Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Department of Psychology
University of Massachusetts Boston
Academic Quality Assessment and
Development (AQUAD)
AY 2013-14 Self-Study
Including the Re-accreditation Self-Study for the
American Psychological Association Committee on
Accreditation (submitted September 2013)
Executive Committee, Department of Psychology
Jane Adams, Professor and Chair of Department (2010-present; ex officio)
Carol Smith, Professor and Associate Chair of Department (2010-present; ex officio)
Alice Carter, Professor and Director of Clinical Doctoral Program (2007 – present; ex officio; sabbatical
spring 2014)
Erik Blaser, Associate Professor and Director of Developmental and Brain Sciences Doctoral Program
(2011-present; ex officio)
Karen Suyemoto, Associate Professor and Acting Director of Clinical Doctoral Program, Spring 2014
(member Fall 13 and ex officio Spring 14)
Paul Nestor, Professor (member)
Tiffany Donaldson, Associate Professor (member)
Acknowledgements
The AQUAD Report was primarily written and compiled by Jane Adams, Department Chair, with help
from Carol Smith, Associate Chair, Laurel Wainwright, and many other members of the Department. In
addition, members of the Assessment Committee (Mike Milburn, Laurel Wainwright, Carol Smith), the
Writing Committee (Sheree Conrad, Liz Roemer, Abbey Eisenhower), and the DBS Graduate Director
(Erik Blaser) were primary contributors. We also wish to thank members of the staff for their support (Eric
Berry, Michelle Browning, and Odeh Kraskian) as well as Jennifer Brown, OIRP.
Table of Contents
I. Description of Department ……………………………………………………………….. 1
A. Our University and College Context ……………………………………………………. 1
B. Departmental Overview and Identity …………………………………………………… 1
C. 2014 Mission Statement of the Department of Psychology …………………………….. 4
II. Central Components of the AQUAD 2007 Response from the Reviewers ……………. 6
A. Faculty Quality and Productivity ……………………………………………………….. 6
B. The Undergraduate Programs …………………………………………………………... 6
C. The Doctoral Program in Clinical Psychology …………………………………………. 8
III. Our Faculty, Their Teaching, and Scholarship ………………………………………… 9
A. Characteristics of Our Faculty and Related Growth …………………………………….. 9
A1. Hiring of faculty …………………………………………………………………….. 9
A2. Our current fulltime faculty ………………………………………………………… 10
A3. Our part-time contingent faculty ……………………………………………………. 11
A3a. Part-time non tenure track faculty ……………………………………………. 12
A3b. Graduate Student Instructors …………………………………………………. 14
B. Special Challenges for Faculty …………………………………………………………... 15
B1. Special challenges for all full-time, tenure track faculty ……………………………. 15
B2. Special challenges for Assistant Professors …………………………………………. 15
B3. Special Challenges for Mid-Career Faculty …………………………………………. 16
B4. Special Challenges for Full Professors ……………………………………………… 16
B5. Special challenges for fulltime, non-tenure track faculty …………………………… 16
C. Supportive Resources and Structures ……………………………………………………. 17
C1. Supports for all departmental faculty ……………………………………………….. 17
C1a. Departmental research and grantsmanship infrastructure …………………….. 17
C1b. College and University-based Research and Grantsmanship Infrastructure …. 18
C1c. Departmental and College Level Advising Approaches and Supports ……….. 19
C1d. Departmental and College level supports for Offload Mentoring and Teaching
Activities ……………………………………………………………………… 21
C1e. Departmental, College, and University Level (including Union) Support for
Faculty Development …………………………………………………………. 22
C2. Special supports for Junior Faculty ………………………………………………….. 22
C2a. Mentoring of Junior Faculty .………………………………………………….. 22
C2b. Accommodations for Junior Faculty ………………………………………….. 23
C2c. Instructional support programs provided by the University …………………… 23
C2d. Grantsmanship-focused programs …………………………………………….. 24
D. The Intellectual Environment for the Faculty (and students) ……………………………. 24
E. Faculty Scholarship and Funding ………………………………………………………… 25
IV. Students, Enrollments, and Curricular Opportunities ………………………………….. 25
A. Undergraduate Programs and Requirements ……………………………………………. 26
A1. Bachelor of Arts Degree in Psychology ……………………………………………. 26
A2. Bachelor of Science Degree in Psychology ………………………………………… 27
A3. Bachelor of Arts Degree in Social Psychology …………………………………….. 27
A4. The Minor in Psychology …………………………………………………………… 29
A5. The Minor in Cognitive Science ……………………………………………………. 29
B. General Characteristics of Our Students and Our Majors ………………………………. 30
B1. Demographics ………………………………………………………………………. 30
B2. Numbers of Students in the Majors and Minors and Degrees Awarded …………… 30
C. Enrollments ……………………………………………………………………………… 31
D. Scheduling of Course Offerings to Meet Student Needs ……………………………….. 31
D1. Course Regularity and Timing of Offerings to Satisfy the Needs of our Majors ….. 31
D2. Scheduling in the 2:2 and Limited Classroom Environment ………………………. 32
E. Courses that Provide Special Opportunities in Support of Workplace Marketability or
Graduate Admission …………………………………………………………………….. 34
E1. Psychology Honors Program ……………………………………………………….. 34
E2. Research Apprenticeships and Directed Studies …………………………………… 34
E3. Internship and Field Placement Courses …………………………………………… 34
F. Special Recognition: Departmental Prizes and Awards ………………………………... 36
G. Co-Curricular Activities ………………………………………………………………… 36
G1. The Psychology Club ………………………………………………………………. 37
G2. Psi Chi ……………………………………………………………………………… 37
G3. Psychology Connections Committee (PCC) ……………………………………...... 37
G4. Cognitive Science Club …………………………………………………………….. 37
G5. Neuroscience Club ………………………………………………………………….. 38
H. The Fate of Our Students ……………………………………………………………….. 38
V. Assessment of our Undergraduate Curriculum ………………………………………….. 39
A. Assessment of Writing Across Curricular Levels ………………………………………. 40
B. Assessment of Learning Outcomes ……………………………………………………... 40
B1. Assessment Approach 1 – Student Perception Survey ……………………………... 41
B2. Assessment Approach 2 – Rubric Development for Capstone Paper Assessment …. 44
B3. Next Steps …………………………………………………………………………… 46
VI. Doctoral Program in Clinical Psychology ………………………………………………… 47
VII. Doctoral Program in the Developmental and Brain Sciences ………………………........ 48
A. Foundational History and Program Characteristics ……………………………………... 48
B. Operations, Activities, and Accomplishments …………………………………………... 50
B1. Structure and Composition ………………………………………………………….. 50
B2. Course Offerings to Date ……………………………………………………………. 51
B3. DBS Students ……………………………………………………………………….. 52
B4. Student Activities and Achievements ………………………………………………. 53 C. Future Plans for the DBS Program ……………………………………………………………… 54
VIII. Professional Certificate Program in Infant and Parent Mental Health ……………………….. 54
IX. Service to the Institution and Profession …………………………………………………………. 56
X. Departmental Staff ………………………………………………………………………………… 56
A. Professional Staff ………………………………………………………………………………... 56
B. Classified Staff ………………………………………………………………................................. 58 C. Student Employees ………………………………………………………………………………... 59
D. Grant supported personnel ………………………………………………………………………… 59
E. Critical Staff Needs ……………………………………………………………………………….. 59
XI. Material Resources ………………………………………………………………………………….. 60
A. Facilities and Technology in Support of Research and Teaching ……………………….. 60
B. Current and Coming Classroom Facilities ………………………………………………. 61
C. New Laboratory Facilities: The Integrated Sciences Complex (ISC) ………………….. 62
D. Departmental Budgets …………………………………………………………………… 62
XII. Plans for the Future ………………………………………………………………………………… 63
XIII. Appendix ……………………………………………………………………………………. 63 IA. 2013 APA Self-Study for the Clinical Psychology Program.
IB. The Department Constitution.
IC. Minutes from Department Meetings Fall 12- December 2013).
ID. Agendas from Departmental Retreats.
IIA. AQUAD 2007: Response from the Reviewers.
IIIA. Departmental Hiring Plan 2005.
IIIB. Former Workload Points Allocation System.
IIIC. Biosketches for Full-time Faculty, Research Faculty, and Post-Doctoral Fellows.
IIID. Policies for Employment and Oversight of Part-time, Non-tenure Track Faculty.
IIIE. Biosketches for Part-time, Post-Probationary Non-tenure Track Contingent
Faculty.
IIIF. Guidelines for Deliberations of the RTF Committee.
IIIG. Talks in Cognitive Science (TICS).
IIIH. Psychology Colloquium Series.
IIII. Seminars and Workshops Sponsored by the Clinical Psychology Program.
IIIJ. External Research Grant Profile
IIIK. HORIZON Center Projects
IIIL. Award Sources for the Center for Evidenced-Based Mentoring
IVA. Demographics of Our Students (OIRP).
IVB. Psychology Honors Program: Projects in the Last 7 Years.
IVC. Internship Sites.
IVD. Barnett and Samuels Writing Prize Winners in the Last 7 Years
IVE. Fate of Undergraduates: Graduate Study and Work.
VA. Assessment Survey.
VIIA. DBS Program Proposal
VIIIA. The IPMH Program.
VIIIB. The IPMH Program Agenda from the Graduating 12-13 Class.
1
I. Description of the Department
A. Our University and College Context
The core values of UMass Boston derive from the nineteenth century land grant movement to establish
public colleges and universities and the twentieth century movement to locate centers of public higher
education in cities. UMass Boston was founded in 1964 as the urban branch of the University of
Massachusetts. It remains the only public university in Boston and the second largest campus in a
university system which includes the original campus at Amherst, the medical school at Worcester, and
branches at Lowell and Dartmouth in addition to the Boston campus. UMass Boston is the most diverse
public university in New England and holds Carnegie Foundation classification in the “Research University
(High Research Activity)” category. As stated in the 2005 Accreditation Self-Study for the University, our
enduring core values “include equality of access to the highest caliber of university education for all,
public service, and deep connections with the city in our teaching, research, and service. In fall 2011,
the University released its current strategic plan, Fulfilling the Promise, describing ambitious plans for
growth through 2025. The plan re-affirms our values by stating: “Consistent with our traditions, we will
maintain a strong commitment to educating modest-income and first-generation students from urban areas,
and to promoting the best interests of the City of Boston, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the nation,
and the world.” The vision for the University’s future is “marked by striking increases in student population,
research activity, and global reach and reputation.” It is also marked by our shared desire to remain “a
research University with a teaching soul”.
The Department of Psychology (Department) is housed within the College of Liberal Arts (CLA), which
is the largest of eleven colleges and schools comprised by the University of Massachusetts Boston (UMass
Boston). The University’s goals are also evinced in the Strategic Plan for the College of Liberal Arts for the
2011-2015 period. The CLA’s stated goals are to: 1) advance student success and development; 2) enrich
and expand academic programs and research; 3) improve the learning, teaching, and working environment;
4) establish a financial resource model consistent with the university’s vision statement; and 5) develop an
infrastructure supportive of the preceding.
The Department of Psychology endorses the aforementioned mission and goals as well as the current
aspirations to improve the physical infrastructure, rebuild the faculty, increase research capacity, increase
undergraduate retention and graduation rates, and enhance the quality of academic life for all. As one of
the largest and most successful departments in the University, we have historically located ourselves on the
leading edge of campus advancement and have established ourselves as one of the university’s most
successful units.
B. Departmental Overview and Identity
The Department functions as a single administrative unit with programmatic offerings at
undergraduate and graduate levels. Our undergraduate programs include a major in Psychology with
two degree tracks (B.S. and B.A.), a major offered jointly with the Sociology Department (B.A. in
Social Psychology), an interdisciplinary minor in Cognitive Science (since fall 2007), and a minor in
Psychology. We have two doctoral programs: 1) a doctoral program in Clinical Psychology (since
1988; APA-accredited since 1995) housed fully within the department, which offers a M.A. degree
program as a step toward the Ph.D., and 2) a doctoral program in the Developmental and Brain
Sciences (since fall 2012) which offers a M.A. degree program as a step towards the Ph.D. To a
national audience of advanced health professionals, our department also supports a professional
certificate program in Infant and Parent Mental Health.
2
The doctoral program in Clinical Psychology is accredited by the American Psychological
Association (APA) and is undergoing a re-accreditation review this year, with a co-occurring site visit
scheduled for April 10 and 11, 2014. The APA self-study was prepared in the required format and is
attached (see Appendix IA) as a major component of the departmental self-study. The re-accreditation
self-study is an independent piece that should be read as such in conjunction with this AQUAD report.
Our AQUAD document focuses on the undergraduate programs and the Developmental and Brain
Sciences Ph.D. Program, the Infant Parent Mental Health Program, and on departmental functioning as
a whole.
A summary list of programs for which the Department has full or a major part of shared
responsibility is presented in Table 1. In addition to these departmentally based programs, we have
undertaken substantial interdepartmental and intercollegiate commitments. We have long-standing
formal agreements to contribute faculty time and courses to the undergraduate Asian-American Studies
Program (housed in the Office of Graduate Studies and Special Programs), to the Master’s Program in
Critical and Creative Thinking (College of Advancing and Professional Studies), to Graduate
Certificate Programs in Critical and Creative Thinking (College of Advancing and Professional
Studies), and to Forensic Services (College of Liberal Arts - Sociology Department). More recently,
we have established a mutual alliance for certain shared courses with the doctoral program in
Counseling Psychology (College of Education and Human Development). We also contribute to the
University General Education Program, to the University Honors College, and to a variety of
interdisciplinary majors and programs (undergraduate: Women’s Studies; Communication Studies;
graduate: newly approved MS and PhD Programs in Transnational, Cultural and Community Studies
(expected to begin in fall 2014).
Table 1. Degree Programs in the Department of Psychology________________________
Undergraduate Programs
Majors
Major in Psychology
Bachelor of Arts degree
Bachelor of Science degree
Joint Major in Social Psychology (B.A. offered with the Sociology Department)
Minors and intercollegiate programs of study
Minor in Psychology
Minor in Cognitive Science (in conjunction with Computer Science)
Biobehavioral Studies Program (in conjunction with the Biology Department)
Organizational Behavior Program (in conjunction with the College of Management)
Certificate Programs
Infant and Parent Mental Health Program
Graduate and Post-Doctoral Programs
Ph. D. in Clinical Psychology
Master of Arts in Clinical Psychology (as step for students admitted to the Clinical doctoral
program)
Ph.D. in Developmental and Brain Sciences
Master of Arts in Developmental and Brain Sciences (as step for students admitted to the
doctoral DBS Program)
3
In order to provide the quality education that meets our objectives, it is necessary to continuously re-
visit the requirements of our programs, the effectiveness of our courses and instructors, the alignment
between faculty expertise and curriculum content, and the alignment between our program offerings and the
educational goals and opportunities that our University and Department embrace. We function according to
our Constitution (see Appendix IB; updated in AY 12-13 to incorporate alterations in governance associated
primarily with the addition of the Ph.D. in the Developmental and Brain Sciences, DBS). We hold regular
monthly faculty meetings that include all full-time tenure-track and non-tenure track faculty, and all
participate with equal voting privileges (see Appendix IC for Minutes). A department of our size and
complexity depends on the establishment and adherence to many consensus-based policies as well as regular
attention to the adequacy and equity of our policies, the effectiveness of our operations, and the successes of
our programs. In addition to our regular monthly meetings, we have held three departmental retreats since
our 2007 AQUAD Review (see Appendix ID for retreat agendas and materials). In 2010, we held a retreat
focused on planning for the Developmental and Brain Sciences Ph.D. Program, examining its impact on
undergraduate curriculum coverage, examining its impact on the integrity and risks for competition within
the department, and establishing policies of relevance to a smooth launch for the program. In 2012, we held
a comprehensive retreat that was somewhat AQUAD-like in its attention to the characteristics of our majors
and curricular offerings, challenges associated with the division of labor between graduate and
undergraduate teaching, the extent of reliance on contingent faculty, resource constraints and departmental
supports, budgetary management (particularly with respect to our budget that emerges from the indirect
from grants), and long-term strategic planning. This retreat was held in the Spring of 2012 and elements of
it are used in this AQUAD self-study with updates when relevant. Please review the agenda and slide set
from this retreat to understand its comprehensive nature. Our third retreat was in January 2014 and it
focused on challenges to the delivery of our graduate and undergraduate curriculum within the context of
our overall workload and the new 2:2 system, the development of departmental procedures and policies for
the improvement of the scheduling process, and long-term strategic planning.
We have worked hard to assure the continuity of our successful department as noted in the 2007
AQUAD review. Our program offerings, faculty composition, research activities and service
involvement have remained impressive since our 2007 review and have also changed considerably. In
the last 7 years, both our Department and University have changed and grown. We have actualized our
previously approved plan for growth and have changed in notable ways:
Our faculty have grown from 18 tenure track (11 tenured; 7 Assistant Professors) and 2
fulltime, non-tenure track members to our current 25 fulltime, tenure track (15 tenured;
10 Assistant) and 3 fulltime, non-tenure track faculty;
We have introduced greater rigor to policies for hiring, oversight, and retention of
contingent (part-time, non-tenure track) faculty;
We have added a second Ph.D. Program in the Developmental and Brain Sciences and a
second minor (interdisciplinary) in Cognitive Science;
We now support a professional certificate program in Infant Parent Mental Health that
attracts an international audience;
The collective number of undergraduate majors and minors has grown from 683 in Fall
2007 to 1033 in Fall 2013 (now 1100+) and our graduates have increased from 52 to 65
over this period;
Our teaching load has been reduced from a 3:3 to a 2:2;
We have become more research intensive with increased external funding represented by
43 externally-funded grants (totaling ~ $18 million) and the establishment of two
Centers, The Center for Evidence-Based Mentoring (Jean Rhodes, Director and P.I.) and
the HORIZON Center for Health Equity (Celia Moore, Director and P.I.). Additionally,
there have been approximately 13 internal, university level, research grants.
4
The scholarship of our current faculty has consistently reflected very high productivity as
represented in the 12-13 academic year (drawn from the Annual Faculty Reports) by the
publication of 64 journal articles and the submission of 46 additional manuscripts now
under review, as well as the publication of 19 book chapters with 10 more under review,
and scores of presentations and published abstracts representing “pipeline” work. And,
Our staff has grown from 5 to 7 fulltime individuals employed by the college, and from 4
to 7 work-study students plus one part-time technical assistant employed by the
department (not including 50+ grant-funded staff).
