All quotation marks retained as data.
All end-of-line hyphens have been removed, and the trailing part of a word has been joined to the preceding line.
All smart quotes have been converted into straight quotes.
[This text is machine generated and may contain errors.]
PSYCHOLOGY DEPARTMENT EVALUATION
The following is a report from the Evaluation Committee of the Psychology
Department. The report includes five sections: I. Faculty Evaluation of
Chairman; 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; and V, Recommendations.
I. Faculty Evaluation of Chairman
A total of 11 statements were chosen to describe the various aspects of
the duties of a Chairman. Each faculty member was asked to rate the chairman
on each of these statements on a 3-point scale (strong, satisfactory, weak).
Out of 21 forms given to the faculty members, 17 rating forms were returned.
Care was taken to assure the anonymity of the raters. The results are briefly
given below.
Overall, faculty members of this Department are very supportive of the
chairman. Most notably, over 70% of the faculty feel that he is strong on
being fair, congenial and friendly, concerned, available to faculty members
and students and giving assistance to them. There are only three areas where
20% or less of the faculty feel he is weak, and these areas are: making
efforts to improve the Department, in arousing esprit de corps and in conduct-
ing faculty meetings. No more than 15% of the faculty perceive the chairman
as weak on any other aspect.
At the end of the 3-point rating scale, there was one last item asking
for general comments. Here again the comments were most favorable. Six sets
of positive comments, and two faculty members suggested that the chairman may
be too rigid about rules sometimes, that he needs to do eons about the
two or three professors who do not prepare for their courses, and thee he
should take a stand and not try to please everyone.
In conclusion, the great majority of the faculty members feel that the
Chairman is doing a very good job.
ii.
eS
Table 1
Percentage of Ratings Regarding the Chairman
Fairness in running the Department
Use of faculty input in decision making
Effort in improving the Department
Support of Departmental interest in
interacting with the Administration
Availability to faculty members
Availability to students
Manner in conducting faculty meetings
Success in arousing esprit de corps
Openness and candidness in interacting
with faculty members and students
Congeniality and friendliness in
interacting with faculty members and
students
Concern and assistance to faculty members
and students
Any general comments?
STRONG SATISFACTORY WEAK
80 20 0
60 25 L5
30 50 20
30 60 10
75 20 )
70 30 0
25 60 15
25 60 15
50 40 10
80 20 0
70 25 3
II.
Faculty Opinion Concerning Research, Teaching, and Allocation of Funds
Research
While most faculty members feel that the Department provides adequate time
for research (11/18) and access to research subjects (14/18), many feel that
the equipment (14/18) and space (11/18) are inadequate. Also, most faculty
members feel that research efforts are not adequately encouraged, supported,
and recognized (11/19), but that the allocation of available research funds is
satisfactory (13/19). Eight people feel that too little research is done
within the Department, while 10 feel that adequate research is conducted.
Thus, while the faculty, in general, feels that research is encouraged, time
and subjects are adequate, there is a feeling that space and equipment limit
the research that is done.
Teaching and other duties
Most staff members feel that teaching efforts (10/17) and committee work
(14/18) are adequately encouraged, supported, and recognized. However, the
staff members are divided with respect to their feeling concerning the en-
couragement, recognition, and support of thesis supervision and student advis-
ing. Eight people felt that thesis supervision and student advising are
adequately recoz;nized, 10 felt that thesis supervision and advising are not
adequately recognized. Thus, in general, the staff feels that teaching and
committee work is adequately supported, but they have divided feelings about
the recognition of thesis direction and student advising.
Allocation of Funds
There is overwhelming agreement on the allocation of fimds for nearly ail
categories of expenditure. The major exception concerns the allocation of funds
for supplies and equipment used in teaching. Seven felt that too little of the
available funds are spent on teaching supplies, while 11 felt the amount spent
on teaching supplies is about right (see Table 2).
funds made available to the Department by the Administration is inadequate.
It should be pointed out that several staff members felt that the total
General program
Clinical program
School program
Supplies and equipment
used in teaching
Supplies and equipment for
the Departmental Office
Supplies and equipment for
the faculty offices
Supplies used in the lab
Equipment used in the lab
Table 2
Too much
About right
Faculty Opinion Concerning Allocation of Available Departmental Funds
Too Little
14
14
15
11
12
14
il
10
ITI.
