Gerontology Program Review Self Study Contents
Year 2008-2009
List of Tables and Appendices
Table 1: Gerontology Program Assessment Plan
Table 2: Results for each program goal.
Table 3: Programs Offered in Department
Table 4: CWU Student Learning Outcome Assessment Plan
Table 5: Results for each Student Learning Outcome.
Appendix A: Director Position Description
Appendix B: End of Major Assessment
Appendix C: End of Major Test Results Summary
Appendix D: Memorandum of Understanding (Kittitas Senior Network and CWU)
Appendix E: Summary of Cooperative Education Evaluations (Employer and Student)
Appendix F: Program Promotion Activities
Appendix G: Summary of the Meaningful Connections Program
Appendix H: Results of 10/08 Alumni Survey
Appendix I: Penick CV
Appendix J: Training Manual for Meaningful Connections
I. Introduction to Department/Program(s)
A. Department/unit mission statement
Mission Statement
Gerontology Program
Central Washington University
The Gerontology program at Central Washington University provides instruction, research and service to prepare students for current career options in working with the rapidly expanding population of older adults.
Through a holistic approach, this interdisciplinary program helps students to:
· Understand the range of social, psychological, and biological changes that occur in the aging process.
· Appreciate the political and economic implications of an aging society.
· Learn through mutually beneficial opportunities with community partners through internships, service learning and civic engagement.
· Support quality of life throughout adulthood.
· Encourage the maintenance of purpose and meaning at later stages of adulthood.
· Value the role of diversity in gender, culture, race/ethnicity in adult development.
Ed. 5/16/07
B. Brief description of department and program contexts including date of last review
The CWU Gerontology program is an interdisciplinary program that has existed since approximately 1978. It has been housed in a variety of departments, and has been housed in Psychology since 1999 and directed by Jeff Penick. Dr. Penick was also director of the graduate programs in Counseling in the Psychology Department from 2002-2006. That directorship is particularly demanding—particularly given the Counseling program’s successful effort to gain accreditation during that period. That position and the ongoing demands requisite with the Counseling program have unfortunately contributed to less attention being put forth toward the Gerontology program.
As it stands, the program requires few resources: it has a $3000.00 budget from the College of the Sciences (COTS), the director is provided 3 credits reassignment (of 36 teaching credits), and a small amount of staff support is infrequently required of the Psychology department. The Gerontology program currently has 10 students (8 majors, 2 minors).
The Gerontology program has never been formally reviewed, but an informal assessment by former director Charles McGehee is included below for its historical and content relevance.
An Assessment of the CWU Gerontology Program
Charles L. McGehee, Director
April 27, 1999
The gerontology program at CWU has been in existence for more than 20 years. During its history it has been housed in a variety of departments including political science, where it started, as well as psychology, family studies, anthropology, and the Office of the Dean of Extended University Programs. At one point in its history it briefly enjoyed the status of department. It’s most recent location as been in sociology where it has been since 1993.
The gerontology program is the only four-year undergraduate program in gerontology in the Northwest, and, for that matter, the only program dedicated solely to gerontology either at the undergraduate or graduate level in the Northwest. Oregon State University has a gerontology track in their Family Studies graduate program, but that is the only other such program.
Now, as before, continued growth of the aging population has meant constant interest in the program. Since gerontology has been in the sociology department, there have been consistently between 15 and 18 majors registered as well as a smattering of minors, all without any attempt to advertise the program. Annually 3-4 majors have been graduated, and all have found work in the field if they wanted it, some even before they graduated. Although the number of graduates has been small, the program has had little cost the University since it has no budget and the director has been assigned 2 credits of his 36 credit load for running the program. The sociology department has provided some secretarial assistance as well as office supplies and copying which have been minimal.
The core program is interdisciplinary and consist primarily of existing courses offered by sociology, psychology, family studies, and biology. Similar programs around the country are also built around the core disciplines of sociology, psychology and biology. In the past leisure studies and anthropology have also offered courses which were requirements, but due to funding and staffing problems neither department currently participates in the program. Other departments offer courses which are accepted as electives in the program, such as, political science and administrative management. In addition to drawing on existing courses in the constituent departments, the program offers credit under the GERO prefix for individual studies, a capstone seminar, and field experience. For a catalogue description of the program see the University catalogue or the program website at http://www.cwu.edu/~gero.
The program has been managed by a director in one of the constituent departments (or, as mentioned, in one case the Dean of Extended University Programs who had a background and interest in the subject), as well as by a committee of participating and interested faculty associates. The committee has been fluid and unstable as time has gone by in that personal and departmental interests in the program have waned and faculty have retired.
2
It has been increasingly difficult for certain departments to maintain their commitment to the program. Leisure studies has already withdrawn its course in Leisure for Aging for financial considerations. Since it was not a requirement in their major and since enrollments were relatively low, they decided they could no longer offer it, though on one occasion, some three or four years ago, the previous Provost granted the department $1,200 for an adjunct to teach the course on a one-time basis. With the retirement of Bob Brown, who had initiated and long taught the BISC 460, the Biology of Aging course, the biology department has had difficulty maintaining the course in its curriculum. BISC 460 is not a requirement in any biology major, and suffers from the fact that gerontology majors are not well-enough prepared to take a course intended for biology majors while biology majors are less interested in a course which is beneath their skill level. The current instructor, Phil Mattocks, says he has managed to bridge the gap, but still, resources are very thin in biology and they can ill afford a class which serves primarily another department. In any event, biology can offer the course only every other year, and it remains to be seen how long they can continue the commitment.