Our 2007 self study, our 2007 Mission Statement as well as our University’s Strategic Plan have served as
excellent guides during the prior 7 years which constitute the present review. Our growth and change have
also led us to revise our prior Mission Statement to better capture our current characteristics. Using our
prior 2007 Mission Statement as its foundation, our 2014 Mission Statement provides a description of our
current ethos, culture, and goals.
C. 2014 Mission Statement of the Department of Psychology
We seek to provide our diverse undergraduate students with a superior basic education in the major
academic areas of Psychology, so that they may fulfill their multiple roles as: educated citizens in a
democracy, competitive candidates for placements in graduate programs, and productive
contributors to an increasingly complex and changing economy. We seek to provide our graduate
students with superior training that prepares them for successful careers in a variety of settings as
researchers, clinicians, and academicians, giving them the knowledge and skills to address
fundamental issues in the clinical, behavioral, cognitive, and neural sciences as well as to engage in
research and provide clinical services to address the mental health needs of diverse individuals and
challenge social inequities and health disparities. We seek to provide productive faculty research
programs to support excellent University education for our students, to build new knowledge of
value to the discipline and society, and to serve as the base for effective public and professional
service at local, regional, and global levels.
This broad mission leads to six overarching goals:
1. Goals for faculty: To create a nurturing, stimulating, enabling environment within which faculty may pursue their
career objectives including a broad range of creative research and scholarship, outstanding
teaching, and effective community and professional service.
To establish a culture of harmony, support, and respect across the faculty particularly concerning
their different degrees of involvement in the undergraduate and graduate programs, and the
differential challenges associated with successful achievement at each rank.
2. Goals for Research:
To provide a supportive environment that allows: a) All tenured and tenure-track faculty to
maintain a high level of research activity with productivity marked by publishing of their work
and, when necessary to the research, by seeking and securing external funding; b) the creation
and maintenance of research-rich environments that are available to qualified undergraduate and
graduate students in support of their learning; and c) to continue to hire new faculty who will
contribute to the formation of research clusters in growth areas of the discipline.
5
3. Goals for Undergraduate Teaching:
To provide our majors with: a) a high quality introduction to the core academic areas in
psychology; b) an in depth education in one or more of these areas; and c) the knowledge and
skills needed to think about psychological processes as scientists.
To provide a curriculum that creates graduates who: a) have gained an understanding of the ways
in which psychological theories and the research process are connected; b) have gained an
understanding of the ways psychological research is conducted; c) have gained familiarity with
the ways major ideas in psychology have emerged from knowledge from philosophy, biology,
and social sciences in relation to each other; d) have gained a solid grounding in 5 sub-
disciplines of psychology (biological, clinical, developmental, cognitive, and social); e) have
learned to see the connections that exist across the different areas of psychology (biological,
clinical, developmental, cognitive, and social); and f) have gained an understanding of the ways
that Psychology as a discipline studies human and cultural diversity.
4. Goals for Students in the Clinical Psychology PhD Program:
To train our students within a biopsychosocial, scientist-practitioner model to become
psychologists who: a) engage in scientific and scholarly activities; b) apply their own research
and the research of others to clinical practice, which may include prevention, assessment,
intervention, consultation, and supervision; c) apply knowledge and evidence from clinical
practice to inform the questions and methods of research; and d) engage in research and
scholarly inquiry as well as clinical practice to address social inequities and health disparities.
Consistent with the urban mission of UMass Boston, the program emphasizes the development
of culturally responsive clinical and research practices and focuses on developing psychologists
who prioritize meeting the needs of underserved and/or marginalized individuals, families, and
communities.
5. Goals for Students in the Developmental and Brain Sciences PhD Program:
To train our students within a research-intensive environment: a) to become scientists who
conduct research in Neuroscience that is multi-level, developmental, and translational; b) to use
human and animal models to study cognition (learning, memory, attention, language), perception
(vision, hearing), and the genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences (physiological and
behavioral) on brain and behavior that shape development; and c) to conduct high-impact science
using the best tools and techniques that will provide basic and translational findings that impact
clinical science, education, and public policy.
6. Goals for Serving the University and Commonwealth:
To provide the University and citizens of the Commonwealth with: a) distinguished scholarship
emergent from empirical research; b) service on behalf of the University and on behalf of our
institutional mission; c) effective evidence-based approaches for teaching and services for our
students; d) service to the public and to our profession, and d) high quality undergraduate and
graduate programs in the discipline.
Our 2014 statement of mission and goals have been used to frame our departmental self-study within
this document and our presentation will refer to these goals and to comments from the 2007 AQUAD
Review Team.
6
II. Central Components of The AQUAD 2007 Response from the Reviewers (see Appendix IIA).
As evident in the attached document, the 2007 AQUAD review team provided a positive review that
noted strengths and challenges. “The overall impression was of a successful, happy, and hard-working
department that has every right to be proud of its achievements. The review team was struck by the
overwhelming collegiality, loyalty, and sense of community from every level of the department……. The
achievements are considerable but there are significant challenges; all derive from the high undergraduate
teaching load and the limited resources available to the department from the campus. But the clear sense of
the committee is that the dedication, team-spirit, and can-do attitude of this department are noteworthy, a
major source of their considerable achievements, and a signal of a strong future worth increased investment
from the campus.”
A. Faculty Quality and Productivity
Identified Strengths (all quoted)
The Department of Psychology has recruited and retained a remarkably talented, productive and
collegial group of tenured and tenure-track faculty. Their scholarly interests range widely across
the discipline of psychology, but focus on areas having both current rapid advances and clear
connections to the university’s urban mission.
There are many collaborations among the faculty, creating a better training environment for
students, innovation in research, and also the intellectual glue which may be critical to maintaining
a faculty of this quality.
The faculty also make a very strong contribution to the health and well-being of the urban
community…
Identified Challenges (all quoted)
The department faces considerable challenges in maintaining and growing faculty excellence. These
derive from the limited institutional support. There is always a danger of an excellent faculty member
being recruited away. Developing an excellent overworked and under-resourced faculty is just asking
to have them stolen. We list here the most urgent challenges:
A teaching load that greatly exceeds the 1 and 2 courses that most first-tier research departments
now teach and even the 2 and 2 load of mid-level Psychology departments,
Rising expectations of research accomplishments and grantmanship without the infrastructure in
terms of staff and time to support these goals
High demands outside of classroom teaching –including advising and mentoring research students
(both undergraduate and graduate) for which the faculty receive no explicit credit.
B. The Undergraduate Program
Identified Strengths (all quoted)
The curriculum is logical and extremely well organized, providing tracks for students who plan to
go to graduate school in behavioral sciences, other advanced degrees, and those who need more
general training leading to job placements following graduation.
Research mentoring and participation of some undergraduates in laboratories is a real plus. Since
many of these students have fairly weak scientific backgrounds at the outset, bringing them up to
speed in a research environment is both demanding and door-opening.
7
Advising by the faculty and the system of peer-advising developed by the faculty were praised by the
undergraduates as excellent and a special part of the UMASS- Boston experience. While clearly an
extraordinary demand on faculty time, the measures taken by the department in devising an
“advising kiosk,” in training peer advisors, and in offering “advising week” marathons are working
from the undergraduate point of view.
Mentoring new faculty in teaching. Faculty were uniform in their praise for programs by the
Center for the Improvement of Teaching. Junior faculty also praised the efforts of the chair,
associate chair, and senior faculty to provide resources and advice on teaching.
Supervision and selection of contingent faculty. Although the high reliance on contingent faculty is
unfortunate, the department appears to manage this as well as possible -- overseeing the syllabi of
part-timers, observing teaching and monitoring student evaluations. Further, virtually all are PhDs
from strong research programs in the area. The undergraduates stated that classes taught by part-
time faculty were typically quite good.
Two senior lecturers. The undergraduate mission is also served by two senior lecturers who appear
well integrated into and valued by the department. Along with teaching in the classroom, these
lecturers add value through advising and committee work.
Undergraduate clubs. Three highly active undergraduate clubs help connect the large student body
to each other, to the faculty, and to the department and serve as forums for career advising.
Undergraduate outcomes. One obvious measure of their success is the numbers of students who
successfully pursue doctoral degrees in medicine, the behavioral sciences, and even law (e.g., social
policy careers).
Identified Challenges (all quoted):
A large contingent faculty – even a well-selected and supervised one – is problematic particularly
in teaching advanced courses since they do not provide undergraduates with opportunities for
research mentoring, are often unavailable to provide letters of recommendation, and are not
invested in the department nor in the development of individual students. In addition, with so many
contingent faculty, the instructor of record for the removal of incompletes often disappears or is
hard to track down, causing significant problems for individual students.
The careful supervision/selection of these contingent faculty represents another drain on faculty
time. But the end result was that undergraduates were uniformly pleased with the quality of the
contingent faculty.
Continuing education courses –in contrast to courses taught by contingent faculty within the
department –do appear to have quality problems. Almost all undergraduates we interviewed had
taken Psychology courses offered through continuing education in an effort to complete their degree
requirements in a timely fashion (i.e., necessary courses were not being offered by the department or
not being offered in a time slot which fit the student’s schedule). Students often found these courses
to be of distinctly lower quality.
Courses being dropped at a late date, which interferes with students’ ability to obtain the courses
they need for graduation, was also a point of complaint among the undergraduate systems
All who remarked on the degree audit system (WISER) described it as awful, unreliable, and
riddled with mistakes in tracking courses and requirements.
Lack of measurement of student outcomes. There is no systematic collection of data on student
outcomes.
Adequate classroom capacity and technological capabilities should be guaranteed.
8
C. The Doctoral Program In Clinical Psychology
Although the AQUAD Team was not specifically charged with a comprehensive review of this program
in light of its separate APA-accreditation review, the AQUAD Team invested considerable time in its
evaluation. The overall assessment was of a program that was “outstanding by any measure, and, indeed
was recently ranked 10th
in the nation by one rating system.”
Identified Strengths (all quoted)
A curriculum structured to progressively prepare students for more challenging clinical experiences
A curriculum well-structured to mentor students in advanced research methods and to make
independent contributions to knowledge
Practicum experiences and record-keeping designed to make trainees competitive for internships.
Mentoring and training in teaching (including a course on teaching as well as progressive
experiences in leading sections).
Mentoring in grant writing.
An admissions system that selects students that takes into account both the match between applicants
and mentors and program diversity.
Excellent –time-to-PhD record.
A curriculum designed to be both excellent and to serve the urban mission of the campus, with two
particularly noteworthy components – a strong emphasis on cross-cultural psychology and also the
explicit requirement that the second and third practicum experiences of students be conducted in two
different under-served populations.
Identified Challenge (all quoted)
The excellence of this doctoral program is achieved in the context of a serious lack of resources.
Although the energy, dedication, and innovation of the current faculty make future success highly likely,
one has to wonder how long they can successfully maintain these achievement levels given the limited
resources. The most serious challenges appear to be:
The stipend level at $13,000 is extraordinarily low. The stipend for competitive PhD programs in
Psychology is $18,500, with the NIH mandated level at $21,000, and with many top programs
offering $25,000.
There is no summer support. Some students find summer support in faculty laboratories, but others
must work –which must limit progress on research.
Currently, there is support for only 8 new students a year. This presents class-size problems with the
campus requiring 8 enrollees in graduate classes. If even one student places out of a course, or
chooses a different option from their cohort, the whole class –and the curriculum – is threatened
with a canceled class. This is particularly problematic, since APA demands an orderly progression
of classes.
Over the last 7 years, we have actively addressed the challenges noted by the 2007 Review Team. Herein,
as we discuss our past activities and current characteristics, we will reference them to the above 2007
review. We will only minimally address the Clinical Psychology Ph.D. Program, however, because the
information is separately represented in the attached 2014 APA Accreditation Self-Study (see Appendix
IA).
9
III. Our Faculty, their Teaching, and Scholarship
Goals for Faculty To create a nurturing, stimulating, enabling environment within which faculty may pursue their career objectives including a
broad range of creative research and scholarship, outstanding teaching, and effective community and professional service.
To establish a culture of harmony, support, and respect across the faculty particularly concerning their different degrees of
involvement in the undergraduate and graduate programs, and the differential challenges associated with each rank.
Goals for Research To provide a supportive environment that allows: a) All tenured and tenure-track faculty to maintain a high level of research
activity with productivity marked by publishing of their work and, when necessary to the research, by seeking and securing
external funding; b) the creation and maintenance of research-rich environments that are available to qualified
undergraduate and graduate students in support of their learning; and c) to continue to hire new faculty who will contribute
to the formation of research clusters in growth areas of the discipline.
The 2007 AQUAD Review Team praised our faculty dedication, collegiality, and accomplishments,
while noting a high teaching load, high workload involved in advising and research mentoring without
explicit credit, resource limitations re research infrastructure and departmental staff, and the use of a large
contingent faculty. The latter was emphasized to be of particular concern for the teaching of advanced
courses. They also noted that our productivity and achievements were worthy of investment by the
institution.
We have been quite successful in meeting most of our goals for the faculty as will be evident in the
discussion below. We have also maintained departmental harmony, a goal we embrace and around which
we are always mindful. Indeed, we pride ourselves in this success in light of our many challenges
associated with growth, with meeting the needs of quite different graduate programs, and with sustaining
and strengthening our undergraduate programs. Our success is rooted in faculty dedication, consensus-
based decision-making to establish policies and procedures, and fair and transparent implementation and
adherence.
The challenges pointed out by the AQUAD reviewers will be addressed in some of the following
sections and the issue(s) addressed in each section will be identified when present.
A. Characteristics of Our Faculty and Related Growth
A.1. Hiring of Faculty
We have been quite fortunate in benefitting from a departmentally-emergent hiring plan (see Appendix
IIIA) that was approved in 2005, a solid history of scholarship and excellence in teaching, and a prior
AQUAD review that endorsed the value of investing in our department. Our excellent Clinical doctoral
program was recognized to be worthy of continued support and also to have created an imbalance in the
areas of expertise represented by our faculty, and our strengths in the developmental and neurosciences were
recognized as worthy of investment towards the creation of a second doctoral program in the Developmental
and Brain Sciences. Our hiring plan provided for seven new positions (intended for the 2006-2011 period)
with two in the Clinical area and five in the Developmental and Brain Sciences. We have now actualized
the hiring of all of these lines, but have not yet replaced one retired faculty member and in May of this year,
we will lose an additional (and vital) member (Carol Smith, Associate Chair par excellence) who will be
retiring. Our general strengths in scholarship and teaching were deemed worthy of allowing our department
to continue to independently manage its programmatic offerings according to a longstanding faculty
workload policy that allowed us to award merit-based courseload reductions/equivalents (CLRs) on the
basis of productivity (see Appendix IIIB, our Workload Points Allocation System). To continue to meet
10
programmatic needs of an increased number of majors while utilizing CLRs and launching a second PhD.
Program, we adapted by increasing the number of core courses offered as large sections (introductory @
120-200) and intermediate level courses @ 70-90). Both of these factors supported our success during the
years in which our college had a 3:3 teaching load. In reality, most of our faculty taught a 2:3 load based on
merit, or a 2:2 load through the additional use of grant buy-outs. With respect to accommodations for new
faculty, the Dean (Dean Donna Kuizenga followed by Interim Dean Emily McDermott) provided “new hire
CLRs” that allowed our new faculty to have the time to invest in setting up their experimental programs,
establishing their scholarship, pursuing clinical licensure if relevant, and developing their teaching
expertise. Likewise, we were also fortunate to be able to provide competitive start-up packages and to be
able to promise new hires access to graduate programs and students, since all new hires were either for the
Clinical Program or the emerging second PhD Program, DBS (launched in fall 2012). Our location in
Boston is also a major benefit for both the academic and personal lives of faculty. Thus, the 3:3 load was
not an impediment to attracting an impressive array of new faculty. In Spring 2013, our college officially
moved to a 2:2 teaching load and our ability to independently manage the delivery of our programs ended.
Nevertheless, within our department, the impact of this change has been somewhat neutral with respect to
benefits as well as the magnitude of the challenges related to the delivery of program offerings.
A2. Our Current Fulltime Faculty
As mentioned in the opening part of this section, our faculty have grown from 18 tenure track
(11 tenured; 7 Assistant Professors) and 2 fulltime, non-tenure track members to our current 25
fulltime, tenure track (15 tenured; 10 Assistant) and 3 fulltime, non-tenure track faculty as shown in
Table 1 (next page). Of the 18 tenure track faculty present in 2007, 13 remain, 2 retired, and 3
Assistant Professors left largely due to family (professional couple) reasons, although we cannot
dismiss our demanding context as a contributor. The two fulltime, non-tenure track also remain. Our
10 Assistant Professors have all been hired since the 2007 review and we have added one University
Distinguished Professor (Ed Tronick), one Associate Professor hired with tenure (Heidi Levitt), and
one more fulltime, non-tenure track member, Kathy Kogan.
Our full-time faculty currently teach all of the graduate courses and are now providing about half
of the undergraduate instruction. Thus, we depend upon a large part-time contingent faculty as
discussed in section IV.A.3 below. As shown in Table 2, our full-time faculty were trained at public
as well as private institutions from New Mexico State University to Berkeley and Harvard and have
chosen UMass Boston because of the strength of our department and their own support for the
institutional mission. Among our 28 fulltime faculty, 20 are women (including 6 within the cognitive
or behavioral neurosciences) and 7 represent ethnic minorities. They all represent a highly
dedicated, productive, and committed group (see evidence in biosketches, Appendix IIIC).
As shown in Table 2, among our current 25 full-time, tenure track faculty, 12 are affiliated with
the Clinical Program and 11 with the DBS Program. Thus, we have achieved a better balance
between clinical and non-clinical faculty (which was one of our hiring goals), however, we have not
achieved adequate representation across all 6 areas of our core curriculum (social, clinical, cognitive,
developmental, behavioral neuroscience, and methodology). This resulted from the specific focus of
our hiring plan on building/sustaining our graduate programs. At retreats in March 2012 and
January 2014, our faculty endorsed the idea of prioritizing our next requests for lines in order to
contribute to undergraduate needs within the Social and Methodology areas of our curriculum (see
section XII, Future Plans).