5
Faculty and Student Evaluation of the Graduate and Undergraduate Programs
In order to elicit faculty and student evaluations of salient aspects of
the Psychology Department, a survey of faculty and student opinions was con-
ducted during the week of April 7-11, 1975. Completed questionnaires were re-
ceived from 16 faculty members, 43 undergraduate psychology majors, and 22
graduate students enrolled in the three psychology graduate programs:
clinical, general, and school. The questionnaire and a summary of the results
are presented below.
A. For each of the statements below, score "1" if you agree, "2" if you
are ambivalent, and "3" if you disagree with respect to the program you are
in. Faculty members score all four programs.
Statements
Program
Undergrad. Clinical General School
1 5?
F F S F eee S
1. There is an adequate selec~
tion of courses offered in
my program. 1.40.1.74: 1.25°%.67 1:64: 1.50.1.16 1.63
2. The quality of the lectures
in most psychology courses
is good, 1.46 1.58 1.44 1.79 1.44 1.50 1.57 1.90
3. The content presented in
most psychology courses is
adequate. 1.43 1.63 .1.22 1.22. 1.44 1:00 1430 1.45
4. My program offers adequate
opportunities for relevant
practical experiences. 1.79 2.42 1.18 1.22 2.00 2.00 1.20 1.00
5. My program offers adequate
opportunities for relevant T
research experiences. 2.00 2.16 1.90 1.67 1.56 1.50 1.75 1.36
6. The faculty provides ade-
quate academic counseling. 1.83 1.49 1.22 1.55 1.44 1.00 1.11 1.18
7. In most psychology courses,
I feel that grades reflect
how much is learned. i-75 1.23. 1.50 2.33 1.50 2;00:1.63 1.72
10.
1l.
12.
13.
Program
Undergrad. Clinical General School
ME sah gh SA ee, oe wae oT
My program does not have too
many unnecessary redundancies
in the material presented in
different courses. 1.79 1.95 1.30 1.33. 1.20 1.50 1.25 1.18
In my program there is ade-
Guate opportunity for student-
faculty academic contact. 1.60 1,53 1.09 1.55 1.10 1.55 1.10 1.09
In my program there is ade-
quate opportunity for stu-
dent-faculty social contact. 2.14 2.25 1.70 2.55 1.56 2.55 1.71 2.00
My program allows an ade-
quate number of elective
hours in psychology. 4420 1.33: 4-02:2:33: 2,33 1.06 iW i.48
In most of the Psychology
courses, an adequate quantity
and quality of teaching aids
are used by the instructors. 1.67 1.96 1.75 1.64 1.83 2.00 1.83 1.27
I am satisfied with the way
teaching assignments are made
within the program 2.34 1.657 «1.50 1-46 1,33 4600 1043 1555
lp = faculty
2s = students
3Number is average (mean) of all ratings.
B. List what you feel are the main strengths of your program. (Faculty
members list strengths for each program).
Undergraduate
Faculty: Good teaching, good teacher-student relations, good core of
required courses and variety of courses were most frequently listed.
Students: Good teaching, good teacher-student contact and advising,
good background in psychology, and good selection of courses were most
frequently listed.
Clinical
Faculty: Practical experience gained during internship, testing and
interviewing skills, proved success of graduates, and providing trained
personnel for work in nearby mental health facilities.
Students: Practical experience, curriculum, and good faculty.
General
Faculty: Good preparation for future teaching and/or doctoral study,
teaching experience, flexibility of course offerings, physiological
research, and success of graduates.
Students: Accessbility of faculty and administrative personnel, broad
spectrum of courses, and good preparation for further graduate work.
School:
Faculty: Practical experience, close supervision of students, close
relationship among students, and testing skills.
Students: Good practical experience, very good program chairman, testing
opportunities, and relevancy of the required course work to the needs of
children in educational settings.
List what you feel are the main weaknesses of your program. (Faculty
members list weaknesses for each program).