Family studies has also cut back on its commitment to the program in that FSCS 435, Family Gerontology, has been reduced from four to three credits. Last year they did offer a course on Nutrition for Aging, however, but it has not been offered again nor, to my knowledge, is it planned as a permanent course. Anthropology has not offered Anthropology of Aging since Katie (Sands) McMillan retired four years ago. Tracy Andrews originally expressed interest in teaching it when she was hired, however, for various reasons that has not happened. She suggested substituting Medical Anthropology, which deal in part with aging, but that course seems too tangential.
The gerontology program has not been refined for many years and contains courses and electives which either no longer exist or make little sense under current conditions. The last functioning advisory committee approved a major restructuring some four years ago reducing the major to 47 credits, but the changes have never been implemented out of respect for anthropology’s wishes not to be eliminated from the program. At the same time they have not been able to commit to teaching the Anthropology of Aging. I requested the previous dean of COTS approve the changes, but this did not happen.
2
As it stands now, the gerontology program is in desperate need of revamping and streamlining. While the commitment of psychology and sociology are strong, the other departments need support or redefinition of their roles. This is especially true for biology which, in my view, is essential for the program. I have come to believe that leisure studies is also essential, though I now believe that the family studies’ course, Family Gerontology, is of marginal importance since it is highly repetitive of both the sociological and psychological perspectives. Nutrition for Aging, on the other hand, could be a very important component. I believe that courses in Law of Aging, potentially offered by law and justice faculty, Economics of Aging, by the econ faculty, and Ethical Issues in Aging, by the philosophy faculty, could be extremely important additions. I have discussed the prospects with chairs of each of these departments and each has expressed interests. But because resources are limited, such courses would also have to appeal to their own majors. This would mean that the gerontology majors would have to have a background in the issues of the discipline in question which they currently do not. The issue is the same as that which faces biology.
I believe the potential for gerontology is great, not only on campus but through distance education. The program could easily be offered at our other sites as well as electronically. There is demand for certification in gerontology for persons in various fields, especially in nursing and social work. Workshops could be easily devised to meet the needs of certification without undermining the four-year program.
For these changes to take place, however, the constituent departments, as departments, must demonstrate a stronger commitment to the program. Up to now, the program has existed largely as a labor of love of individual faculty. This has been both the strength and major weakness of the advisory committee which has guided the program. Decisions have been made largely based on the interests of the participating faculty associates. Things happened if they wanted them to happen within the limits of their own domains. Similarly, things didn’t happen if they didn’t want them to.
It really makes no difference where the program is housed as long as it has support of the department and enlightened advice. I believe the best way to guide the program is for the advisory committee to be made up of representatives of the constituent departments. A constituent department would be defined in terms of who actually offers courses in the program, not simply having a sentimental attachment or hope to offer courses. Each department would put forth only one representative and the representative would be chosen by the department chair. Representatives would be chosen based on their creativity, energy, and interest in the subject and not necessarily because they teach a related course or have had any clear experience in the field. The program director should have not only signatory authority over all programmatic affairs but also veto power over the advisory committee. The responsible deans should commit to supporting the program by committing to support the constituent departments as much as possible. This may mean providing limited funds for adjuncts where appropriate and encouraging the program to move beyond its boundaries to external audiences. Such a program has great potential for generating outside income. Internal parochial interests should not be allowed to stand in the way.
Gerontology students are often not academically strong. I think the program would gain from requirements for acceptance into the major, such as a minimum GPA. If participating departments find it hard to teach to our students because of their lack of preparation, we should insist that they be better prepared. This is especially true in the area of biological sciences, but if other fields, such as economics or law, are brought in, then gerontology students should be expected to take prerequisites where appropriate.
The gerontology program has the potential to become a very strong and well-attended program. With advertising, a strengthened gerontology program in various forms could be very attractive. The interest and market is there. As it is now, however, it is a sort of neglected step-child and is, if not withering, at least not bearing the fruits it could and should. With departmental and institutional commitment it can become much more than it is now.
C. Describe departmental governance system and provide organizational chart for department.
The Gerontology program is currently supported by an advisory committee who have input and some of whom vote on decisions made.
GERONTOLOGY ADVISORY COMMITTEE
PROGRAM FACULTY (those who teach on a recurring basis, voting)
Jeff Penick PSY PSY452: Adult Development & Aging
Hong Xiao SOC SOC325: Aging
Laura Appleton SOC SOC320: Death and Dying
Linda Cashman HHPN NUTR441: Nutrition and Aging
Melody Madlem HHPN HED412: Health Aspects of Aging
AFFILIATE FACULTY (faculty with interests relevant to the program, non-voting)
Barbara Masberg FCS (Recreation)
Harry Papadopoulos HHPN
SPECIAL APPOINTMENTS (professionals who bring expertise to the program, non-voting)
Theresa LaCroix Ellensburg Adult Activities Center
Carol Findley Retired and Senior Volunteer Program
Approved: 5/09/07
Ed.: 9/26/07
D. Department/Program(s) (See Table 1 below for this information)
1. List department/program goals (be sure to include goals for each degree program).
2. Describe the relationship of each department/program(s) goal to relevant college and University strategic goals. Explain how each relevant strategic goal(s) for the University and college are being met within the department.
3. Identify what data was used to measure (assess) goal attainment
4. Describe the criterion of achievement (standard of mastery) for each goal.
5. Describe the major activities that enabled goal attainment.
Page 103
TABLE 1:
Gerontology Program Assessment Plan