11
Table 2. Composition and Roles of Faculty Full time, Tenure Track Faculty
Last name Name
Doctoral-granting
Institution Rank Curriculum Content Area
Graduate
Affiliation
1 Abdullah Tahirah
University of
Kentucky Assistant Professor clinical Clinical
2 Adams Jane New Mexico State University Full Professor neuroscience DBS
3 Blaser Erik
University of
California, Irvine Associate Professor cognitive DBS
4 Carter Alice
University of
Houston Full Professor clinical/developmental Clinical
5 Ciaramitaro Vivian
University of
Pennsylvania Assistant Professor cognitive/developmental DBS
6 Dawes Nickki University of Illinois
Assistant Professor clinical/developmental Clinical
7 Donaldson Tiffany
Northeastern
University Associate Professor neuroscience DBS
8 Eisenhower Abbey
University of California Los
Angeles Assistant Professor clinical/developmental Clinical
9
Hayes-
Skelton Sarah
University of
Nebraska Assistant Professor clinical Clinical
10 Hunter Richard Emory University Assistant Professor neuroscience DBS
11 Kaldy Zsuzsa Rutgers University Associate Professor cognitive/developmental DBS
12 Levitt Heidi
York University,
Toronto, Canada Associate Professor clinical Clinical
13 Milburn Michael Harvard Uniersity Full Professor social
14 Moore Celia
Rutgers University
at Newark Full Professor neuroscience DBS
15 Nestor Paul
Catholic University of
America Full Professor clinical/methods Clinical
16 Pantalone David University of WA, Seattle, WA Assistant Professor clinical Clinical
17 Park Jin Ho
U.C. Berkeley Assistant Professor neuroscience DBS
18 Rhodes Jean DePaul University Full Professor clinical/developmental Clinical
19 Roemer Liz
Pennsylvania State
University Full Professor clinical Clinical
20 Shapiro Ester UMass Amherst
Associate Professor clinical Clinical
21 Shukla Mohinish SISSA, Trieste, Italy Assistant Professor cognitive/devel./methods DBS
22 Smith Carol
Harvard University Full Professor cognitive/developmental
23 Suyemoto Karen UMass Amherst Associate Professor clinical Clinical
24 Tronick Ed University of Wisconsin Madison Univ. Dist. Professor developmental/clinical DBS
25 Zup Susan UMass Amherst Assistant Professor neuroscience DBS
Full time, Non Tenure Track Faculty
1 Conrad Sheree
Boston University Full-time, Sr. Lecturer social
2 Kogan Kathryn Rutgers University, NJ Full-time, Sr. Lecturer Undergrad clinical/methods
3 Wainwright Laurel
Boston University Full-time, Sr. Lecturer methods/grad programs
A3. Our Part-time Contingent Faculty
There have been two groups of contingent faculty that have taught as instructors of record in the
Department during the period under review: a) part-time faculty (PT) hired on a course by course basis; and
(b) advanced (post MA) graduate students in our Clinical Program who teach on a half stipend (receive a
second half for other work) in their 4th
and sometimes 5th
year (TA2s) as part of their training and
12
professional preparation. Our contingent faculty teach exclusively in the undergraduate program (with two
exceptions in which part-time instructors have been hired for single offerings of clinical courses) and
currently account for approximately half the instruction in the regular session courses and almost all the
instruction in the courses offered through the College of Advancing and Professional Studies (CAPS). In
Fall 2013, 30% of students in regular session courses were taught by PT faculty, 20% by TA2s and 50% by
FT faculty. The proportion of sections taught by FT faculty was a little lower at 40%, because FT faculty
teach all of the large section courses.
Figure 1. Trends in the Proportion of Students taught by FT, PT, and Graduate
Student (TA2) instructors in the regular session over the last seven academic years.
As shown in Figure 1, the proportion of students taught by TA2 graduate instructors has remained
relatively constant during this time (ranging from 15-20%) while there has been more variation in the
proportions taught by FT and PT faculty (ranging between 30-50%). This variation likely represents
changes in sabbaticals, retirements and medical/family leaves, as well as a growth in students that preceded
the hiring of new FT faculty, thus increasing reliance on PT faculty.
A3a. Part-time, Non-tenure Track Faculty
Although part-time faculty are hired on a course by course basis, the Faculty Staff Union has strong
policies to promote the advancement of PT faculty members and there has been considerable continuity and
stability among the PT teaching faculty for our Department. As a result, we have a highly qualified, very
effective group of Part-time faculty who offer very well-received courses. Union regulations define specific
titles for PT instructors based on a seniority system and also dictate that departments share policies about
hiring qualifications and evaluative and retention criteria with all instructors. Our policies are attached in
Appendix IIID). Briefly, to be hired as a PT instructor, the individual must have an advanced degree in
Psychology, a prior record of teaching, and must provide two letters of recommendation. To be considered
for instruction in upper level courses, the individual must have specific expertise in that area. Student
evaluations are used to judge teaching performance and evaluations are required to fall no lower than the
average range established by fulltime faculty. When low evaluations are identified for post-probationary
faculty (see definition below), a meeting is held between the Associate Chair or Chair and the instructor,
issues are discussed, and a plan for correction during the following semester is put in place. If
improvements are seen, continued routine oversight follows. If performance does not improve, the instructor
13
is no longer prioritized for teaching that course, regardless of seniority. This system has led to the
establishment of a well “groomed”, very strong PT workforce that offers quality teaching.
Our system defines all PT lecturers (Lecturer) as probationary during their first three years of teaching at
UMB during the academic year. If they teach at least one course per year in either regular session or CAPS,
and are favorably reviewed by the Department, the PT Lecturer is then advanced to post-probationary status.
Post-probationary status qualifies instructors for prioritized hiring. After six years of continuous teaching at
UMB, lecturers can be promoted to Lecturer II status and after ten years of teaching, they can be promoted
to Senior Lecturer following a successful review by the College Personnel Committee. Senior Lecturers
qualify for full-time employment and multi-year contracts when available within departments. Since our
2007 AQUAD Review, one of our PT faculty members was promoted to Senior Lecturer and later was hired
as a fulltime, non-tenure track member of the faculty.
Currently, approximately half of our PT instructors, both for regular and CAPS sections, have achieved
post-probationary status, and more than half of the sections taught by PT faculty are taught by post-
probationary instructors. Two more PT instructors are in their third year of teaching for us and will achieve
post-probationary status after this year. Among the remaining PT instructors, most are highly experienced
college instructors who have taught the same course or courses at UMB for multiple semesters. Thus, all of
our PT faculty have a great deal of college teaching experience and most have been through multiple
semesters of evaluation according to our departmental policies. Course evaluations completed by our
students clearly illustrate the quality of teaching delivered by our non-tenure track, part-time instructors as
illustrated by last year’s ratings shown in Table 3 below.
Table 3. A Comparison of Student Evaluations of Courses Taught by Instructors from
Different Categories (on 5 point scale where 5 is highest)
Course Evaluations by
Instructor Category
Fall 12
Course
Quality
Fall 12
Instructor
Effectiveness
Sp 13
Course
Quality
Sp 13
Instructor
Effectiveness
Fulltime tenure-track and
non-tenure track 4.2 4.28
4.28 4.37
Part-time, non tenure-track
(post and pre probationary) 4.2 4.31
3.99 4.12
Graduate Instructors (TA2) 4.16 4.29
4.31 4.41
Course Evaluations by
Instructor Category
Fall 12
Course
Quality
Fall 12
Instructor
Effectiveness
Sp 13
Course
Quality
Sp 13
Instructor
Effectiveness
Further Breakdown of
Part-time by Rank
PT - post probationary 4.2 4.33
4.22 4.33
PT - pre probationary 4.2 4.29
3.76 3.92
It is our experience that our PT instructors enjoy teaching at UMB, and we try to provide the
conditions to make them want to continue. In addition to trying to accommodate the time preferences of our
established instructors, the majority of teaching offers are made 6 months in advance, allowing the PT
instructors to plan their schedules and adequately prepare for their courses.
Table 4 describes our 12 current post-probationary PT lecturers with respect to their educational
backgrounds and courses they have taught. Ten of the 12 have taught for us during the entire seven-year
14
period under review, while two began teaching for us in 2008-2009 AY. Their full biosketches appear in
Appendix IIIE.
Table 4. Part-time, Post Probationary Instructors: Background and Courses Name Hiring
date
Degree-granting institution Courses Offered
Gregory Buchanan 2002 PhD - University of Pennsylvania Statistics, Behavioral Neuroscience
Prassede Calabi 2004 PhD - Boston University Biological Foundations of Behavior;
Evolution and Behavior
Carolyn Cohen 1999 PhD - University of Minnesota Introductory Psychology, Behavioral
Neuroscience, Psychopharmacology
Bob Daniele 2002 MA, Northeastern University Introductory Psychology, Infancy and
Childhood Development, Adolescence
Tracy Dunne 2005 PhD – Boston University Introductory Psychology, Learning and
Memory, Neuropsychology; Psychology
of Aging
Rebecca Hencke 2002 PhD – Harvard University Infancy and Child Develop.,
Adolescence, Family and Child
Maxine Krengel 2009 PhD – SUNY Albany Research Methods, Behavioral
Neuroscience
Steve Millman 1997 PhD – Boston College Introductory Psychology, Research
Methods, Personality, Social
Psychology
Stan Morse 2004 PhD - University of Michigan Cross-Cultural, Social, Psych of Law
Marcus Patterson 2002 MA/ABD – Boston University Introductory Psych, Research Methods,
Personality, Family and Child, Trauma,
Exp Methods: Abnormal and
Personality
Margaret Vaughan 2009 PhD – Tufts University Intro Psych, Infancy and Child, Family
and Child, Field Placement: Child Dev
LeShelle Woodard 2003 PhD – UMass Boston Intro Psych, Personality, Abnormal,
Group Dynamics, Trauma
A3b. Graduate Student Instructors (TA2s)
Our graduate students in the Clinical Program first gain teaching experience as Teaching Assistants (TA
1s) in their first year. Each typically teaches two discussion sections for Intro Psych each semester, where
they are closely mentored by the FT faculty instructor for Psych 101. On occasion, 1 or 2 of the first year
cohort of 8 students may serve as TAs for large sections of Personality or Abnormal or possibly other
courses for which their backgrounds make them well-suited. Clinical graduate students then go on to teach
their own course in their 4th
year, both in the fall and spring semesters, while receiving instruction and
supervision through a teaching seminar and observation. In recent years, the instructor has been Laurel
Wainwright, a highly regarded FT, non-tenure track member of our faculty. Dr. Wainwright begins
working with the students in the summer by assisting in the design of their syllabi, and then provides
instruction and supervision weekly throughout the first semester of their teaching (fall). This includes
observing their teaching in the classroom. The success of her expert mentoring and the abilities of our
graduate students are evident in the very high quality of their syllabi and the outstanding course evaluations
they receive (see Table 3 above). Some of these students go on to teach in the Summer sessions after their
4th
year teaching experience, and/or in their 5th
year, when they may teach the same course or a different
one, involving new course preparation. This allows them time to hone and refine their teaching skills and
repertoire, and prepares them well for positions in academia.
Our new graduate students in the DBS Program now serve as Teaching Assistants in their first and
second year of graduate study, primarily serving as TAs for large lecture courses (Infancy and Child, Social,
Adolescence, Learning & Memory, Perception, Behavioral Neuroscience, Statistics) as well as helping with
Advising, Proctoring, and other Departmental teaching needs. So far, the DBS Program is only in its second
15
year, so none have reached the 4th
year in which they may teach their own course under similarly supervised
conditions as described above.
B. Special Challenges for Faculty
B1. Special challenges for all full-time, tenure track faculty
We are quite pleased to have had support from the Administration to grow our faculty and to do so
under conditions of reduced teaching loads, relative to the prevailing 3:3 environment in the early years of
this evaluation period. Until the scheduling of the Spring 2013 courses and the switch to the 2:2 system, our
department was allowed to manage our faculty workload and the delivery of programmatic offerings
through a workload system in place since 1995. The system provided a point structure for rating faculty
productivity across all areas and the points earned were used to determine the award of courseload releases.
This system ended with the implementation in CLA of the 2:2 teaching load in Spring 2013 (previously
present in several other colleges on campus). We are also quite pleased to be surrounded by buildings under
construction, renovation, and repair as the University works to achieve its strategic initiatives. Upon future
completion, the Integrated Sciences Complex (fall 2014) and the General Academic Building (fall 2016)
will address many of our needs associated with limited physical laboratory and classroom resources. In the
past 7 years, however, our primary challenges and institutional shortcomings have related to difficulties and
delays in the fulfillment of commitments for the allocation of research laboratory space to newly hired
faculty, for the allocation of programmatic space for the nascent doctoral program in the Developmental and
Brain Sciences, and for the expected budgetary allocations for the DBS Program. In spring 2010, we
received beautifully renovated space (3rd
floor, Science Building) that provides a wet lab for two of our
junior faculty (one began in January 2010; one in September 2008). We are also pleased to have just
(February 20, 2014) moved into newly renovated space that provides an area for DBS graduate student
offices, an office for the DBS Program Administrator, and a DBS classroom (DBS Program began in Fall
2012). The newly renovated area also provides 3 new “dry” laboratories for faculty, one who joined us in
September 2012. We look forward to the completion of the Integrated Sciences complex which will provide
new labs for our DBS faculty as well as several other faculty doing clinical developmental or
neurophysiological studies – 13-15 of our faculty will have labs in the ISC. Our offices will remain in the
McCormack Building, but faculty labs will be distributed across several buildings, some in McCormack,
some in the Science Building, some in Wheatley, some in the Integrated Sciences Building. We made the
choice to keep our offices in one location in order to preserve the shared community environment for all of
our faculty.
B2. Special Challenges for Assistant Professors
Like all Assistant Professors, ours face the demands of needing to quickly establish their research
programs while developing new courses and engaging in service to prepare for tenure. While our assistant
professors have benefitted from start-up packages, getting started efficiently with respect to effort and time
requires adequate technical and administrative staff support both within departments and throughout the
University. For some faculty whose research utilizes sophisticated instrumentation for human or animal
testing, there is the challenge of selecting and purchasing equipment within the constraints of state-approved
vendors. Navigating our system and setting up a new laboratory in a timely manner is fully dependent on
budgetary, staff and administrative support, as well as on having the laboratory space ready for setup. Of
our current 10 Assistant Professors, all have received their start-up funding according to schedule. Seven of
the 10 have had laboratory space within the first semester of arrival and 3 have had delays of 9 months to 2
years. Not having space immediately upon arrival delays ordering, preparation, planning, and set-up and
this adversely affects the initiation of research studies and progress towards tenure. In one case, it precluded
the new faculty member from continuing collaborative studies begun as a post-doc, and the studies were
then re-assigned to a newer post-doc at the institution, thereby also ending the collaboration. All of our
16
Assistant Professors have experienced delays and frustration related to inadequate, campus-wide staff
support. Within our department, our technical support staff who assist with selection and purchasing of
computers and experimental equipment consist of two people, the number we have had for over 10 years.
During this period our faculty have grown in number, but more importantly, the number of labs using
equipment beyond computers has increased dramatically (see Materials and Resources, Section XI). This
introduces delays and frustration.
For other faculty whose research involves community engagement, a challenge relates to establishing
the necessary contacts in the community. This requires time just to lay the foundation for doing the
research. Many of these individuals are also clinical faculty who may face the challenge of licensure in
Psychology. To become licensed in Clinical Psychology in Massachusetts is quite demanding with a
requirement for 1600 post-doctoral hours earned through supervised clinical work that must occur at a
minimum of 16 hours/week. These hours must be earned before the written and oral licensing exams can be
taken.
All Assistant Professors face the challenge of successfully obtaining funding for their research in a
highly competitive environment that demands substantial pilot work. Those who are actively submitting
grants or have obtained grants face the challenges of inadequate, though much improved, grant support.
Within our department (since 2009), we are very fortunate to now have a Grant Administrator who assists
with pre- and post award needs. The Office of Research and Sponsored Programs has improved but remains
problematic. They have had significant staff turnover and have not yet met many of their goals.
B3. Special Challenges for Mid-Career Faculty
Mid-career faculty face similar challenges in competing for external grant awards while also taking on
heavier Advising loads, increased mentoring of graduate and undergraduate students, mentoring of junior
faculty, and more, as well as more demanding, service responsibilities. Many internal grant programs are
designed for junior faculty, or have restrictions that may reduce the likelihood that a mid-career professor
will qualify.
B4. Special Challenges for Full Professors
Once promotion to full has been achieved, demands for service and mentoring escalate. Professors who
have had active research laboratories face the pressures of keeping staff employed and keeping the research
going through external funding during these trying times. Our research infrastructure as well as over-
extended departmental and university staff create difficulties for smooth operation even for our most
experienced faculty.
B5. Special Challenges for Full-time, Non-Tenure Track Faculty
Our three full-time, non-tenure track faculty have contracts that emphasize teaching and service. Non-
tenure track faculty in our department that are hired on full-time contracts are required to teach 3 courses
and do service (otherwise full-time for NTT faculty is defined as 4 courses). Particular strains and stresses
for this group relate to the ambiguity of their roles with respect to serving as equals alongside the tenure-
track faculty within the context of teaching, but not always qualifying to be part of programs or funds set
aside for research or travel for tenure-track faculty. Our full-time, NTT faculty are expected to attend
department meetings just as tenure-track do, and have equal privileges with respect to voting. They are also
expected to contribute to departmental service, the magnitude of which varies tremendously. Dr.
Wainwright, for example, carries very heavy loads both for the undergraduate and the Clinical doctoral
program.
17
C. Supportive Resources and Structures
C1. Supports for all departmental faculty
Our University and College administrators are keenly aware of the challenges that have been described,
and the difficulties of addressing initiatives for growth while maintaining the excellence of established and
approved programs, and following through on commitments to programs, departments, and faculty,
especially newly hired faculty recruited on behalf of the University’s vision and strategic plans. As a result,
many supportive mechanisms have been initiated. In the text that follows, some of these support structures
will be described, along with our own departmental approaches to facilitating optimal development towards
tenure goals, faculty productivity, success, and retention of an exceptional faculty. We will first consider
supports that are often relevant to faculty at all levels: our departmental research and grantsmanship
infrastructure; college and University research supports and internal grants; departmental and college level
Advising supports; departmental and college level supports for offload mentoring activities; and
departmental, college, and University level (including Union) supports for faculty development. That being
said, certain programs are biased towards tenure-track Assistant Professors and some exist only for them.