Undergraduate
Faculty: Lack of research, lack of research funds and equipment, too
many service courses (e.g., 201, 206, 240, 275, 305) taken by majors as
result of poor advising, lack of practical experience, lack of innovative
efforts on part of faculty, heavy student load, and lack of audio-visual
aids.
Students: Lack of effective teaching, too much overlap among courses,
need for a greater variety of courses, need for more practical experience
courses, lack of depth in pursuing topics, lack of relevancy with respect
to real life situations and popular trends, large class sizes, and lack of
communication between faculty and students.
D.
Clinical
Faculty: Lack of therapy training prior to internship, training in
projective tests, too few electives, and lack of course work in primary
job responsibility.
Students: Too much work crammed into too little time, too little feedback
on work, and inadequate instruction.
General
Faculty: Inadequate experience in research, lack of preparation for doing
anything after graduation except go on to school, and lack of leadership
in program development and maintenance.
Students: Lack of opportunities for various types of research, lack of
opportunities for practical experience, and lack of required course in
computer use.
School
Faculty: Need for more psychology electives, inadequate exposure to
theories, and lack of exposure to varying views of what a school
psychologist is.
Students: Need for increased faculty (program chairman is overloaded),
need for curricular revisions (e.g., 427 made more practical, specific
courses like behavior modification should be required, courses in related
areas such as interviewing and counseling), thesis requirement, and con-
fusion over Level I or Level II certification by the State.
We would appreciate any suggestions or constructive criticisms that you
may want to make on the following: (Faculty members, make comments
relevant to each of the programs).
1. Course additions or deletions:
Undergraduate
Faculty: Delete 150, 206, 240, 275; add courses in sensation-
perception, motivation, sexuality, family, theories and systems;
9
restrict electives (e.g., limit of 10 quarter hours toward major
from 201, 240, 275, and 305).
Students: Add more courses to increase course selection (e.g.,
paranormal trends, animal behavior, consumer psychology, physiological
application, counseling and clinical psychology, behavior modification
more advanced than 225).
Clinical
Faculty: Delete sensitivity training; add courses in modes of
therapeutic intervention, psychotherapy, gerontology, and personality
theories in depth.
Students: Delete the required course in research; add theory of
psychoanalysis and behavior modification (469) to required courses.
Faculty: Add teaching in the community college (with practicum),
research experience in areas other than physiological, history or
systems course, and comparative course.
Students: Add the psychology of sleep.
School
Faculty: Add measurement theory, advanced child psychology dealing
with theories, and behavior modification in the classroom.
Students: Delete research design; add applied learning theory,
counseling and interviewing techniques and use of projective tests
by school psychologists; allow more freedom in selection of courses.
2. Personnel additions (specify by subject area)
Undergraduate
Faculty: Need additional faculty to reduce class sizes; member to
teach in the child, educational, and school areas; experienced
member who has grant-obtaining skills; a good MA to teach two sections
of 210 each quarter.
10
Students: Add a member in industrial and organization area.
General
Faculty: Add member in the social-industrial area.
School
Students: Add another school psychologist (suggested by seven
students).
3. Use of teaching aids (specify type)
Undergraduate
Faculty: Need more equipment and lab space for 210 (experimental) ;
need more audio-visual aids (e.g., films, projectors, slides, tapes,
and videotapes).
Students: Need to use more films, speakers, field trips, and tapes.
Clinical
Faculty: Need up-to-date films on behavior change; need film library
for students to use; need to do more video taping of testing and
therapy for instructional uses.
Students: Use more films, recordings, and demonstrations.
General
Students: Need anatomical models for physiological psychology.
School
Students: Need more films; observations of testing techniques.
4. Opportunities for practical experience
Undergraduate
Faculty: Need more (e.g-., placing some students under supervision
in the field, visits to Caswell, mental health clinics, Sheltered
Workshop, Developmental Evaluation Clinic, etc. and observations in
mental health clinics, schools, etc. as course content might indicate).
11
Students: Need more, especially some type of field placement.
Clinical
Faculty: Opportunities are good but a training clinic in the
Department (i.e., on campus) is needed.
Students: Need more opportunities and closer supervision of
practical experience.
