedule.

My advisor provides relevant and adequate counseling regarding my career goals
(graduate study, career choices, course selection).

My advisor is genuinely interested in me as a student.

APPENDIX B

Analyses and Comments on

Student Responses to Opinion Surveys

2
The following comments are from the ?

. department"developed questionnaire.

Majors (3.45), minors (3.45), and cognates (3.69) showed only
moderate agreement with item #9 concerning a good balance between
lecture and class participation, although 84% of all undergraduates
gave favorable iinet °
oh Undergraduates were close to undecided (majors, 3.12; minors,
3.28; cognates, 3.03) as to whether grades reflect how much is
learned; the graduate students (3.55) and faculty (3.69) showed less
uncertainty (item #12). Only 46% of all undergraduate respondents
gave favorable responses.

Same of the majors (3.61) and monies (3.62) did not agree with
item #13, "Textbooks are well chosen and add to the understandina of
the course", although 71% of all undergraduate respondents gave
favorable responses.

Only some of the graduate students (3.61) failed to agree that
the amount of work required has been appropriate for the credit hours
assigned to the course (item #15).

All four categories of students tended toward the Undecided
category for item #16 dealing with whether the psychology curriculum
for undergraduate majors prepares one well for master's or doctoral
programs in osychology (majors, 3.39; minors, 3.48; cognates, 3.12;
and graduate students, 3.02). The faculty, however, were much more
positive with a rating of 4.15. Since 44% of the undergraduates used
the undecided category and 23% anitted an answer, it may be that they
did not feel they had sufficient information to answer this question.

To a samewhat lesser degree, eas (3.56), minors (3.68),

graduate students (3.30), and faculty (3.62) showed some uncertainty

as to whether the psycholooy curriculum for undercraduate majors
prepares one well for emoloyment in fields where a good general
understanding of psychology is important (item #17). A lack of
information may have also had a heavy influence in this answer as 45%
used the undecided category or cmitted the question.

All categories of respondents except cognates (3.65) and graduate
students (3.51) indicated on item #19 that the variety of courses
offered each year is adequate. Overall, 72% of undergraduates gave
favorable responses.

However, all categories of students in response to item #20
showed some desire for greater flexibility in scheduling courses to
minimize conflicts (majors, 3.41; minors, 3.62; cognates, 3.57; and
graduate students, 3.47).

The survey contained nine items relating to specialized aspects
of the curriculum (items #28-#36). One must keep in mind in
evaluating responses to these items that in most cases the number of
persons answering was quite small. Z

Concerning whether directed readings and independent study
options in psychology are rarely misused (item #30), the minors
(3.57), cognates (3.38) and graduate students (3.67) expressed same
uncertainty, and the faculty (2.45) some disagreement. However, 76%
of all undergraduates onitted the question and only 7 students (2%)
disagreed with the statement.

With regards to internships and field placements, the graduate
students (3.69) and faculty (3.40) responding to item #31 voiced some
dissatisfaction with the effectiveness of ocnris work as preparation
for these experiences. The faculty (item #32, 3.30) showed some
uncertainty respecting the adequacy of supervision. ~There was less

than perfect agreement on item #33 (majors, 3.67; graduate students,

30

3.69; and faculty, 3.50) concerning the fairness of the amount of work
recuired in these settirgs.

In answering item #36, some araduate students were unsure (3.68)
that the psychology graduate curriculum prepares one well for
employment immediately following graduation. Most of them agreed or
strongly agreed (4.50) with item #34, indicating a highly positive
judgment of the appropriateness and practicality of their internship
experiences.

All undercraduates (majors, 3.65; minors, 3.48; and cognates, ©
3.32) and even more so the graduate students (2.94) and the faculty
(2.71) expressed some dissatisfaction with the condition and
adaptability of audio-visual equipment in answering item #23.

Many persons in each category were concerned about maintaining
the classrooms at a comfortable temperature (item #24), the strongest
feeling being expressed by graduate students and faculty (majors,
3.37; minors, 3.163 cognates, 3.39; graduate students, 2.50; and
faculty, 2.36).

In response to item #25 the graduate students (3.5() and the
faculty (2.92) were somewhat unsure about the adequacy of the
classrcoms to accommodate the number of students. Similarly, graduate
students (3.50) and faculty (2.92) answering item #26 felt something
lacking in the adequacy of classroom acoustics. All categories of
undergraduates , however, expressed substantial pi AY concerning
these .two topics.

All respondents except minors in response to. item #27 expressed
some uncertainty as to the adequacy of laboratory and. research
facilities, with many of the faculty registerino disagreement or
_ strong disagreement (majors, 3.33; cognates, 3.43; graduate students,

3.51; and faculty, 1.69).