Thus, we will also discuss the Assistant Professor supports in a separate category.
C1a. Departmental research and grantsmanship infrastructure
The primary elements of our infrastructure are our technical staff and our budgetary resources, the
Research Trust Fund (RTF), emergent from the indirect from grants held by our faculty. With respect to
staff, we have a fulltime Director of Labs and an Assistant Director of Labs (supported by the Dean’s Office
since 1998), work-study students or part-time staff that provide technical support (supported by the
department, partly from curricular funds, partly by monies from the RTF account), and a fulltime Grant
Administrator (supported by the Dean’s Office since 2009). Further description of our staff, their roles and
responsibilities, and the need for more will be presented in section X. Departmental Staff). Here we will
focus on our use of the RTF account as the financial backbone of our research infrastructure.
The Research Trust Fund (RTF) account exists due to a longstanding agreement under which our
department receives 15% of the indirect from grants held by principal investigators (70% goes to the
University administration, 10% to the Dean’s Office, 5% to the Principal Investigator, and 15% to the home
department). Our departmental RTF account allows us to provide a helpful research infrastructure for all of
our faculty. Understanding our historical use of this account was a major goal of our March 2012 retreat
and a major undertaking! At that retreat, we examined utilization and re-instated the activity of a then
defunct RTF committee which later was formed, charged, and then developed operating guidelines (see
Appendix IIIF). The proportional expenditures of RTF monies across certain categories have remained
similar to that depicted in the figure below as taken from the 2012 retreat.
As shown in Figure 2, our Funds are used to provide statistical and database management software,
server storage for experimental data (including video and other large datafiles), many basic supplies for
human and animal research studies, maintenance and repair for fundamental research equipment,
contributions to the purchase of some equipment that several investigators share (freezers; surgical tools;
storage units; video and audio recording equipment), certain minimal space renovation that increases the
functionality or potential for sharing our laboratory space, purchase of storage units, support of a technical
assistant, the purchase and support for the use of a large format printer for the printing of posters delivered
at scientific meetings, supports for certain publication costs, replacements for stolen equipment, small
contributions to costs associated with student research, maintenance of laboratory classrooms, and coverage
of basic costs for our seminar series (refreshments; parking coverage for the speaker; small honoraria). Our
departmental RTF also serves as a resource from which we contribute to start-up packages for new faculty.
18
Likewise, the departmental (though primarily the PI share of our RTF monies) are used as bridge funds to
try to keep labs alive during periods between grants.
Figure 2. Expenditures from the Research Trust Fund
C1b. College- and University-based Research and Grantsmanship Infrastructure
Of greatest significance to the initial conduct of the research necessary to establish one’s lab or
community-based scholarship, is the start-up package awarded at hire and the laboratory provided for the
conduct of research. These will be described in the Assistant Professor category below. Annual supports
available to all, however, include internal grant programs and research and travel funds.
At the college level, the Dean’s Office provides competitively-awarded Research and Travel Grants as
well as a Dean’s Discretionary Fund that supports costs associated with a seminar by a nationally-or
internationally recognized expert, or potentially any unanticipated need or opportunity. Since the 2012-2013
academic year, the Faculty and Staff Union has provided a $1000 travel award for each faculty member to
use for conference/workshop attendance and presentation. Through the Office of Research and Sponsored
Programs (ORSP), the two primary internal grant programs are the Healey Grant (up to $7000) and the
Proposal Development Grant (from $7000 – $15000 depending on the number of investigators and their
affiliations). ORSP has also recently begun to provide training and support on the use of various search
engines for public and private grant sources.
The ORSP also is responsible for pre- and post-award of all external grants. They are insufficiently
staffed to meet the needs of researchers, particularly with respect to post-award set-up and management.
This has introduced numerous delays in access to grant funding and has produced considerable frustration
for faculty. Problems are recognized and are being addressed, but resolution is challenged by insufficient
numbers and salaries for grant administrative staff. As we understand it, low salaries coupled with high
workload are a major impediment to retention. University level support of the ORSP has been insufficient
to address this issue or others such as the absence of funds that could be used as bridge funds. Funds from
the departmental and P.I. share of the RTF are not adequate for this purpose, and the university has no
general fund available that can be awarded without payback to maintain staff or research activities, even for
those with substantial grant award histories. Further there is no fund to replace broken or stolen equipment,
data loss due to institutional facilities problem (e.g. heating or cooling failures that “contaminated” data
19
from a cohort of animals), and no fund to provide coverage of grant staff on medical leave. These problems
are recognized, and it is our understanding that they are being addressed as part of the re-negotiation of our
federal indirect rate.
The University’s Developmental Sciences Research Center (Dr. Celia Moore, Director) has also
awarded internal grants to purchase equipment for use by faculty in the developmental sciences, and has
provided internal grants for interdisciplinary collaborations. Members of our faculty have benefitted by the
purchase of animal caging systems, eye tracking equipment, an animal activity monitoring system, and
collaborative projects with both Physics and Biology.
The departmentally-based, P20 Center, the HORIZON Center for Health Equity (Celia Moore, P.I.) has
also been a major source of support for our research infrastructure. Not only has it been a major contributor
to the departmental RTF, it has also funded large and small grants and other research activities, supported
graduate and undergraduate students, supported seminars and training workshops, elevated attention to
health disparities, and supported multiple community outreach efforts.
C1c. Departmental and College Level Advising Approaches and Supports
The 2007 AQUAD Review Team specifically named Advising as an area of over-load for our
faculty. Since that time our undergraduate degree programs have increased from nearly 700 to around 1100
majors and we have an increased number of graduate students. While we also have an increased number of
faculty, our faculty to student ratio has not improved: 1:38 in 2007 and now 1:39. Thus, we have continued
to feel the burden of Advising our many student majors as well as classroom students. At the departmental
level, we have adapted to these demands by initiating several new approaches which intersect with and are
interrelated to other Advising activities on campus. The need for Advising supports has been recognized by
the Provost and the Dean of the College of Liberal Arts and in the last several years considerable resources
have been put into a longterm plan for addressing this issue. Currently, we have centralized Advising
support staff within the CLA, active searches for 3 more Advisors, and promised positions for future years.
Current Advisors deal primarily with the needs of transfer students, of returning students, and of
academically struggling students. The new Advising staff will expand the centralized Advising activities,
and one of the new hires will be designated to specifically and exclusively, address the needs of majors in
Psychology. We are quite optimistic that this will make a noticeable difference in our daily activities. In
light of this multi-level approach, let us consider the advising pathway from the student perspective.
Academic advising in the University begins with the University Advising Center, which is responsible
for orienting and advising all entering students and undeclared majors. Once a student declares Psychology
(or Social Psychology) as a major, he or she is assigned a full time faculty member in the Department as
their Advisor. Although the initial assignment is random, students are free to change their advisor at any
time if they identify another faculty member they prefer. Our goal is to link students with a faculty member
who can provide the best advice for their academic and career goals.
Because a large percentage of our majors come to the department as transfer students, it is worthwhile to
outline the ways in which this specific category of students first becomes integrated into our department.
During all transfer students’ orientation sessions, there is a specific period of time when course registration
occurs. Working with the Psychology department over the past two years, the University Advising Center
has grouped Psychology transfer students together so that a faculty member from Psychology can attend the
transfer student registration session to talk about the majors and assist new transfer students in choosing
courses. Further, CLA now provides a Staff Advisor to advise Psychology majors transferring with 45
credits or more. This Advisor addresses the student’s university general education requirements and she is
also knowledgeable about the Psychology degree requirements. This Advisor works closely with a
designated faculty member in the Psychology department to provide early advising that helps to quickly
20
integrate these transfer students into the university. The transfer student transitions to a Faculty Advisor
within the Psychology department within two semesters of arriving at UMass Boston.
When any student enters the Psychology Department Office (by declaration of major or transfer to the
university), they are encouraged to meet with a Departmental Advisor. The new major is likely to meet
first with a member of the professional staff who has academic advising as a major responsibility (currently,
Michelle Browning, M.A.) or with one of several trained graduate students who provide drop-in advising
services as part of their TA responsibilities. The use of several graduate TAs per semester for this purpose
represents a departmental adaptation instituted 3-4 years ago when we started requiring all graduate
instructors of record to also provide several hours per week of Advising. A Drop in advising room (also
used by our Psychology Club and Psi Chi officers) is staffed for four – six hours per day, four days a week
with hours posted each semester. These advising resources, our professional staff member and our
graduate TAs, provide the student with basic information about the department and its programs, and about
relevant resources outside the department. They go over requirements and procedures and evaluate the
student’s degree audit with them, so that the student understands what is required over the course of the
major. Additionally, students are encouraged to consult with their assigned faculty advisor to work out an
academic plan and to discuss academic and career paths. The availability of graduate student TA advisors
has substantially improved our departmental advising program. It has made it possible for an advisor to be
available for much of the time that undergraduates are on campus and has freed up professional staff and
full time faculty from having to address the relatively routine advising questions. It has also facilitated the
actual occurrence of the critical first step in getting students to begin seeing an advisor as a prelude to
having them establish an ongoing relationship with a Faculty Advisor and having them understand the value
of advising. Making advising readily available without an appointment has facilitated this “first step”. The
graduate student advisors then can and do direct more unusual or complex advising questions to the Staff
Advisor, Michelle Browning, or to a designated “experienced” faculty member (currently Laurel
Wainwright, Carol Smith, Associate Chair, and the Chair) prior to the student seeing their assigned faculty
advisor. For the typical student, the pathway is from the staff or graduate advisor to the assigned faculty
advisor.
While students are always encouraged to see their individual faculty advisor or the drop in graduate
student advisors whenever there is a need, the Department mandates this occurrence by placing an advising
hold on the student’s ability to register for courses each semester and removing it only upon the completion
of an advising session. This ensures that every major is seen at least twice a year so that we not only can
discuss course selection but can also monitor the student’s overall progress through the major and the
university requirements.
Another adaptation made by the department is that we provide additional drop-in advising coverage for
the three days immediately prior to the beginning of each registration period and the first full day of
registration. During these four days, the Psychology Conference Room is staffed by fulltime faculty who
provide advising that typically extends from 10:00 AM to 5:30 PM. Faculty advisors are scheduled (usually
in groups of 2 – 3/time block) to cover the day. Students are asked to bring a printed or electronic version
of their university degree audit, the electronic tracking document that outlines all of the student’s degree
requirements. This document is essential in the advising process because it ensures that advisors have
accurate and current information about what degree requirements the student has completed as well as how
the student is progressing towards completion of the degree. This up to date information allows advisors to
notice and address potential “red flags” (e.g., low GPA, course withdrawals, possible avoidance of a critical
university graduation requirement) that might indicate a student is having difficulty. These issues can be
discussed in a timely fashion and when needed the student can be referred to an appropriate resource (e.g.,
Academic Support Services, the Writing Center, the University Counseling Services). At the end of an
advising session, the faculty member or the department staff, under the direction of faculty or trained
graduate student advisors, removes the advising hold. Students are free to meet privately with their advisor
21
during office hours, but scheduling difficulties make the drop-in advising sessions convenient for many, and
allow us to better manage the hoards of students seeking episodic advising in relation to each Registration
period. While students still say “I am here to get my hold removed”, we know that many goals are actually
accomplished. We also expect that the growth of centralized advising within CLA will streamline and
improve the advising pipeline.
All references above to our degree audit system, online Registration system, and the students’
knowledge of their own assigned Faculty Advisor are referring to the use of the WISER system. The 2007
AQUAD Review indicated that it was perceived as an awful system and indeed it was at initial roll-out.
Over the years however it has become a user friendly and effective system for the promotion and
management of Advising, for posting the schedule, for registration, and for posting grades. At this stage
and for the last few years, there have been few complaints.
Information about programs, courses, and faculty are available through a variety of sources. A regular,
old-fashioned, bulletin board is maintained to keep majors informed about faculty contact information and
schedules for teaching and office hours, course lists, program description, instructions for registration, and
various other matters. Further, the Department sends an electronic letter to all majors at least once a
semester informing them of any changes that have occurred in the department and providing detailed
instructions about registration and an outline of advising opportunities that are available. We also have a
departmental webpage that provides information about our undergraduate and graduate programs, the
research and teaching interests of faculty, and various departmental activities. It also has links to a variety
of academic and career advising resources.
C1d. Departmental and College Level Supports for Offload Mentoring Activities
As shown in Table 5, our faculty are heavily engaged in the research mentoring of students enrolled in
undergraduate Research Apprenticeship courses (Psych 286; Psych 486), in Honors research (Psych 496,
497), and in the supervision of students enrolled in Directed Study coursework (Psych 488 or 489).
Likewise, our faculty supervise the research activities of Masters and doctoral students doing their theses
and dissertations. These areas of work are associated with a high level of individual undergraduate
enrollments in 3 credit courses (more than 50 enrollments/year) and additional numbers for graduate
Masters and dissertation credits. During the 3:3 period when Psychology was allowed to use a productivity-
based system to award courseload releases, this work was formally acknowledged and credited. However,
these activities do not now contribute to our required teaching load of 2 courses/semester. This inequity is
recognized and the Chair is in negotiation with the Dean and Associate Dean of CLA to determine a system
that will credit an accumulation of research mentoring for the individual faculty member. It is expected that
an approved system will result prior to the site visit by the AQUAD Team in April, 2014.
Table 5. Non-credited Teaching by Faculty
Academic Year 09-10 10-11 11-12 12-13
# Students Enrolled in Research Apprenticeship, Honors Research, and
Directed Study Courses 57 71 87 102
# of Graduate Students 57 61 57 58
22
C1e. Departmental, College, and University Level (including Union) Support for Faculty
Development
At the departmental level, faculty development is facilitated through our mentoring system, through
general collegiality and support, and through transparency of policies and expectations that are conveyed at
department meetings and in individual meetings with the Chair. There is also an annual meeting between
the junior faculty as a group and the Chair. At the college level, a seminar series for junior faculty meets
regularly each year and the faculty not only get to know each other and to discuss shared concerns, but they
make presentations about their work to their peers. Likewise, the meetings provide a forum for discussion
about policies and expectations and for the identification of perceived ambiguities or inconsistencies in
“messaging”. These issues are then brought to the Chairs’ attention and addressed at a meeting of the CLA
Chairs. This seminar precipitated the recognition of the need for a more formal, enduring structure.
The University Office for Faculty Development was established in the Spring of 2011 by the Provost.
The Office has quickly initiated and delivered many supportive programs and resources for Chairs and
faculty that provide orientational materials for tenure-track and non-tenure track faculty, how-tos for many
tasks, policies for the use of Teaching Assistants, explanation of promotion policies, and, in general,
information that assists faculty at all career levels. They have recently established a writing lounge that is
regularly available as a quiet haven, with coffee and snacks, where faculty can go to work on writing
without interruption from colleagues and students. They have also offered discussions for mid-career
faculty. Workshops and seminars addressing the characteristics and challenges of related to teaching our
student body have also been offered. As previously mentioned, the Faculty and Staff Union now annually
provides a $1000 travel award for each faculty member to use for conference/workshop attendance and
presentation. While many universities for many years have had many of the things that have been described
in this section on Faculty, for us, they are new and are appreciated and accepted as a positive sign of the
changing campus climate.
C2. Special Supports for Junior Faculty
C2a. Mentoring of Junior Faculty
Our department couples all new hires with an established faculty member (sometimes two) for the
purpose of providing a daily resource for all questions, but, most importantly for providing a resource on
teaching issues as well as research and grantsmanship concerns. The latter sometimes is best served by two
different individuals. If research is community-based, we try to foster mentoring pairings that can assist
with introductions to members of the community beyond the university. If research is lab-based, we try to
foster mentoring at least at the level of human versus animal work and ideally at a more area-specific level.
Our current pairings are shown in the Table 6 below.
In addition to this form of mentoring, the Chair meets with each junior faculty member annually to go
over general progress and meets with all collectively to address any questions or concerns. Meetings are
also held every semester surrounding teaching and scheduling plans. The Chair has a somewhat open door
policy during certain hours, and, in reality, within the first 4 years for most faculty, meets with them
impromptu at least monthly in person as well as through frequent email consultations. During these
interactions, certain issues surrounding accommodations made for junior faculty are often discussed.
23
Table 6. Departmental Mentors for Junior Faculty
Assistant Professor Area of Expertise Faculty Mentor
Tahirah Abdullah Clinical; cross-cultural Karen Suyemoto
Vivian Ciaramitaro Cognitive developmental Carol Smith and Zsuzsa Kaldy
Nickki Dawes Clinical developmental; adolescent
intervention
Karen Suyemoto and
Jean Rhodes
Abbey Eisenhower Developmental and clinical; early
intervention
Alice Carter
Sarah Hayes-Skelton Clinical; anxiety disorders Liz Roemer
Richard Hunter Behavioral neuroscience Ed Tronick (and Jin Ho Park)
David Pantalone Clinical; cross cultural Liz Roemer
Jin Ho Park Behavioral Neuroscience Paul Nestor and Tiffany
Donaldson
Mohinish Shukla Cognitive developmental Erik Blaser and Paul Nestor
Susan Zup Behavioral Neuroscience Jane Adams
C2b. Accommodations for Junior Faculty
Our department tries to reduce the teaching and service workload for junior faculty as much as possible
to allow more time for scholarship and the development of teaching excellence. Simultaneously, we try to
groom them in each area towards a successful tenure. The mentors, graduate program directors, and the
Chair are all part of this system. Service responsibilities are limited in the first year and then we try to place
new faculty on a more labor intensive departmental committee that they may then Chair in year 4 or prior to
tenure. In the first year or two, the Chair tries to protect new faculty from requests for college or University
service by telling them to first discuss those things with their mentor, GPD, or with the Chair. The Chair
assumes the role of naysayer on behalf of new faculty if the request is too demanding in the context of their
workload. Also, our University is fairly hierarchical such that the culture dictates that requests should first
come through the Chair to the junior faculty, although this is not universally upheld. Prior to tenure, we do
try to make sure that Assistant Professors have engaged in college and/or university level service.
With respect to teaching, our department (Chair, Associate Chair, and GPDs) tries to make assignments
that allow the faculty member to engage in teaching at two, or sometimes 3 levels prior to tenure:
undergraduate small section (core or elective); undergraduate large section core course; undergraduate
course that they have introduced; graduate level course. We also encourage all junior faculty to take
advantage of the university’s instructional support courses and workshops.
