Minnesota State Colleges and Universities
Program Collaboration and Transfer
Discipline/Department Action Work Plan Progress Report
Spring 2003

Discipline/Department:   Psychology                              Facilitator Name:  Lisa Dusek

The psychology discipline transfer issue workplan began to take form after our initial meeting in April of 2002.   Three areas of concern surrounding transfer in our course work area were: 1.  How can we, as a discipline, arrive at a common understanding of what is included in the study of “general  psychology”  2.  What can be done to resolve credentialing concerns?  3.  What can be done to solve the problem of similarly named courses having different levels of numbering?   It was with this initial input and the insight of a leadership group, meeting on October 10, 2002, that the psychology discipline’s tentative workplan was created.  Focusing on the identified issues, this group began the process of proposing practical and realistic action items.  Communication between the leadership group and facilitator was encouraged through additional email contact and feedback/revisions were included in the workplan presented to the entire psychology discipline representative group on November, 22, 2002.  As was previously reported, this meeting was well attended and the representatives from technical colleges, community colleges, and universities provided a wide range of perspectives on several different aspects of transfer within the discipline area.  Involved discussions reflected the intensity of concern felt by the discipline representatives regarding student needs, program integrity, and communication needs among institutions.  Together, this group reviewed the tentative workplan, including strategies and action items, and was able to revise focus areas. Tentative workplan areas included:   

 After the input, ideas, and feedback gained through our November 22^nd meeting our workplan was narrowed to two transfer issue areas:

1. Students who transfer between institutions (technical, 2 year, and 4 year) find that the receiving institutions will not accept some of their classes as direct equivalents to classes listed in their specific psychology major programs.
2. How can we, as a discipline, arrive at a common understanding of upper division, lower division, and major courses?

These workplan modifications/revisions were meant to foster more unity among all faculty involved in the transfer process (from technical colleges, community colleges, and universities).  Open face-to-face discussions allowed individual representatives to share their viewpoints regarding unnecessary barriers, making a more inclusive workplan-approach possible.  Hence, tentative workplan area two, pertaining to credentialing concerns, was omitted in this revision.

Within the second transfer issue, representatives also began to clarify additional concerns regarding the need to address problems arising when a large number of courses within an “area of emphasis” is transferred to a “major” program at a receiving institution and/or the existence of similarly named courses classified with differing number levels. 

Once the revisions were agreed upon, representative were asked to share this new workplan version with their colleagues.  It was resolved that the major area of emphasis at this point in time should be that of communication. It was requested that continued communications occur through utilization of the listserve, interactions with the facilitator, and open discussion within individual departments.  These communications were meant to provide a broader sense of inclusion of all those involved in psychology course transfer, an open feedback system, and a sense of ownership and commitment to the process itself.  Representatives were updated as to the psychology discipline contact list development and utilization.  Created by the facilitator, this listing contains one contact person from each institution currently offering transfer level psychology courses.  Communication with individual faculty was either accomplished through listserve utilization or individual emailing.  Each department was asked to identify at least one contact name; this contact was then asked to disseminate information to the entire department, allowing for an efficient and inclusive communication method. Permission to add all those participating in the Nov 22^nd meeting to the current listserve membership list was also gained. 

Representatives were provided with information concerning the DARS and CAS systems in order to provide a base of familiarity with of these systems as they become more available.

Throughout the following months, several facilitator attempts to foster feedback from faculty were made.  Permission to include any additional identified psychology contacts to the current listserve membership listing was gained.  Messages sent via the listserve were posted in the attempt to once again engage faculty in discussion of transfer issues and workplan strategies as well as to gain updates on current department action in different institutions.  The facilitator also encouraged members to utilize the listserve to discuss current issues, make information requests, and gain connections with one another.

During this time there was a need for numerous contacts with members due to confusion of listserve procedure and access.  Some reported feeling that the listserve was “user unfriendly”.  At best, the procedures for replying to personal emails sent via listserve postings was reported as cumbersome and time consuming.  Facilitator efforts attempted to ensure that all desired postings were indeed listed.  With further use, members were able to begin to personally post messages successfully, however, responses seemed somewhat limited.  While this system appears to be useful in initial stages of communication, it does not seem to foster the same type of in-depth discussion which this group openly displayed during face-to-face interactions. Therefore, in the opinion of this facilitator, it should not be used as a replacement of in-person meetings between discipline members, but should rather be used in addition to these meetings as a contact tool and follow-up/feedback method.

In March, another attempt to foster issue discussion was made by the facilitator.  Included in this posting was a request for responses regarding the participation in a spring discipline meeting to occur in April.  The psychology discipline workplan had included several action items which were to be further discussed during such a spring meeting; these areas and items were listed in the Mar 25^th posting.  The request was made that all those willing to commit to this meeting respond with the name of the individual who would participate.   Responses to this request were somewhat limited in number, however, with additional contacts made by the facilitator to ensure a balanced representation, a final focus group was formed.  These individuals, once again, exhibited their commitment to this process by participating in this final discipline meeting of spring 2003.

During the April 21^st meeting further exploration and discussion of workplan areas continued.  This final focus group consisted of four representatives, a transfer specialist, and the facilitator.  Candid communications occurred regarding several areas, including, but not limited to, perceptions, and in some cases misperceptions, of different mission issues, trust levels between sending and receiving institutions, and current needs for communication to students as well as between institutions. Upon further review of the psychology workplan it was decided that transfer issue one (Students who transfer between institutions (technical, 2 year, and 4 year) find that the receiving institutions will not accept some of their classes as direct equivalents to classes listed in their specific psychology major programs.) in fact encompassed the core of the discipline’s remaining transfer problems.   

Strong emphasis was placed on the need for continuing development of trust and collaborative relationships.  As stated in the workplan: “It should be noted that some of these strategies will not happen instantaneously.  The development of currently existing transfer relationships took time. So too will it take time to develop the needed trust and collaborative relationships with new institutions coming into the transfer system.”  This realistic viewpoint provided a basis for restructuring the current/final workplan strategies and action items (Please see attachment for workplan details).  Representatives reported that indeed some departments have utilized some of the action items.  These institutions focused on increased communication and review of current articulation agreements.  Course equivalency issues and recognition of course content need further exploration.

Also, it was reported that some institutions have begun to offer DARS auditing services to advisors, hopefully bolstering awareness of graduation requirements and needed course requirements.  This provides a foundation for later utilization of the CAS system.

These psychology discipline meetings provided in-person interactions in efforts to build rapport between individual faculty members and between institutions.  Many have reported a benefit in hearing different perspectives, making actual connections with colleagues, and having a forum to discuss common issues.  As stated under strategy one, action item four in the newly revised plan, it is expected that periodic meetings of in-field faculty from all institutions should occur to determine progress, continue to exchange information, and discuss problems surfacing.

My sincere thanks to all who have contributed to this project and given their time, talent, and energy in the course of these two semesters.

Lisa Dusek, Facilitator

·        Copies of meeting agendas, reports, etc. are on file with Linda Lade; some are posted on listserve.