General
Faculty: Need more (e.g., in the social-industrial area, teaching
internship, application of behavior modification).
Students: Adequate.
School
Faculty: Good.
Students: Good.
Opportunities for research
Undergraduate
Faculty: Inadequate but lighter teaching loads, more money, and more
space are needed to encourage research efforts.
Students: More opportunities are needed (e.g., increase of lab work
done in 210, access to independent research under supervision of a
faculty member).
Clinical
Faculty: Some members consider it adequate while others think it to
be inadequate, listing poor preparation for research in the statistics
and design sequence and a need for more. research other than the
questionnaire type.
General
Faculty: Adequate with two exceptions: (1) research is restricted
to either physiological or social, (2) more research with humans is
needed.
IV.
12
Students: Adequate.
School
Faculty: Adequate
6. Are there any other comments that you would like to make?
Faculty: Reduce the foreign language requirement for the undergraduate
program, reduce the number of rats and add other animal species, re~
duce the tendency to coddle students in order to attract them for it is
unnecessary--the Department has plenty to offer, speed up the "social-
industrial" option with the graduate general program, the general
program could easily be developed along two lines: (1) training
behavior managers for institutions like Caswell, and (2) training
community college teachers.
Students: The points made in the comments are restatements of
strengths, weaknesses, etc. listed above.
Professional Activities of Faculty Members
The Department as a whole has published 36 papers, with one outstanding
member contributing 15 of these published papers. A total of 57 Master's
theses were completed, with 47 theses currently going on. Thirteen members
attended 57 Conventions, with many of them presenting papers or presiding
over paper and discussion sessions in these conventions. More than half of
the faculty members have been active in speaking before community organizations.
In the past four years, faculty members have served as officers in
various prcefessional organizations, renging from such positions as South-
eastern Psychological Association Committee Chairman to Psi Chi Southeastern
Vice-president to the present president of the North Carolina Psychological
Association. Faculty members have gained distinctions in being selected as
Outstanding Educators of America, American Men and Women of Science, Who's
Who in Education in the South, Personalities of the South, and gaining
recognition from honor societies such as Sigma Xi and Phi Sigma Pi.
13
Other professional activities of faculty members include consulting work
with various mental health centers, V. R., Education Systems, Prison Systems,
industrial and governmental organizations. Several members are currently
working on research grants. Some members have served as evaluator of ESEA
proposals, reviewers of books, and consulting editor to professional journals.
Table 3
Summary of Professional Activities of Faculty Members
1. Number of Publications:
=2
-6
2
hr 2
22 3
a ae
i fi
2. M.A. theses supervised to completion:
1-4 Ǥ=Ns3
5-6 N=3
10 and more N=3
3. M.A. theses presently under supervision:
os
1-3 N=6
4-5 N=3
9 and more N=2
4. Number of conventions attended
1-2 N=2
3-4 N=8
3-10 N=3
5. Number of presentations at professional mectings:
1-2 rT =8
3-5 N=2
11 N=]
6. Appearances before community organizations:
1-5 N=6
6 and more N=s7
7. Offices held in professional organizations:
NCPA: President, secretary-treasurer, committee members
ENCPA: President
SEPA: Committee chairman
14
PSI CHI: Southeastern vice president; faculty advisors.
DKG: Research committee chairman
8. Special awards and distinctions:
Outstanding educators of America: N=6
American Men and Women of Science: N=3
Personalities of the South: N=3
Who's Who in Education in the South:N=2
Sigma Xi: N=2
Phi Sigma Pi: N=1
V. Recommendations
1. Based on faculty responses, it is strongly recommended that the
chairman be retained.
2. Based on faculty responses, it is recommended that more support in
equipment, space, and time be provided to increase faculty research.
3. Based on faculty and student responses, it is recommended that the
Department provide more opportunities for research by students.
4. Based on student responses, it is recommended that faculty-student
social contact be increased.
5. Based on responses from students in the clinical program, it is
recommended that more electives for this program be considered.
6. Based on student responses from the clinical and general programs
reflecting dissatisfaction, it is recommended that the grading system in
these programs be re-evaluated.