With respect to research and scholarship, all 10 of our current Assistant Professors were hired with
significant start-up packages ranging from a figure in the $100,000 – $175,000 range to upwards of
$400,000 when particular research equipment/instrumentation was required and would also be of major
benefit to collaborating departmental investigators. The Dean’s Office and the Provost have covered the
majority of these expenses and the department has also contributed significantly to specific start-up
packages through our RTF holdings.
C2c. Instructional support programs provided by the University
For many years now, the Center for Innovative Teaching (CIT) has offered semester-long programs
designed to improve the quality of teaching by tenure-track faculty. We encouraged all of our new faculty
to enroll and the CIT provided a courseload release (CLR) to those who participated. As a result, all but our
newest hires have benefitted greatly from these very well-respected and highly effective programs.
Coincident with the move to the 2:2 however, the CIT stopped providing a CLR to participants and
participation rates fell. It is our understanding and hope that the CLR will be re-instated. In the seminar, all
24
aspects of teaching were addressed from the formulation of a strong syllabus to the elements of a good
lecture to the features of a good exam. Participants developed and delivered products, received peer
feedback, and seemed to become inspired and enlightened to become better instructors. The CIT has now
extended its semester program offerings to non-tenure track faculty and its range of activities to include
brief workshops and lectures. It is an excellent resource in this arena.
Another instructional support program, the Civic Engagement Scholars Initiative (CESI), is designed to
cultivate a lifelong commitment to engagement in service work in public and private settings. The program
provides support for faculty to invest the time in developing a community partnership and introducing a
civic engagement component to an existing or new course. Competitive grants of up to $8000 are awarded
to successful applicants.
C2d. Grantsmanship-focused programs
Coordinated and supported by the Office of the Vice-Provost for Research and Dean of Graduate
Studies, a series of workshops focused on research development and mentoring of junior faculty was
initiated in 2008. During academic years 2012 and 2013, four, six week workshops focused on developing
research skills and competencies and grantsmanship were offered. A major goal of these ongoing
workshops, facilitated by the Associate Vice Provost for Research with participation of senior faculty from
several disciplines, is to assist junior faculty in the development and implementation of their programs of
and scholarship.
The Director of the University’s Developmental Sciences Research Center, Dr. Celia Moore, a professor
in our department, has also co-led with Dr. Ed Tronick, a University Distinguished Professor in our
department, a regularly offered seminar series on grantsmanship. The particular value of this series is that
they not only went over general features of grant announcements, their interpretation, and the need for
highly tailored responding, but Dr. Tronick openly aired his dirty laundry. He shared unsuccessful
applications, negative critiques, more than one round of revised submissions, and ultimately successfully
funded proposals. This approach was highly effective in showing naïve new faculty what the process looks
like from start to finish, of reducing the “damaged ego” aspects of failures, and of emphasizing the essential
requirement for perseverance. While this seminar was established for developmental researchers, it was
opened to all junior faculty in several relevant departments, and many of our new faculty attended it. It
generated intellectual as well as pragmatic conversation as well as facilitated a sense of supportive
community among the attendees who presented their grant proposal plans and comfortably critiqued each
other. Participants evaluated this seminar/workshop as a remarkable success.
D. The Intellectual Environment for the Faculty (and students)
During our period of rapid growth, we specifically and successfully recruited new faculty with the goal
of creating research clusters that would support intellectual satisfaction as well as potential collaborations.
Likewise, the Developmental Sciences Research Center brought developmental faculty together across
colleges to facilitate the identification of mutual interests and CLA enhanced its efforts to aggregate and
address the needs of junior faculty. These things have all seemingly contributed to a greater knowledge of
peer colleagues among our junior faculty than has historically been the case, to greater interaction across
departments, and to more collaborations. Mixed in there somewhere are also, no doubt, the outgoing
personalities of some of our own newest hires. At any rate, while we do not yet have the intellectual climate
that one would expect at a research university, we are clearly moving in that direction. Among our DBS
faculty, several regularly attend lab meetings and seminars held by colleagues at MIT and, indeed
collaborations have been established and funded (Dr. Zsuzsa Kaldy received a grant from MIT’s Broad
Center and Foundation). Our faculty have been invited to give talks at several area universities where
colleagues recognize their impressive expertise in multiple areas. Our faculty in Cognitive Science have
25
established a colloquium series that has featured local, national, and international speakers (see Appendix
IIIG for a listing of speakers and titles from the Talks in Cognitive Science Series (TICS). Our faculty in
Behavioral Neuroscience, led by Assistant Professor Susan Zup, have established a vibrant undergraduate
and graduate Neuroscience Club that involves psychology as well as biology students, and holds meetings
where articles are presented and discussed. These are the exciting, more commonly occurring signs of the
intellectual climate within our university and integrated with other academic institutions in the surrounding
city.
Within the department, the energies of new faculty assigned as Colloquium Coordinators have
invigorated our departmental colloquium series so that we now routinely have 3-6 talks/year (see Appendix
IIIH for a listing). Our graduate programs have also influenced the selection of topics for the colloquia, and
the Clinical Program has sponsored speakers and training workshops on our campus (see Appendix III I).
As shown in these appended tables, we now have many offerings that are the fruits of our new hires and our
graduate programs, most of which are available for faculty, students, and the university community-at-large.
E. Faculty Scholarship and Funding
In the context of the many supports as well as challenges, our faculty continue to be highly
productive as is evident in a perusal of their biosketches (see Appendix IIIC). As noted previously,
we have become increasingly more research intensive with increased external funding and the
establishment of two Centers, the HORIZON Center for Health Equity (Celia Moore, Director and
P.I.) and The Center for Evidence-Based Mentoring (established in 2011, Jean Rhodes, Director and
P.I.). The HORIZON Center is housed within our department while the Mentoring Center is housed
at the University and CLA level.
Appendix IIIJ shows our external research grant profile over the period under review. This table
includes the funding to the HORIZON Center since it is housed within our department. From
federal as well as private sources during the last 7 years, our faculty have achieved external funding
awards that total $17,994,621 (direct plus indirect). Additionally, there have been 13 or more
internal research grants. Appendix IIIK provides a description of the individual projects that have
been funded under the umbrella of the HORIZON Center. Appendix IIIL lists the award sources for
the Center for Evidence-Based Mentoring. While this center is not housed within the department, it
is directed by Dr. Jean Rhodes, a member of our faculty and it has provided support to multiple
graduate and undergraduate students.
Scholarly output has also been quite high from our faculty. Based on last year’s Annual Faculty Reports
covering activities in the 2012-2013 academic year, fulltime faculty published 64 journal articles, submitted
46 papers, published 19 book chapters and submitted 10 more. In addition to this activity, many
presentations and posters were delivered at conferences.
IV. Students, Enrollments, and Curricular Opportunities
Goals for undergraduate teaching
To provide our majors with: a) a high quality introduction to the core academic areas in psychology; b) an in depth
education in one or more of these areas; and c) the knowledge and skills needed to think about psychological processes as
scientists.
To provide a curriculum that creates graduates who: a) have gained an understanding of the ways in which psychological
theories and the research process are connected; b) have gained an understanding of the ways psychological research is
conducted; c) have gained familiarity with the ways major ideas in psychology have emerged from knowledge from
philosophy, biology, and social sciences in relation to each other; d) have gained a solid grounding in 5 sub-disciplines of
26
psychology (biological, clinical, developmental, cognitive, and social); e) have learned to see the connections that exist
across the different areas of psychology (biological, clinical, developmental, cognitive, and social); and f) have gained an
understanding of the ways that Psychology as a discipline studies human and cultural diversity.
A. Undergraduate Programs and Requirements
Our undergraduate programs include a major in Psychology with two degree tracks (B.A. and
B.S.), a major offered jointly with the Sociology Department (B.A. in Social Psychology), an
interdisciplinary minor in Cognitive Science (since fall 2007), and a minor in Psychology. Since
2007, we have operated with the same set of requirements for these programs. Our degree programs
for majors have the following characteristics:
a hierarchically, structured curriculum with level-appropriate attention to overall learning
goals in introductory, intermediate core, and advanced courses;
a distribution of core courses across the central domains of knowledge in the discipline;
integration of level-appropriate quantitative and other research skills into the major through a
sequence of required and optional research courses;
integration of level-appropriate writing as a means of learning throughout the curriculum;
a required capstone in the senior year, including courses that require substantial synthetic
papers; courses that offer research or internship opportunities; and individually mentored
research experiences.
The requirements and details for our degrees are described in the following text and tables.
A1. Bachelor of Arts Degree in Psychology
The Psychology major is a 12 course major. These 12 courses provide students with a foundation in
each of five core areas of the discipline of psychology, upper level coursework in one or more areas and
basic information about the research practices used in the field. We encourage students to take more than
the minimum number of courses in psychology and allied disciplines. Only one of the 12 required classes
may be taken pass/fail; the other 11 classes must be taken for a grade. Eight of the 12 courses for the major
must be taken in residence at UMass Boston.
The basic hierarchical structure of the major is represented by four levels (see Table 7). Level 1,
Introduction to Psychology acts as a prerequisite for all other Psychology coursework. Level 2, Introduction
to Research Methods, focuses on the research methods used across all subdisciplines within Psychology.
While the Research Methods course does not have to be taken immediately after the introductory course, we
strongly encourage students to take the research methods course early in the major. Level 3, Intermediate
Core Courses, have 100 or 101 as a prerequisite. Additionally, Psych 360 requires either Psych 105,
Introduction to Biological Psychology, or a college level biology course. Students complete the intermediate
level course work by taking one course in each of the five areas. These courses provide students with more
in depth information about each of the main specialty areas within psychology. There are no requirements
regarding the order in which these courses are taken. Finally, Level 4 Advanced Electives are 300 and 400
level courses that expand upon knowledge established in the intermediate core courses and each advanced
elective has at least one intermediate level course as a prerequisite (as well as Introduction to Psychology
and Introduction to Research Methods). Students can choose to concentrate their advanced course work
within a single area or they can select from advanced courses in more than one area. All majors must have
at least three advanced level courses but many students choose to have more. Among these three advanced
courses at least two must be at the 400 level. One of the 400 level courses must meet the capstone
requirement. Capstone criteria include a grade of C- or better in a 400-level course taken in residence after
completing at least 3 of the 5 intermediate core requirements. The third advanced course could be at the 300
level but cannot be one of the courses designated as an intermediate level core as listed above. In addition
27
to these requirements at each of the 4 levels, students are free to choose 2 additional electives from any level
of the curriculum.
Table 7. Requirements for the B.A. in Psychology__________________________________
Level 1. Introduction to Psychology (1 course required)
Psych 100 (3 credits; 35 person sections) or 101(4 credits, large enrollment (120-200), with Discussion Section
of 25 students)
Level 2. Methods Psych 201 – Introduction to Research Methods (35 person sections)
Level 3. Intermediate Core Content Areas and Courses (5 courses – at least 1 in each content area) – all
offered as 35 person or 90 person sections
Biological Psychology (1 course) Psych 360 – Behavioral Neuroscience
Cognitive Psychology (2 course options) Psych 350 – Learning and Memory or
Psych 355 – Perception
Clinical Psychology (2 course options) Psych 300 – Personality or
Psych 315 – Abnormal Psychology
Developmental Psychology (2 course options) Psych 341 – Infancy and Child Psych
Psych 342 – Adolescence
Social Psychology (1 course) Psych 330 – Social Psychology
Level 4. Advanced Level Courses (3 courses required with many options offered) – all offered as 25 person
sections except for certain special courses capped at 15 or individually mentored
Additional Electives: (2 courses from any level)
Majors must also take at least 2 additional courses from any level of the curriculum.
______________________________________________________________________________
A2. Bachelor of Science in Psychology
Major requirements for the B. S. degree include departmental as well as University requirements. At the
departmental level, the requirements for the B.A. must be taken with the further specification that B.S.
students must complete Psych 270: Psychological Statistics and a 400-level Experimental Methods course.
Our Experimental Methods courses are hands-on lab courses which are offered in 4 areas of the curriculum
(Social; Clinical; Cognitive; and Biological). Students pursuing the B. S. must also take Introductory
Biology for majors (Biology 111-112), Calculus (Mathematics 135 or 140), and four additional science
courses designed for science majors. These additional requirements are designed to provide a
comprehensive background in the natural sciences to support the emphasis on foundations of psychology.
Students are advised to work towards a B.S. degree if they plan to go on to graduate studies or a career that
requires such a background.
A3. The Bachelor of Arts in Social Psychology
Faculty from Psychology and Sociology have worked together to build and maintain a joint major in
Social Psychology and have worked cooperatively to advise students, schedule courses, and review degree
audits. Students are free to go to either department for advising and an effort is made to share the load. In
Psychology, all faculty may advise students in this major, but questions requiring specific expertise (e.g.,
recommendations for exemptions or exceptions) are referred to special advisors with particular expertise in
the area. Dr. Sheree Conrad of the Department of Psychology and Dr. Reef Youngreen of the Department
of Sociology currently serve as special advisors for this joint major. The major is designed to highlight
social psychology as a product of both parent disciplines (see Table 8). Students take a single sequence of
courses that emphasizes the approaches and concerns psychology and sociology have in common: the
courses are drawn about equally from the two departments. In addition, the course sequence focuses on
how social psychology can be applied to help understand and deal with a variety of social problems and
issues. It is intended to be particularly relevant to students who plan to enter helping professions, such as
social work or counseling; or who are interested in studying ethnic or minority relations; aspects of health
28
care delivery; or organizational training and development. Further, it is relevant to students planning
graduate study in social psychology.
Table 8. Requirements for the B. A. in Social Psychology Required Courses Introduction to Psychology (Psych 101 or 100)
Introduction to Sociology (Soc 101)
Social Psychology (Psych 330) or Society and the Individual (Soc 281)
Sociological Theory (Soc 341)
Introduction to Behavioral Research (Psych 201) or Methods of Sociological Research (Soc 351L)
Psychological Statistics (Psych 270) or Social Statistics (Soc 350)
Behavioral Neuroscience (Psych 360) or Learning and Memory (Psych 350) or Perception (Psych 355)
Three Psychology and three Sociology courses from one of the concentrations below Option 1. Systems and Social Influence (3 Psych and 3 Soc courses)
Psych # Course name Soc # Course name
Psych 333 Group Dynamics Soc 337 Psychol. & Sociology of
Organizations
Psych 339 Psychology of Law Soc 472 Media and Violence
Psych 338 Community Psychology Soc 201 Youth and Society
Psych 234 Psychology of Cross-cultural Relations Soc 382 Sociology of Gender
Psych 335 Social Attitudes & Public Opinion Soc 321 Race and Ethnicity
Psych 403 Gender, Culture & Health Soc 300 Soc. of Media and Mass
Communication
Psy 496/497 Senior Honors Research Soc 431 Sociology of Religion
Soc 478/479 Directed Study
Option 2. The Individual in Social Context (3 Psych and 3 Soc courses)
Psy 350/355 350 Learning & Memory; 355 Perception Soc 386 Sociology of Mental Health & Illness
Psy 341/342 341 Infant & Child Dev. or 342 Adol. Soc 316 Family Violence in America
Psych 315 Abnormal Psychology Soc 362 Juvenile Delinquency
Psych 441 Family & Child Psychology Soc 346 Self in Society: Studies of
Autobiographies
Psych 415 Psychological Trauma Soc 368 Alcohol Epidemiology
Psych 333 Group Dynamics Soc 310 Socialization
Psych 337 Communication and Society Soc 460 Internship in Urban Social Service
Psych 434 Social Perception Soc 478/479 Directed Study in Sociology
Psych 477 Experimental Methods: Social Psych 430 Internship Psych 479 Field Placement: Child Dev. Psych
496/497
Senior Honors Research
The requirements for the major, which had been in place since 1983, were revised and then approved in
Spring 2013 with the goal of increasing the rigor, focus and coherence of the major, as well as its continuing
relevance to the rapidly changing professions it serves. The required number of courses increased from 12 to
a minimum of 13 (39 credits). The increased number of courses has made it possible to require an equal
number of electives in Sociology and Psychology while increasing the number of electives required from
four to six. The required foundational courses have been changed in two regards: (1) all majors must now
take a course in Statistics, either in Sociology or Psychology, (2) while majors must still take one course in
Research Methods, they are no longer required to take Sociology Research Methods but may choose
between that and Psychology Research Methods. In addition, electives are now organized into two coherent,
focused concentrations reflecting areas of competence relevant to students likely to pursue different
graduate training and/or employment options. Students must choose one of two concentrations, Systems and
Social Influence or The Individual in Social Context. Within each concentration, students are required to
take 3 Psychology courses and 3 Sociology courses. Social Psychology majors must complete a capstone
requirement as described for the major in Psychology. Students may meet this requirement by doing their
29
capstone work in either the Psychology or the Sociology Department, with qualifying courses subject to
approval by the joint major advisors. Other restrictions and requirements include: 1) only one course within
the major may be taken pass/fail; a maximum of 2 Sociology courses (6 credits) and 2 Psychology courses
(6 credits) may be transferred from other institutions; only one internship (Psych 430, Psych 479, Psych
496/497,Soc 460 or Soc 478/479) may be applied toward the joint major course sequence.
A4. The Minor in Psychology
The minor in Psychology is designed for students who want a systematic background in Psychology to
complement their major area of study in other departments. It is available to students from the Colleges of
Liberal Arts, Science and Mathematics, and Management. The minor requirements are six courses
distributed as follows: Introduction to Psychology (Psych 101 or 100)
Research Methods (Psych 201) or Statistics (Psych 270)
Two 300 level courses from the Intermediate Core Courses:
Learning and Memory (Psych 350)
Perception (Psych 355)
Behavioral Neuroscience (Psych 360)
Personality (Psych 300)
Abnormal Psychology (Psych 3l5)
Social Psychology (Psych 330)
Infancy and Child Development (Psych 34l)
Adolescence (Psych 342)
Two 300 (not listed above) or 400 level courses
A5. The Minor in Cognitive Science
In Spring 2007, an interdisciplinary minor in Cognitive Science was approved and then enacted in fall
2007. This minor is a joint program between the College of Liberal Arts and the College of Science and
Math. This interdisciplinary field studies the brain and the mind and involves many areas - computer
science, linguistics, philosophy, psychology, anthropology, sociology, biological sciences and engineering.
