PROGRAM REVIEW AND ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE
            Minutes of: April 10th 2003

Present: K. Buterbaugh, C. Coron, C. Durwin, J. Manzella, H.
Podnar, S. Selenkas, W. Shyam.

Started: 10:00am.

The time at the beginning of the meeting was devoted to the
forthcoming Psychology Department Implementation meeting. Based on the
invitation from the Assessment Coordinator, Dr. O'Sullivan, the
decision was made to send three PRAC members as observers.

The meeting continued, with the discussion about the role of the
assessment process. Given the today's difficult financial situation, it
was clear that the departmental needs, expressed in terms of faculty lines,
available space, and other resources, can not be satisfied. The question was
risen, whether the departments should express their needs in the
assessment documentation, and even more importantly, how do the departments ask
for the mentioned resources. Some of the members reiterated, that the quality
of the students, and the corresponding outcomes, certainly depend on the
quality of the faculty, space conditions, together with other tangible resources.
During one of the previous meetings, the conclusion had been drawn that
the assessment could drive the strategic plan. But without specifying the
needs for resources, the planning process could be negatively affected.

Given the rather short assessment cycle, it was stated that the departments re-post the same documentation multiple times.

The fact was stated that the assessment model we chose needs the
faculty senate approval.

It was reported that a number of faculty that were rehired, did
not show interest of staying with SCSU, making the academic situation even
worse.

Adjourned at 10:50am

Recorder: H.Podnar

_______________________________________________________________________

PROGRAM REVIEW AND ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE
Psychology Assessment Implementation Meeting
2:30-4:00pm, April 11th 2003, Pinciaro Room, Engleman Hall

Present:  D. Fredeen, Dean of School of Arts and Sciences
              Psychology Department: 11 faculty members
              E. Beatty, P. Smith, C. Coron, H. Podnar

Started: 2:30pm.

Before the meeting started, copies of the Psychology department
statistical data were distributed. The data that was presented include:  Banner data with the students' distribution, students' GPA, faculty to student ratio. The copies also included a list of issues related to possible decrease in the number of Psychology Majors.

Dr. Fredeen started the meeting, with clarification of the fact that the Psychology department is considered as a 'very good' department, in
a sense that is going into the direction to preeminence. She explained
that the department has the potential to be the first choice for, not just
Connecticut, students interested in the Psychology field.

Dr. Fredeen acknowledged that the Psychology faculty searches will be reopen. The priority might be given to a 1-year special appointments, to
keep the searches active.

The discussion turned into the direction of the number of Psychology majors in the relationship to the size of faculty. The data sheet shows a large student/faculty ratio, with some of Psychology advisors having more than 100 advisees. The Psychology faculty wanted to know what a 'good'
number of Psychology majors would be. One of the faculty highlighted that, up to now, the large number of majors reflects large student interest.  The faculty inquired if the size of the university is the reference point to declare some majors as 'large'.

Dean Fredeen suggested that the Psychology department could benefit if the number of majors is reduced, with no more than 500 majors (currently
750). Dean Fredeen, explained that the Psychology department could go in the direction where all upper level courses are thought by full-time faculty.   The process should be such, to attract and favor excellent students.

The suggestion was made to introduce a conditional acceptance to the program. With this in place, the number of freshmen signing for the
Psychology program might be reduced. The faculty realized the difficulties of defining the point at which the student's ability to excel in the program could be judged. One of the criteria might be a course prerequisite of GPA greater than 2.5. The students could be followed and a letter of recommendation could be sent after their first year.

The faculty reflected on the rather unfavorable student/faculty ratio, and stated that 25 students per faculty sounds reasonable.

Several faculty expressed their dissatisfaction with transfer students, based on the inability to judge the students' performance.  One of the solutions is to put them on probation and follow their GPA. It was stated that transfer students with an associate degree are able to transfer
all of the credits, with no courses taken at SCSU.

The faculty reached a conclusion that the administration should become
involved in following the students and performing the follow-up.

One of the Psychology department faculty highlighted that the students
with Psychology/Education double major, tend to have higher GPA, and
that it would be beneficial to the department to keep those students. One of the
faculty added that the Education department finds Psychology as an ideal
second major. Faculty members strongly agreed that in the case of early
elementary education, it is of the most importance to have a teacher that
can teach and understand children, especially in the cases with children
that have special needs (such as autistic children). This view was even more
supported by the faculty that are parents. One of the professors noticed
that the classes with double majors are more gender diverse, compared
to the Psychology major classes.

The discussion followed about the strategies of how to limit the student acceptance. Dr. Beatty reported that the Nursing department has
service caps on the major. All the students with prescribed minimum requirements could apply, but only the best 65 will be registered. All the criteria and the process descriptions must be put into the catalog.

All the faculty expressed a hope that the number of faculty will not
decrease into the next academic year.  A 'casual search' strategy was
mentioned.

Several faculty shared their experiences with a limited computer labs
space. Dean Fredeen answered that additional fees for lab usage could
be a possibility, or one could make use of bond funds to buy computers.

Adjourned at 4:00pm

Recorder: H. Podnar