31

Graduate students and faculty showed uncertainty or disagreement
concerning the accessibility of computer facilities in item #37
(graduate students, 3.28; faculty, 2.40) and in item #38 for the
adequacy and comfort of the graduate office (graduate students, 2.73;
faculty, 2.80).

Fvaluations in the area of advising were generally positive.

Some majors responding to item #39, however, were uncertain with
respect to the provision by their advisors of adequate knowledge of
degree/program requirements (3.68), although 72% of those answering
the question gave favorable responses; also, both majors (3.56) and
graduate students (3.64) indicated some lack of satisfaction with
advisement related to career goals (item #42), and only 64% of the
underoraduates answering this question cave favorable responses.

Students participating in this evaluation were encouraged to add
additional comments and suogestions for improvement. The graduate
students expressed a need for more office space and equipment such as
duplicating machines and an electric typewriter. They also wished for
better computer facilities and more clinical internships in the
Greenville area for married students whose spouses are employed here.

Most of the other suggestions concerned the desire for additional
course offerings, either more advanced work in areas already included
in the curriculum (e.g., advanced contingency management in the
classroom, advanced physiological, advanced experimental), or
relatively low demand areas which probably would not deserve a place
in our standard course offerings (e.g., parapsychology, dream
analysis, criminal psychology, hypnosis). It is the opinion of our
Department that although we might consider developing standard courses
in some of these limited areas, we should try to meet the demand for

them through our course PSYC 2250, Selected Topics in Psychology, and

32

through the various directed readings and independent study courses
already among our offerings.

Further information pertainins to an evaluation of the Psychology
Department comes from the Survey of Student Opinion of Instruction
which was administered during the Fall Semester, 1982, in all classes
in the University. The data from this survey are valuable for the
purposes of our self-study in that they represent all Psychology
classes meeting during the Fall Semester and also because a different
set of items was used.

A comparison of ratings made in Psychology classes with those
made in all University classes combined may be achieved by combinina
the percentages of students giving favorable responses to each item
(strongly agree and agree in the case of positively worded items, and
strongly disagree and disagree in the case of negatively worded
items).

When this is done for the twenty reauired items answered by all
students, the Psychology Department is rated more favorably than the
University at large on 17 out of the 20 items (two items were equal).
On five items the superiority of the Department amounts to five or
more percentage points. On only one item was the Department inferior
to the overall University percentage by five or more percentage
points.

In the following comparisons, the first figure represents the
percentage of favorable responses for the Psychology Department, and
the second figure the percentage for the University. overall.

Item #3. "The requirements of the course (projects, papers,

exams, etc.) were ies a tried adequately." 90, 84.
Item #4. oThe instructor's presentation often causes me to think

in depth about this subject." 72, 65.

33

Ttem #6. "The methods being used for evaluating my work (such as
tests, projects, etc.) are reasonable." 83, 7%.

Item #13. oDurina the semester, I leoked forward to attending
~this class." 59, 52.

Item #14. "The effort I put into this course is as much as in

oy other courses." 79, 74.

OnT one item the Department was. rated more poorly than the
University at large: item #19. "If I needed help outside of class,
the instructor has given help to me." 33, 43; however, 65% of our
students felt outside help was not needed, compared to 54% of the
university-wide respondents.

The two questionnaires lead to different conclusions about the
relationship between grades and learning. From the university-wide
questionnaire, 83% of the respondents indicated satisfaction with
methods of evaluation (5% higher than the university-wide results),
78% feel out instructors have adequate means of evaluating learning,

% were satisfied with the effort required compared with other
courses. On the departmental questionnaire, however, only 46% of the
undercraduates agreed that grades reflect learning. The Department
should investigate this different pattern of responses and take
appropriate action, if it is necessary.

The faculty should investigate further why the graduate students
have very mixed feelings or are undecided on whether the undergraduate
curriculum prepares one well for araduate programs.

The responses to scheduling conflicts is also difficult to

interpret. Only 63% of undergraduate respondents gave favorable
responses. All required courses for majors and the heavily cognated
courses are offered each semester, and there are usually multiple

sections offered at different times. The responses may reflect

conflicts with schedules in other departments and to the fact that not
all of the University's courses can be offered between 9-11:00.

The responses did not reflect the desired level of student
catisfaction with the wav courses prepared them for field experiences
and the amount of work required in these experiences. Yet 65% of
those who answered the question were satisfied with the
appropriateness of their field experiences (the remaining 35% were
undecided - no respondent felt dissatisfied). Perhaps supervisors of
these field experiences need to communicate more clearly the
relationship between course work and field experiences. There may
also be an indication that students are not taking the appropriate
courses before the field experience.

Finally, although advising received high ratings, advisors should
attempt more career counseling. Perhaps professors should also build
some of this into lecture content. At a time when "non-vocational"
degrees are questioned, perhaps career advising should be emphasized

more in all departments in the College of Arts and Sciences.