The goal of the Cognitive Science Minor is to help students from these different disciplines gain both
content knowledge and analytical skills in this field. The minor requires 6 courses and students are also
encouraged to get involved in research through Research Assistantships, Directed Studies, and the Honors
Program. The 6 courses that constitute the minor are shown on the following page. As shown, there are two
specific requirements and 4 courses that can be chosen from many with certain restrictions.
Requirements of the Minor in Cognitive Science REQUIRED COURSES (both)
PSYCH/CS L271 Intro to Cognitive Science
PSYCH Z270 Statistics (or SOCIOL 350, ECON 205, MATH 125, PHYSIC 350)
ELECTIVE COURSES (4 required; 2 must be at the 300 level or above with restrictions) PSYCH 201 Intro to Behavioral Research PHIL 227 Existentialism and Phenomenology PHIL 120 Introduction to Logic PSYCH 341 Infancy & Childhood Devel. PHIL 344 The Philosophy of Mind PHIL 121G Mind and Reality
PSYCH 350 Learning and Memory PHIL 345 Theory of Knowledge CS 470 Intro to Artificial Intelligence
PSYCH 355 Perception PHIL 414 Contemporary Analytic Philosophy CS 478 Independent Study*
PSYCH 360 Behavioral Neuroscience PHIL 478/479 Independent Study* CS 498 Honors Thesis*
PSYCH 346 Language Development BIOL 316 or 318 Neurobiology CS 420 Intro to Computation Theory PSYCH 447 Cognitive Development BIOL 348 Animal Behavior CS 110 Introduction to Computing
PSYCH 450 Cognitive Psychology BIOL 349 Methods in Ethology SOCIOL 101 Introduction to
Sociology PSYCH 460 Neurophys. Higher Cog Processes BIOL 352 Evolution SOCIOL 281 Society & the Individual
PSYCH 462 Psychopharmacology BIOL 478/479 Independent Study* SOCIOL 310 Socialization PSYCH 467 Evolution and Behavior ANTH 105 Introd. to Biological Anthropology SOCIOL 351L Methods Sociol. Res.
PSYCH 466 Hormones and Behavior ANTH 210 Biosocial Bases of Human Behavior SOCIOL 440 Knowledge & Ignorance
PSYCH 455 Adv Topics in Visual Perception ANTH 281 The Structure of Human Language SOCIOL 479 Directed Study* PSYCH 476 Expt Methods: Physiological ANTH 310 Primate Behavior ECON 351 Economic Philosophy
PSYCH 475 Expt Methods: Learning &Percept. ANTH 478/479 Directed Study* LING 310 Syntax: Chomskyian Ling. PSYCH 486 Research Apprenticeship* ANTH 490/491 Independent Research* LING 479 Independent Study*
PSYCH 488/489 Directed Study in Psychology* LING 201 Introduction to Linguistics
PSYCH 496/497 Honors Research* LING 203 Speech Sounds and Theory
30
For the elective courses, at least 3 have to be chosen outside the student’s major discipline(s). Another
restriction is that with approval, 1 course that is * may be taken for fulfillment of the minor.
B. General Characteristics of Our Students and Majors
B1. Demographics
As provided by OIRP and shown in Table 9, our undergraduate students represent the bias towards
females that is seen nationally within the field. As shown in Table 10 (also derived from OIRP tables), with
respect to ethnicity (seen more fully in Appendix IVA.), our undergraduate majors reflect the demographics
of UMass students as a whole.
Table 9. Gender of our Undergraduate Students (2013-2014)
UNDERGRADUATE
MAJOR TOTAL FEMALE MALE
GENDER
NOT
REPORTED
%
FEMALE
Psychology 923 692 230 1 75.00%
Psychology/Sociology 219 178 41 0 81.30%
All Majors 1142 870 271 1 76.18%
Total CLA Undergrad Majors 5,045 2,858 2,176 11 56.7%
Total University Undergrad 12,041 6,751 5,257 33 56.1%
Table 10. Ethnic and International Characteristics (2013-2014) of Our Undergraduate Students
UNDERGRAD MAJOR TOTAL
MINORITY WHITE INTL
NOT
KNOWN
TOTAL
STUDENTS
%
MINORITY
Psychology 406 416 32 69 923 43.9%
Psychology/ Sociology 108 91 4 16 219 49.3%
All Majors 514 507 36 85 1,142 45.0%
Total CLA Undergrad Majors 2,152 2,253 295 345 5,045 42.6%
Total University Undergrad 5100 5,038 1,149 754 12,041 42.4%
B2. Numbers of Majors, Minors, and Degrees Awarded
As shown in Table 11, as our university has grown, our numbers of majors and minors have also
increased. This is particularly noteworthy since in the 7 years prior to the 2007 AQUAD Report, the total
number of majors reported from 2000-2006 was relatively flat with 652 in 2000 and 667 in 2006. As
expected, a growing number of students have also earned degrees in the past 7 years. The data suggests that
about ¼ of our declared majors complete their degrees in any given year.
Table 11. Growth in Number of Undergraduate Majors and Minors and Degrees Awarded Fall
2007
Fall
2008
Fall
2009
Fall
2010
Fall
2011
Fall
2012
Fall
2013
Majors in Psychology (BA & BS) 599 685 732 791 842 873 923
Social Psychology* 168 152 166 196 195 205 219
Total Undergraduate majors 767 837 898 987 1037 1078 1142
Total Minors in Psychology 49 50 69 88 71 90 84
Cognitive Science 0 0 8 13 13 19 20
Psychology 49 50 61 75 58 71 64
31
Fall
2007
Fall
2008
Fall
2009
Fall
2010
Fall
2011
Fall
2012
Fall
2013
Degrees conferred 07/08 08/09 09/10 10/11 11/12 12/13
Psychology (BA & BS) 141 172 174 186 217 219
Social Psychology* 50 38 41 46 56 60
Total Undergraduate Degrees Awarded 191 210 215 232 273 279
* for this purpose, all are counted within Psychology to acknowledge teaching demands
C. Enrollments
As shown in Table 12, each year during regular sessions, our enrollments have increased markedly since
2007. When enrollments through regular and CAPS sections are combined, we now teach about 5000
students during the academic year. Of importance is the growth seen in regular session enrollments and
sections in contrast to the relative stability of offerings through CAPS since 2007.
Table 12. Enrollments and Section Offerings During the Academic Year
D. Scheduling of Course Offerings to Meet Student Needs
D1. Course Regularity and Timing of Offerings to Satisfy the Needs of Our Majors.
Given the several majors and minors that we support, it is critical that we provide sufficient
student advising as previously discussed (see section III. C1c), and that we offer courses according
to a schedule and frequency that allows completion of the degree in a timely manner. A high
percentage of our students work and this means that it is important to offer courses distributed across
day, evening, and Saturday slots, as well as during the summer. Likewise, in order to support our
students’ ability to complete the requirements of the degree within a reasonable timeframe, it is
important that we regularly offer courses across all levels of the curriculum. As previously
discussed, meeting our undergraduate needs requires strong support from contingent faculty and
quality teaching from instructors of all ranks: we provide that.
As can be seen in Table 12 above, in scheduling classes, we try to offer all the courses needed for the
major at a broad range of times both throughout the academic year and during the summer. Table 13 shows
the number of courses at each level that are offered within the regular session. As shown, almost a third of
our sections are at the 100 or 200 level (including research methods and diversity courses), a little more than
a third are intermediate core courses, and just a little less than a third are upper level electives. Thus, our
regular session offerings are fairly balanced across levels. In order to illustrate the availability of our
curriculum for students whose work schedules demand enrollment at non-standard times (regular session
Academic
Year
Total
Enrollment
Total
Sections
Avg
Class
Size
Total
Enrollment
Total
Sections
Avg
Class
Size
Regular Sessions
CAPS
AY 07-08 3432 75 46
465 18 26
AY 08-09 3939 92 43
525 19 28
AY 09-10 4135 105 39
585 24 24
AY 10-11 4356 110 40
632 22 29
AY 11-12 4530 115 39
527 20 26
AY 12-13 4680 126 37
515 22 23
AY 13-14 4667 118 40
517 21 25
32
evening courses, CAPS courses offered on-line, on Saturdays or at off campus sites in the evening), we also
included this information in Table 13. As shown, all levels of the curriculum are available across a wide
range of times.
Table 13. Curriculum Offerings at Standard and “Off-hours” Times
Regular Session: Number of Sections at Each Level
Course Type F10 F11 F12 F13
100 level 9 8 8 8
200 level 9 12 12 11
Intermediate Core 21 21 23 21
Upper Level 15 15 19 18
Sections Offered in the Evening, on Saturday, or Online
Evening*, Sat, On-line F10 F11 F12 F13
100 level 5 4 4 4
200 level 3 3 4 5
Intermediate Core 9 9 8 8
Upper Level 5 4 6 5
* Evening defined as 4 PM or later
All levels of the curriculum are available through summer offerings as well as shown in Table 14. We
also offer a nice balance across the areas of our curriculum in both the intermediate core and upper level
offerings.
Table 14. Trends in Distribution of Sections Across Levels in Summer
D2. Scheduling in the 2:2 and Limited Classroom Environment
As enrollments and numbers of majors have grown, our department has faced an increasingly
competitive environment for access to classrooms, particularly between 8:00 A.M. and 4:00 P.M.
This applies to all departments on campus and has been addressed through the current approach to
scheduling. Likewise, the move to the 2:2 has had programmatic impact. First, let us consider the
current approach to scheduling. Before we create the schedule for an upcoming semester (done in
January for fall, and in late Spring for the Spring semester of the next year), the Dean sends us
enrollment targets, a designated number of sections to offer, the number to be taught by fulltime
faculty, the number that can be taught by PT non-tenure track faculty, and the number that can be
taught by graduate students (based on stipends and can be up to 16 sections when graduate students
are available). These numbers account for upcoming sabbaticals or leaves, upcoming retirements,
and for course releases related to administrative roles or certain hiring contracts (Distinguished
Professor; junior faculty with K99-R00 grants). With the targets and allowances from the Dean, the
course preferences submitted by faculty and graduate students, and the known availability of the PT,
NTT instructors, we then create the schedule within a system that requires that each timeslot have
Sum 07 Sum 08 Sum 09 Sum 10 Sum 11 Sum 12 Sum 13
100-Level 7 6 6 7 6 6 5
200-Level 6 5 7 6 6 6 5
Intermediate
Core 11 12 12 12 11 11 11
Upper Level 3 5 8 8 9 9 9
33
one section before any timeslot has two. This constraint was put into place as a means of addressing
the University classroom shortage while we await the construction/opening of a new classroom
building (now dubbed General Academic Building #1; #2 is being planned as well). The timeslot
restriction makes creating the schedule considerably more difficult while also making the necessary
range of offerings possible. Resolutions of any difficulties that involve needing to change timeslots
also precipitates negotiations with faculty and instructors, and sometimes places courses into less
than ideal times. For some departments, this affects enrollments, but for us that is only minimally
visible. Indeed, most of our regular sections fill, and most have waiting lists during both the fall and
spring semesters. Our only classes that do not always fill to (or beyond) capacity are our special
courses like Internships and upper level Experimental Methods courses. Although these courses
have caps of 15, representing our smallest course offerings, they often enroll only 10-12. There is
some evidence that the Experimental Methods (400 level) courses are less likely to fill when offered
in the 4:00 timeslot compared to earlier. The Internship enrollments are impacted primarily by our
students’ reduced time availability due to their work schedules. The Dean allows these courses to be
offered when enrollments are 8 or more, in recognition of their special course status. None have
been cancelled due to low enrollment during the last 5 years, however, we do engage in active
recruitment when a course is threatened. This has occurred for the JumpStart Internship in recent
years and our efforts have been successful. Thus, the concern from the prior review team about late
cancellations of courses has not been an issue for our department during the last 5 of the prior 7
years.
The College of Liberal Arts move to the 2:2 teaching load system, however, has had impact due
to the approach to its implementation in a revenue-neutral manner, meaning without many additional
sections taught by PT faculty. Within our own Workload Points system that we managed prior to the
2:2 and that provided course releases based on total workload and productivity, our department had
already made adjustments such as offering more large classes. For most CLA departments,
however, the move to the 2:2 forced the offering of large sections for the first time, and for some
disciplines, this has introduced pedagogical concerns. In our department, the biggest impact relates
to our Special courses that have reduced enrollments. In order to meet the enrollment and section
targets provided by the Dean with a limited number of PT instructors, we have had to limit the
number of sections of our Special Courses that are offered in any given semester. That being said,
over the past 7 years, the number of sections of Internship courses that we offer has grown as shown
in Table 15 in the next section that describes our Special Courses. It is now at an asymptotic level,
however, based on the constraints imposed by the 2:2 implementation plan. Further development of
our curriculum through specialized course options for our students is therefore constrained.
Figure 1. Trends in the Proportion of Students taught by FT, PT, and Graduate
Student (TA2) instructors in the regular session over the last seven academic years.
34
Figure 1 was previously shown in the section describing our faculty. It is re-shown above to
show that against the 10-11 numbers of PT, NTT instructors that we used, the number has been
reduced in the last 3 years in preparation for and during the official move to the 2:2. Increased
hiring in our department, however, combined with the conversion of one PT, NTT instructor to
fulltime status, and the availability of advanced graduate students as instructors have provided
relative stability in our teaching workforce and returned us to the 50% level of instruction by
fulltime faculty.
E. Courses that Provide Special Opportunities in Support of Workplace Marketability or
Graduate School Admission
We provide our students with the opportunity to pursue a variety of credit-bearing educational
experiences to enrich the major, ranging from a challenging 12 credit, two semester senior Honors
Program to research apprenticeships, Internships and community outreach placements, and a
variable (1-4) credit directed study course. Let us first consider our Honors Program.
E1. Psychology Senior Honors Program. Senior Honors in Psychology is a program designed to
provide an opportunity for outstanding students to carry out a yearlong program of study and research in an
area of interest. It is especially recommended for students planning to pursue advanced study in graduate
schools of psychology. Students apply to the Curriculum Committee for admission to the program in the
spring of the junior year. Admission criteria include grade point average, appropriate course work
(including Statistics), and a feasible research proposal that meets the approval of a full-time faculty member
who agrees to serve as research supervisor for the year. The Honors class has ranged between 6 and 11
students (average = 8) during the past 7 years.
The Honors Program is a 12-credit program which consists of two semesters of Honors Research (3
credits per semester) and a concurrent two semesters of Honors Seminar (3 credits per semester) credited at
the end of the year. All Honors students participate in the seminar, which focuses on advanced research
methods and scientific communication. Students write a research proposal and literature review in the first
semester and a thesis in the second semester. The thesis must meet the approval of a thesis committee.
Appendix IVB lists the projects that have been conducted in the last 7 years. The program culminates in
public presentations of the work and defense of the honors thesis to departmental faculty. Honors students
are encouraged to present their work in undergraduate research venues, including the annual
Commonwealth Honors Conference and the National Conference on Undergraduate Research. The
University Honors Program and Student Affairs provide competitive-awarded funding support for student
travel and research. As an added bonus for participation in Honors, students are often coauthors with their
faculty supervisors on presentations at professional meetings or journal publications.
E2. Research Apprenticeships and Directed Studies. As shown in Table 15, our enrollments in
Research Apprenticeships and Directed Study courses have remained high since 2007 despite the demands
of graduate mentoring. This is a testament to the commitments of our faculty to our undergraduate students.
E3. Internship and Field Placement Courses. For many years, we have offered Psych 430,
Internship in Psychology, a course that primarily has provided experiences in clinical settings. The
Internship in Psychology (Psych 430) is a six credit service learning opportunity combining hands-
on human service work with participation in a weekly seminar for 12-15 students. Students apply for
admission to the program with the internship director and through the interview process are matched
with a suitable placement. Dr. Kathryn Kogan, a long-term NTT faculty member (fulltime since
2011), has served as director of this program since 1995. Acceptance to the program is based on
academic criteria, junior or senior status, and suitability for available clinical placements that have
35
been arranged by the director. Students spend l5-17 hours per week performing supportive direct
care duties under the supervision of a Bachelor’s or Master’s level employee at the site. Students
also meet for a weekly 2.5 hour seminar to discuss their internship experiences and assigned
readings, and prepare a case presentation. Psych 430 has been offered 3 times a year – fall, spring
and summer semesters (through the College of Advancing and Professional Studies) for the past
eighteen years. A listing of the various settings that serve as Internship sites is attached as Appendix
IV.C.
Table 15. Individualized Instruction and Research Mentoring of Undergraduates.
In addition to the Internship described above, more recently we have begun to regularly offer Psych 479,
Psychology Internship: Field Placement in Early Child Development. In the 2000-2007 period prior to the
last AQUAD Review, this course had been offered only three times. In the last 7 years and largely due to
the efforts of one new faculty member, Dr. Abbey Eisenhower (Assistant Professor), Psych 479 has been
regularly offered and has focused on two specific groups: children enrolled in Camp Shriver, a summer
camp for children, and children at schools served by the JumpStart Program. Like the original Internship,
this 6-credit course has two components: the seminar and the fieldwork placement. The didactic portion of
the course offers a broad examination of children’s and adolescents’ social development and peer
relationships, with a focus on the social experiences of children with intellectual and developmental
disabilities (IDD). Children’s relationships with peers are discussed with respect to why they are important,
how they change over the course of development, why some children are better accepted than others, and
how early peer relationship strengths or difficulties produce echoing effects in adolescence and adulthood.
Also discussed are the educational and recreational experiences of children with intellectual and
developmental disabilities, as well as specific challenges and issues in the peer relationships of youth with
IDD, in relation to the educational system, camps and other recreational settings, and interventions to
promote social success. While we operated in the 3:3 teaching load environment, Dr. Eisenhower was
allowed to teach this course in the summer with credit to her fall onload teaching. In the current 2:2
environment, the Dean has not allowed this arrangement, and hence, despite it being Dr. Eisenhower’s
creation and something she really wanted to teach, she will be unable to teach it this summer (2014) due to
the need for research time in support of her upcoming tenure evaluation in 2014-2015. It had been offered
every summer for the prior 4 years. To continue to offer it will require identification of a suitable PT
instructor.
The Internship that is offered in collaboration with JumpStart has been offered for the last 3 years.
Jumpstart is one of the nation’s leading nonprofit organizations in the field of early childhood education and
they work on our campus. JumpStart recruits college students to work for one academic year on teams of
fellow students to support the language, literacy and social-emotional development of preschoolers from
low income communities. The Internship offered in support of JumpStart is intended to provide
undergraduate students participating in the Jumpstart program with a theoretical and research background in
preschool social, emotional, behavioral, and cognitive development in order to enhance their engagement in
Academic
Years
Research
Apprenticeships
Directed
Study
Enrollments in
Research
Apprenticeships and
Directed Study
Enrollments in
Internship Courses
AY 07-08 40 25 65 48
AY 08-09 60 25 85 47
AY 09-10 37 13 50 40
AY 10-11 39 25 64 57
AY 11-12 67 13 80 69
AY 12-13 53 42 95 69
36
the Jumpstart program. The courses utilizes an ecological approach to understanding the many contextual
factors that influence the development of preschool-age children, including societal, cultural, community,
socio-economic, school and peers, family, and parent-related factors, in addition to individual factors. The
course also covers the research tools and methods that are used to study behavior and development in early
childhood. This course aims to develop students’ ability to make connections between research knowledge
and everyday practice with children in the classroom, home, and community, to translate research evidence
into practical strategies for working with children, and to convey research-based information in an
accessible way to a broader audience.
In addition to the Internship opportunities described above, in the last 2 years, we have added
three field placement courses, one focusing on assisting and mentoring pre-teens in after-school
programs at Boys and Girls Clubs in our surrounding community (Dr. Nickki Dawes, Assistant
Professor; one focused on the Asian American and immigrant community (Dr. Karen Suyemoto,
Associate Professor); and one focused on health education in the Latino community (Dr. Ester
Shapiro, Associate Professor). As a result, our ability to provide our students with Internship
experiences has grown from enrollments of 48 in the 07-08 year to present levels of 69/year (see
Table 15). Several of our Internships are offered during the summer in order to support students
who can only manage the additional on-site demands during the summer when they elect to have a
reduced overall courseload. The Internship data in Table 15 includes the summer students. While
we are very proud of our ability to offer all of our Special Courses, all except the Internships and
Field Placement courses, are now offload with respect to the crediting of teaching. We have to limit
the number of Internships/Field Placements offered to 3-4 maximum across the Fall and Spring
terms in order to meet regular classroom teaching and enrollment demands at both the graduate and
undergraduate levels. Thus, we are now likely at an asymptotic level.
F. Special Recognition - Departmental Prizes and Awards for Students
Beyond the honor associated with being selected for the Honors Program, or indeed for Research
Apprenticeships, Directed Studies, or Internship, our department has two longstanding prizes, the
Adrian Jill Barnett Prize for Excellence in Writing, and the Ina Samuels Award for excellence in
research (see Appendix IVD). For the last two years, we have also had the Jebediah Gaffney
Memorial Fund for the support of a student pursuing applied clinical work, ideally with respect to
the treatment of Substance Abuse. Recipients for each of these awards are selected by committees of
faculty volunteers who review papers, research proposals or critical reviews, and applications as
relevant to each award.
In addition to these donor-based awards, our department also provides funding to support student
applications to graduate school. The Graduate Application Fund is funded in part by our
Development Fund (general donations) and, in part, by donations from faculty. Our goal is to
support students who might otherwise limit the number of graduate applications due to costs. Thus,
with our support, they can apply to more programs and increase their probability of acceptance.
G. Co-curricular Activities
During the period under review, our department has supported four active undergraduate student
organizations: The Psychology Club, which is a long-standing part of the Department; Psi Chi, a chapter of
the National Honor Society in Psychology, the Cognitive Science Club, and the Neuroscience Club
established in 2011, We also support a club/committee, the Psychology Connections Committee, emergent
from the efforts of graduate students in the Clinical Psychology doctoral program and now also involving
students from the DBS Program as well. The clubs and organizations elect their own leadership, and work
37
with a faculty advisor. Space limitations on our campus preclude our Department from providing space for
these Clubs, so they arrange to meet through reserving campus rooms.
G1. The Psychology Club
The Psychology Club is a Recognized Student Organization (RSO), open to all UMass-Boston students.
In the past it has offered films, speakers, information, social events, and a place to get to know fellow
psychology students. The activities of the Club are dependent on the interests and degree of involvement of
students from year to year. The Club elects its own officers to serve from September to September. As an
RSO, the club is entitled to a working budget (from dues collected once yearly), and a club office. Flyers
announcing Club activities appear on bulletin boards around the department throughout the year. Whenever
possible the Psychology Club works with the graduate student organization (Psychology Connections
Committee) to plan events that would be useful to the undergraduates as they develop plans for their future.
G2. Psi Chi
The Psychology department maintains the UMass Boston chapter of Psi Chi, the National Honor Society
in Psychology. Membership in this organization is limited to students who have completed at least three
psychology courses at UMass Boston and have a GPA of 3.2 or above. Eligible students are invited each
semester to join. Officers are elected from among current members. While the activities that the chapter
engages in during any particular year are related to the current membership, over the last several years they
have held journal clubs, participated in fundraisers for survivors of domestic violence, and joined with the
Psychology Connections Committee to run workshops and panels about ‘Getting the most out of your U
Mass Experience” and planning for the next steps after graduation. Graduating senior members are “corded”
at a departmental gala awards ceremony and reception, just before the College of Liberal Arts Honors
Convocation, where they are again publicly honored. They wear their honor cords during the graduation
ceremony, a mark of distinction that has great meaning to many of these students and their families.
G3. Psychology Connections Committee (PCC)
The Psychology Connections Committee (PCC) was formed in the fall of 2009 through the interest of
graduate students in the Clinical Psychology Program. They were interested in creating a mechanism
through which graduate students could be paired with undergraduate students in the Psychology department
for mentoring around issues of navigating the undergraduate experience as well as exploring options for the
future after graduation. Mentoring relationships were established by interested students filling out a brief
information sheet that was used to help ‘match’ the undergraduate to a graduate student with similar
interests and/or availability. This group has expanded over the years since 2009 to include graduate
students from the new DBS program as well as graduate students in counseling programs in the College of
Education and Human Development. It is now a recognized student organization at the graduate level. Each
year between 20 and 30 undergraduates ask for mentors. These relationships range from single meetings to
regular contact in person or by e-mail over several semesters. In addition, the PCC holds two
workshop/panel events each year for undergraduates. In the fall, they organize an event that generally
focuses on ways in which students can make the most of opportunities on campus. These events usually
highlight research opportunities for undergraduates on campus, the availability of tutoring and academic
support services and general discussions about ways to be involved in our department. During the spring
semester, they organize some type of fair or panel that focuses on opportunities outside of U Mass that
students might pursue during the summer or as a job opportunity after graduation. The officers of either the
Psychology Club or Psi Chi are always welcome members of the PCC planning process for these events.
Feedback from undergraduates has been uniformly positive regarding the quality of information that they
receive from the PCC mentoring and events and the value of the mentoring relationships.
G4. Cognitive Science Club
Until three years ago, this active interdisciplinary group met regularly for lively informal
discussion and, along with faculty, sponsored a series of student and faculty talks on topics in
38
cognitive science. These talks continue under the Talks in Cognitive Sciences (TICS) series as
described in the earlier section on the intellectual life of our faculty. Two years ago, the Cognitive
Science Club merged with our Neuroscience Club,
G5. Neuroscience Club
The Neuroscience Club started in 2010 (primarily due to the efforts of Dr. Susan Zup, Assistant
Professor) as a joint lab meeting, and has since grown to become an official UMB undergraduate
organization (2011) that provides a support network and idea forum for students of any major interested in,
or seeking to know more about, the field of neuroscience and its related subjects. Club participants include
faculty from the Psychology and Biology Departments, as well as DBS graduate students and interested
undergraduates. In order to welcome students at every level of knowledge and experience, the
Neuroscience Club aims to make neuroscience fun and accessible as well as challenging. Each of the
bimonthly meetings includes an interesting hands-on demonstration of a neuroscience principle or topic as
well as a more serious scientific discussion of a journal article or current data produced in a UMB
neuroscience lab. Information and support on the graduate school selection and application process is
presented at least once per academic year, and the Club has also hosted seminars by neuroscientists from
outside the University. Recently, the Club faculty advisor, along with active Club undergraduate and
graduate students, visited local high schools to speak about general neuroscience topics and specific
neuroscience research going on at UMB, encouraging especially women and other underrepresented
minority students, toward neuroscience and STEM fields. In addition to supporting the high school
students, these visits also allowed the UMB students to gain insight on understanding and communicating
neuroscience at a variety of levels.
Specifically, each Neuroscience Club meeting tries to fulfill at least one of the following goals:
• Provide students who have expressed interest in graduate studies of neuroscience with
information, support, and advice on the graduate-school selection and application process.
• Provide students and faculty currently engaged in neuroscience or related research at UMass
Boston with the opportunity to share the details of their projects with each other so that they
might receive feedback, and the chance to collaborate for mutual benefit.
• Provide interested students the opportunity to read, share, and discuss published literature
relevant to the field of neuroscience. This will encourage a wider breadth of knowledge of the
field among the students involved, help keep them up to date on methodologies in current
research, and finally, provide them with the opportunity to practice presenting information to
their peers.
• Provide a low-stress opportunity to practice neuroscience-related talks, such as a thesis defense,
conference presentation and/or graduate school presentation.
H. The Fates of Our Students
Our University does not have an adequate post-graduation tracking system for our students, so
we are unable to appropriately address the outcomes of our students with respect to job choices and
successes. Likewise, we cannot fully capture information about our many students that go on to
graduate programs. To do our best to examine this issue, we asked faculty to provide information
about the students who have been enrolled in Research Apprenticeships, Directed Studies, Honors,
and Internships since 2007. Our assumption was that faculty would be more likely to have written
recommendations for these students and to have knowledge of their fates. After removal of
redundancies due to students enrolled in several of these courses, our list provided by the Registrar’s
Office included 384 students. Of these, 47 were still enrolled as undergraduates. Faculty provided
information that identified 78 individuals who are currently enrolled in graduate programs or have
completed their degrees, 37 individuals known to be working in jobs of relevance to the field, and 22
others in various jobs not related specifically to psychology. Appendix IVE provides information
39
about the graduate programs students have/are enrolled in and the nature of the jobs within the field
that others hold. Privacy rules preclude our providing names. This information is included simply
to illustrate that among the 1400 degrees awarded since 2007, at least 79 (5.6%) are known to have
pursued advanced studies.
V. Assessment of Our Undergraduate Curriculum
Goals for undergraduate training and learning objectives:
To provide our majors with: a) a high quality introduction to the core academic areas in psychology; b)
an in depth education in one or more of these areas; and c) the knowledge and skills needed to think
about psychological processes as scientists.
To provide a curriculum that creates graduates who: a) have gained an understanding of the ways in
which psychological theories and the research process are connected; b) have gained an understanding
of the ways psychological research is conducted; c) have gained familiarity with the ways major ideas in
psychology have emerged from knowledge from philosophy, biology, and social sciences in relation to
each other; d) have gained a solid grounding in 5 sub-disciplines of psychology (biological, clinical,
developmental, cognitive, and social); e) have learned to see the connections that exist across the
different areas of psychology (biological, clinical, developmental, cognitive, and social); and f) have
gained an understanding of the ways that Psychology as a discipline studies human and cultural
diversity.
In section III.A., we discussed the very high quality of our instructors and courses as evaluated
by students in the context of the standard course evaluations. We have high quality offerings and
classroom experiences, but what are, and, do we meet our goals? In this section, two main issues
will be covered: first, our goals regarding the establishment of writing skills; second, our goals for
learning outcomes.
A. Writing Skills Across the Curriculum
Figure 3. Guidelines for Writing & Critical Thinking
Development across Curricular Levels (est. in 1998).
40
Although our department invested considerable energy in 1998 in the establishment of guidelines
for the development of writing skills across levels of the curriculum and established a cultural
understanding of what assignments should look like, our recent departmental growth and addition of
significant numbers of new faculty led us to realize that we needed to have more formal policies.
Thus, one of the agenda items for our March, 2012 departmental retreat was to examine these
guidelines and open discussion about how we might wish to revise them. Figure 3 and Figure 4
from our 2012 retreat describe the guidelines and show the skills we wished to emphasize at each
level of the curriculum.
At the retreat, we decided to create a committee that would determine what approach would best
capture current desires. We also charged the committee with coordinating with the Assessment
Committee described below. Revised guidelines in keeping with the spirit of the above were
presented and discussed at our February 2014 Department meeting. Although there was considerable
support for the guidelines, some further discussion was needed for how large section intermediate
core courses could accommodate these guidelines. In general, we agreed that students in lower level
courses needed more practice developing skills for reading and critiquing research articles in order to
better prepare them for their capstone work. One way to address this concern would be to assure
that students not only were assigned papers calling for this in their lower level courses, but also
given the opportunity to revise and resubmit their work in order to reach an acceptable standard. In
addition, the departmental discussions have identified the need to help students’ develop more skill
at probabilistic thinking and reasoning. To address these needs, we now plan to add a second
Research Methods course to the requirements of the major. Currently a committee is working on the
design of that second course, which will be piloted in Fall 2014.
B. Assessment of Learning Outcomes
Our assessment of the success of the Psychology Department’s curriculum in achieving its educational
goals has moved through a number of different phases which began in 2011 when we established an
Assessment Committee with three members (Michael Milburn, Carol Smith, and Laurel Wainwright).
Figure 4. Recommendations for Implementation of the Guidelines for
Writing & Critical Thinking Development across Curricular Levels
41
Through their work, it has become clear that the process of assessment is a dynamic, ongoing series of
interactions between the departmental faculty as a whole, psychology students and the Assessment
Committee. The Assessment Committee has undertaken two primary approaches to Assessment as
described below. The first focuses on an evaluation of content learning objectives; the second on our
objectives with respect to writing and critical thinking skills.
B1. Assessment Approach 1—Student Perception Survey
During the fall and early spring of 2011-2012, the Committee developed a questionnaire to measure
student perceptions of how well the Psychology Department is achieving its goals. Using the Psychology
Department’s 2007 AQUAD report, the Committee took the four goals then specified for its major, and then
after leading a Departmental discussion, reworded these four goals and added two new goals to be used in
the survey with students. We also added two questions: one about student satisfaction with the advising
they had received about courses, careers and experiential opportunities outside of the classroom, and a
second about how students would rate the Psychology courses they had taken in comparison with other
courses at the University. Finally, the survey asked students a number of background questions about their
age, sex, and GPA and the number and type of courses they had taken at UMB. Appendix VA contains the
complete questionnaire used.
To maximize the number of graduating senior Psychology majors in our survey, we administered the
questionnaire in spring 2012 and again in spring 2013 to all Psychology majors enrolled in upper-level
courses. All students were asked to respond to the questionnaire only once in a given semester. We had
177 individual responses in spring 2012 and 226 individual responses in spring 2013. The questions and
further analyses are reported in Figures 5 to 8 below.
The first seven questions of the survey asked the students to rate how well the Psychology Department
was achieving each of its goals on a 5-point Likert scale, where 5 was labeled “very well” and 1 was labeled
“not at all well.” The eighth question about course quality also used a 5 point Likert scale, where 5 was
labeled “exceptional” and 1 was labeled “very poor.” Figure 5 shows the percent of students responding
with the top two ratings (4 and 5) for each of these eight questions for spring 2012 and spring 2013.
Overall, the pattern of responses was very similar across the two surveys. Three-quarters or more of the
students surveyed felt satisfied that the major objectives for our majors were met for them, with the
exception of course and career advising, where only 36-39% gave high ratings. Three-quarters also rated the
course quality highly (top two categories), in keeping with past findings of our Departmental course
evaluations.
In general, the results of the survey were reassuring that students were satisfied that the goals of the
Department were being met. However, we were concerned about the low ratings about advising, especially
as the Department has long had an aggressive approach to advising (our Department was one of the first in
CLA to have mandated Advising sessions every semester by putting Advising holds that require students to
see advisors before registration). Unfortunately, the question itself was poorly worded, as students were
asked about three different forms of advising: advising about courses, career advising, and advising about
experiential opportunities beyond the classroom. Consequently, we don’t know if dissatisfaction was with
just one of these forms of advising or all three. We plan to revise the questionnaire for subsequent surveys
to learn more about student satisfaction with each, and whether they have also received career advising
through the University career advising office. In addition, we want to ask students whether they have
participated in some of the mentoring programs the Department has sponsored, such as the Psychology
Connections Committee, the mentoring program run by the Clinical and DBS graduate students, and
whether they have attended some of the special Career Advising events sponsored by the Department.
42
Figure 5. Percent of students responding with top ratings (4 or 5) on the eight questions on
the survey about how well they felt the Psychology Department was achieving its goals.
Regarding the profile of our students who took the survey, approximately two-thirds were between the
ages of 21-27 and 70% were female. Almost two-thirds (65%) were BA Psych majors, 14% were BS Psych
majors, 15% joint Social Psychology majors, and 7% Psych minors. When asked to report their GPA
approximately 17% had GPAs above 3.7, 37% had GPAs between 3.2 and 3.7, 27% had GPAs between
2.71 and 3.2, 16% had GPAs between 2.3 and 2.7, and less than 4% had GPAs under 2.3.
Given that many of our students at UMB are transfer students, and students may transfer some of their
course work for their major from other institutions (up to 4 courses are allowed), we also asked students a
series of questions about how many had taken specific types of courses at UMB. Figure 6 shows the results.
Again the responses were very similar across the two surveys.
Several findings presented in Figure 6 are of interest. First, with the exception of Intro Psychology
where only 50-60% had taken the course at UMB, the vast majority of students had taken their required core
courses at UMB across all the different core areas. This ranged from a high of over 90% for Research
Methods to a low of between 65-75% in Behavioral Neuroscience. The slightly lower number reporting
having taken or completed Behavioral Neuroscience at UMB was probably because these students had not
yet taken the course, not that they had transferred this course (this is one that is rarely transferred by our
students.) The fact that such high numbers of students are taking our core courses at UMB means that we
should be able to have success in our goal of building writing skills in a sequenced manner across the
curriculum. Second, approximately half of the sample reported taking an upper level Experimental Methods
or Research class, 20% reported having taken the Psych Internship seminar, and another 20% reported
having participated in a Research Apprenticeship or Directed Study. We believe the number reporting
taking an upper level Experimental Methods/Research class is too high, given that we typically only offer
43
two such classes each semester (each capped at 15). This may be because those who took upper level
Research Apprenticeships thought those counted in this category, given the way the question was worded.
Although upper level Experimental Methods courses are only required for those seeking a B.S., and
Internship experiences are not required for any of our majors, it is encouraging that significant numbers of
those surveyed reported participating in these three kinds of upper-level course work. It would be of interest
to follow up with an exit survey of graduating students to determine how many had at least one of these
three kinds of more “hands on” experiences by the completion of their degree.
Figure 6. Percent of students taking specific types of courses for the major at UMB.
We also conducted three follow-up analyses for the spring 2013 sample to explore inter-question
correlations and patterns. In the first analysis we created a composite satisfaction variable, averaging across
the first 8 questions used in the questionnaire, each of which used a 5-point Likert scale. These items were
highly inter-correlated (treating them as a scale produced a Cronbach’s alpha of .85). Figure 7 shows a
distribution of the average score for each student across the eight items. As can be seen, almost all of the
average responses are well above 3 on the Likert scale, with the majority between 3.6 and 5, indicating that
overall student satisfaction with the Psychology major is high.
Figure 7. Distribution of average ratings across the first eight questions for the 226 students in the spring 2013 sample.
44
The second analysis was aimed at exploring the correlates of student overall satisfaction with the major.
In general, we found few significant correlations with other background variables (none with age, gender, or
whether they took Intro at UMB), and those we did find were quite low e.g., only a correlation of .16 with
GPA. The fact that there is at best only a low correlation between satisfaction and GPA is encouraging, as it
suggests that we are successful in reaching a range of student abilities, and that student satisfaction is not
simply a function of whether a student does well academically or not.
The third analysis was aimed at exploring possible correlates of student satisfaction with advising. Here
the main significant correlate was with whether students had taken either an Internship or Research
Apprenticeship course (see Figure 8 for contrasting satisfaction distributions for those two groups), but not
with GPA (in fact the correlation with GPA did not even approach significance for this variable.) Of course
we do not know whether the relation is causal, or, if it is, what the direction of causality is (i.e., were those
in these courses because of better advising, or did participation in these courses lead to better advising due
to greater one-on-one attention), but it suggests issues we can explore in a further survey.
B2. Assessment Approach 2—Rubric Development for Capstone Paper Assessment
As a second, more specific curricular assessment, the committee decided to focus on how successful we
are at teaching students to communicate about psychology through writing. While we value writing across
our curriculum, we chose to focus on the writing components of our upper level courses for this round of
curricular assessment because of the prominent role writing plays in our definition of what qualifies as a
capstone course. Further, because the writing done in upper level coursework represents the culmination of
the instruction that we do throughout our curriculum, evaluation of this stage of our major would provide
some indication of whether our instruction at beginning and intermediate levels of our curriculum
effectively prepares students to meet upper level course expectations.
To begin the process of evaluating the written work students produced in our upper level courses, we
developed a rubric for assessing papers. We then presented this proposed rubric to the faculty to solicit
feedback. We modified the rubric to incorporate this feedback (Table 16 below) and asked faculty who had
taught upper level courses over the previous two semesters to provide us with student papers and the
Figure 8. Comparison of student satisfaction with advising about courses, careers,
and experiential opportunities outside of classrooms (a) for those who had not
participated in the internship or research apprenticeship courses; and (b) for those
who had.
45
assignments from which the papers were generated. Using the rubric that had been developed, we
evaluated nine assignments. We first looked at whether faculty writing assignments elicited the types of
critical reading, thinking and writing that faculty indicated was valued in upper level coursework. We found
that there was variability in how well the assignments matched all the categories in the rubric. It is important
to note that the assignments had been designed to address goals that were specific to each course, while the
rubric had been developed with writing goals across the curriculum in mind. It was clear from our
assessment that all upper level writing assignments were capturing some but not all parts of the rubric.
After looking at the nature of the writing assignments in our upper-level courses we evaluated how well
students were meeting the goals of the rubric by reading a limited set of student writing samples. Each
faculty member teaching upper-level courses provided a student paper that, by the faculty member’s
assessment, was “very strong” and a second paper that “adequately met the paper requirements.” The
Committee chose three instructors (2 papers per instructor) and applied the rubric to these papers. We
learned that the following goals could be reliably assessed: Overall goal of the assignment; use of
appropriate outside material; synthesis of outside material; and the mechanics of writing. We also learned
that evaluating whether students synthesized material that was specific to the course for which the paper was
written was more difficult for reviewers to assess reliably. Further, in evaluating the papers deemed “very
strong” by course instructors, student writing had met or exceeded assigned expectations on the
Table 16. Rubric for Capstone Paper Assessment
Area of Evaluation 4 – Meets or
exceeds
expectations
3 – Meets most
expectations or
nearly meets a
single stated
expectation
2 – Work shows
student has an
understanding
of expectations,
but does not yet
meet them
1 – Work does
not show an
understanding
of what is
expected
Is not
required by
the
assignment
Overall goal of the
assignment
Use of course material or
literature
a) Appropriate use of
outside material
b) Critical use of course
material
Synthesis of ideas
a) Summarize material
before synthesizing
b) Articulates overlaps
and/or discrepancies
among ideas
represented
c) Provides a coherent
synthesis or conclusion
4 - Writing
mechanics
meet
expectations
for upper
division work
3 – Writing
mechanics
generally meet
expectations
2 – Expected level
of writing
mechanics are
met some of the
time
1 – Writing
mechanics are
generally not
met at the level
expected for
upper division
course work
Category of
writing
mechanics is
not required
in
assignment
Mechanics of conveying
ideas
a) Sentence structure
b) Organization and flow
of paragraphs
c) General structure and
flow of the paper
overall
d) Follows APA style
46
portions of the writing rubric that were appropriate for the particular assignment. The “adequate” papers
had rubric evaluations falling within the “meets most expectations” approximately 67% of the time and
“shows an understanding of expectations but is not yet meeting them” approximately 33% of the time.
These findings suggest that strong writers in our upper-level coursework are, in fact, meeting the
expectations of writing that we agree upon as a department. Students who are deemed less successful but
still adequately meeting course requirements are also meeting much of the department’s writing
expectations over the majority of the dimensions of critical reading, thinking and writing. While this
suggests that effective writing skills are being achieved by many students, we need to continue to provide
opportunities for practice and feedback to further strengthen all of our students’ skills.
B3. Next Steps
The Department has three areas of assessment that we intend to pursue as a result of the information we
have gathered with this round of assessments. First, we intend to revise the student perception survey and
ask that graduating seniors complete the survey as an online exit interview. We feel that targeting our
graduating seniors for a sample will allow us to acquire information from students who have had the
greatest breadth of experiences in our major. While we will continue to ask about the seven goals that we
have already identified, we want to ask for additional information in the area that was rated as our weakest
area – general advising and advising specifically about career options. We understand that this is an
important area for our students, and we want to know more about the students who feel that this has been
available to them and those who feel that they have lost out on this important aspect of support from the
department. We are very interested in understanding more about the ways in which we might more
successfully reach out to all of our majors.
A second area in which we are committed to doing additional work relates to the writing requirements
and the work that is produced by our students. Our assessment of writing in the upper level courses has
clarified that the Department has a consensus, represented in the writing rubric, about its goals for critical
thinking and writing within upper-level coursework. Further, it is clear that we can apply those goals
consistently to student writing. We need to continue to evaluate which of the rubric goals are met across the
various upper level offerings. While each writing assignment will not meet all of the goals, it will be
important to ensure that students are practicing skills to meet those goals across the upper-level courses.
Further, we will need to consider further ways to increase the level of proficiency within our student
writing, as well as ways that we may effectively address issues of weakness in writing skills among majors
who are not meeting our rubric goals. A further step in our departmental evaluation of writing in our
curriculum will need to be a discussion of whether there are particular aspects of the writing rubric that
should be addressed in all writing assignments. Further, although all of the goals stated in the rubric are not
addressed in every assignment, it will be important to determine what the likelihood is that students will be
asked to meet them through the writing assigned across their three upper-level courses.
Finally, in addition to the assessment of writing in the upper level coursework, the Department is also
currently reviewing its writing guidelines across the curriculum. This review of writing expectations is
being done keeping in mind the rubric we developed for upper-level course work writing. Guidelines for
writing assignments across the curriculum are being revised with the expectation that introductory,
intermediate and upper-level course work will have a scaffolded series of writing expectations that will
allow students to receive instruction, practice and feedback about increasingly sophisticated uses of course
materials and writing within the field to inform their written work.
47
VI. The Doctoral Program in Clinical Psychology (this program is separately reviewed by the APA
and is not part of the charge of the AQUAD team; the APA Self Study for re-accreditation
(submitted in fall 2013) is attached as Appendix IA)
Goals for Students in the Clinical Psychology PhD Program
To train our students within a biopsychosocial, scientist-practitioner model to become psychologists
who: a) engage in scientific and scholarly activities; b) apply their own research and the research
of others to clinical practice, which may include prevention, assessment, intervention, consultation,
and supervision; c) apply knowledge and evidence from clinical practice to inform the questions and
methods of research; and d) engage in research and scholarly inquiry as well as clinical practice to
address social inequities and health disparities. Consistent with the urban mission of UMass Boston,
the program emphasizes the development of culturally responsive clinical and research practices and
focuses on developing psychologists who prioritize meeting the needs of underserved and/or
marginalized individuals, families, and communities.
Accredited by the American Psychological Association since 1993, our Clinical Psychology Program
offers doctoral education and professional training in clinical psychology following the scientist-practitioner
model. Balancing equally and recognizing synergy between emphasis on science and practice, program
faculty aim to teach students to integrate empirically informed practice with clinically relevant science.
The Clinical Program is strongly committed to preparing both ethnic-minority and non-ethnic minority
psychologists to provide effective services to historically underserved and marginalized populations and to
conduct research and teaching that furthers understanding of the needs of diverse individuals. The program
has a special emphasis on recruiting ethnic minority students. The program faculty strives to fulfill this
commitment by: a) recruiting a diverse faculty, b) admitting graduate student classes that are strongly
enriched by their diverse make-up, and c) making social and cultural diversity an integral part of the
curriculum and clinical training experiences. The Core Clinical Program faculty includes two Black women,
one Latina woman, and one multi-racial, Asian-American female (31% Core Faculty of color). An African-
American woman, a neuroscientist who studies stress reactivity, often teaches the required Biological Bases
of Behavior course, serves on master’s thesis and dissertation committees, and recently chaired a master’s
thesis committee. The Program also draws on the resources of three culturally oriented research institutes at
UMB that address the concerns of the African-American, Latino/a, and Asian American Communities. The
program faculty is also diverse with respect to sexual minority status, with three women and one man
identified as LGBTQ. Fifty-four percent of the current graduate students are US born racial/ethnic minority
students, foreign born US citizens or international students from Asia, Latin America, Middle East or
Africa.
Our Clinical Program has continued to receive awards since its 2001 recognition as a recipient of APA’s
Suinn Award for Minority Achievement. In February, 2014, it was rated 12th
of 94 national programs
evaluated by Academic Analytics according to their Faculty Scholarly Productivity Index. The program and
its faculty have also received several awards from APA and beyond. In 2013, APA’s Bersoff Award
recognized the program for its commitment to diversity. Notably, in 2013, Dr. Karen Suyemoto (Associate
Professor now undergoing promotion review) was nominated for, and won recognition as, a White House
Champion of Change in the category Asian American Pacific Islander women. This honor, bestowed upon
15 awardees from approximately 600 nominees by the Executive Office of the United States President,
aimed to recognize "ordinary Americans doing extraordinary things in their communities to out-innovate,
out-educate, and out-build the rest of the world." Dr. Suyemoto also received the 2013 Distinguished
Contribution Award from the Asian American Psychological Association. During the last seven year period
under AQUAD review, three members of our department who are part of the Clinical Program were
honored with the Chancellor’s Award for Distinguished Scholarship: Dr. Paul Nestor (full professor), Dr.
48
Alice Carter (full professor and Director of the Clinical Program), and DR. Elizabeth Roemer (full
professor). These various accomplishments provide tangible evidence of the excellence of our program and
its faculty. The graduate students within the program also have an outstanding record of achievement in
scholarly presentations and publications and in getting internal and external grants from federal and private
sources. For more about this exceptional program, please examine the APA Self Study that can be found in
Appendix IA.
VII. The Doctoral Program in the Developmental and Brain Sciences (DBS)
Goals for Students in the Developmental and Brain Sciences PhD Program:
To train our students within a research-intensive environment: a) to become scientists who conduct
research in Neuroscience that is multi-level, developmental, and translational; b) to use human and
animal models to study cognition (learning, memory, attention, language), perception (vision,
hearing), and the genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences (physiological and behavioral)
on brain and behavior that shape development; and c) to conduct high-impact science using the best
tools and techniques that will provide basic and translational findings that impact clinical science,
education, and public policy.
The DBS Program is now in its second year of operation. The proposal for the program is attached as an
important primary document for the AQUAD Review Team (see Appendix VIIA). The essential elements
presented below have been extracted from the fuller proposal that is attached. This foundational
information will first be presented, and then a summary of the first two years of course offerings, activities,
and accomplishments will follow.
VIIA. Foundational History and Program Characteristics
Our planning for the DBS Program began formally in 2000 and culminated in approval by the MA
Department of Higher Education in 2011. Major milestones occurred as follows:
1999-2000 AQUAD self study and external review
2000-2004 Departmental working group on New Directions
2004-2005 Strategic hiring plan developed and approved
2005-2007 Initiation of hiring plan to establish research clusters
2006-2007 AQUAD self study and external review enforced our efforts
2007-2008 Potential new doctoral program now endorsed by Dean and Provost
2008-2009 Preliminary proposal for DBS doctoral program developed and approved
2009-2010 Final proposal developed and approved at UMB
2009-2010 Evaluation by Two External Reviewers
2010-2011 Approvals by UMass President’s Office, Board of Trustees, and MA Board of
Higher Education
Our primary reasons for developing the program were 1) to develop a sustainable, balanced department
with high potential for research accomplishment; 2) to offer doctoral-level training in an area of identified
need that complemented the existing doctoral program in Clinical Psychology and created another
outstanding signature program; and 3) to offer a program that emphasized translational issues and trained
students as researchers able to engage in multidisciplinary studies. We decided to focus our recruitment on
under-represented minorities in neuroscience, thus building on the strengths and expertise of our Clinical
Program and supporting our institutional and departmental mission.
49
The general characteristics of the program of study are:
Five years of study and 60 required credits;
50% coursework; 50% research;
Directed research throughout;
Coursework focused in first 2 years; and
Combination of core requirements and individualized program overseen by advisor and
committee.
The major milestones in the program are 1) a Mentored Research Project (MRP) submitted by the end of
semester 5, 2) a Preliminary Qualifying Exam, oral and written, by the end of the 3rd
year, and 3) the
dissertation research and defense.
In support of the program, we were approved to have 5 graduate student stipends/year (first proposed as
6 then revised to allow higher stipends for cohorts of 5 students), with each student supported for 4 years
from University funds with support in the 5th
year expected to come from research grant or teaching funds.
The stipend amount is $24000 which our external reviewers suggested would be the minimum necessary to
be competitive. Other aspects of the approved budget are shown in Table 17. We are now in the second
Table 17. Approved University Funding Structure for the DBS Program.
* Delayed hiring until spring February 2014 and changes in HR job ratings and payscales
increased this estimated expenditure.
Year
Expense Amount
1 Administrative Staff position $41,000*
5 graduate assistantships ($24,000 used as
average for MA and out-of-state students)
120,0001
CTF operating dollars $7,500
Program start up $100,000
Year 1 costs $268,500
2 5 new graduate assistantships (plus 5
continuing) = 10
$240,000
Program start up $100,000
CTF operating dollars $7,500
Administrative Staff position $41,000
Year 2 costs $388,500
3 5 new graduate assistantships (plus 10
continuing) = 15
$360,000
Program start up $100,000
CTF operating dollars $7,500
Administrative Staff position $41,000
Year 3 costs $508,500
4 5 new graduate assistantships (plus 15
continuing) = 20
$480,000
CTF operating dollars $7,500
Administrative Staff position $41,000
Year 4 costs $528,500
50
year and 4th
semester of operation of our program and have been provided with the promised stipends,
curriculum operating expenses (CTF), and the Administrative Staff person. Unfortunately, however, we
have only been given $25000 of the promised $100,000/year for operating expenses: $25,000 out of the
$200,000 needed and approved for use during the first two years of the program. As of a conversation
today, I am encouraged that we may soon receive these funds, and hope that our situation will be rectified
prior to the visit of the AQUAD Team in April. A part of our early negotiations also included an agreement
regarding operating space that would provide a room for the Administrative staff person, student office
space, and a dedicated classroom/meeting room for the program. We operated without this space for just
over the first year and a half of the program, and finally moved into nicely renovated space in late February.
We are thrilled. We anticipated moving all of the program’s research labs during the first year of the
program (Spring 2013) into the Integrated Sciences Complex, a new building under construction. Our new
target date for this building is Fall 2014 and we will be thrilled when the move is actualized.
Through faculty dedication and perseverance, we are now in the second year of the program and have 10
outstanding graduate students. Let us now turn our attention to the operation of the program, its students,
and their accomplishments to date.
VIIB. Operations, Activities, and Accomplishments
B1. Structure and Composition
Dr. Celia Moore served as the foundational Director of the DBS Program and shepherded it through its
early creation. The year prior to launch, Dr. Erik Blaser was chosen as the Director for the daily operations
of the program. In line with our departmental constitution, he serves a term of 3 years and can be re-elected.
All members of the DBS Program faculty now serve on the Executive Committee and meet weekly to
biweekly to address the needs of this new and vibrant program as they emerge and the program unfolds.
Core members of the DBS Program faculty are shown in Table 18. These faculty offer all of the required
courses in the program except Statistics which is offered jointly with the Clinical Psychology Program.
Table 18. Core Faculty in the Developmental and Brain Sciences Program Full time, Tenure Track Faculty
Last name Name
Doctoral-granting
Institution Rank Curriculum Content Area
1 Adams Jane
New Mexico State
University Full Professor Behavioral neuroscience
2 Blaser Erik
University of
California, Irvine
Associate
Professor Cognitive neuroscience
3 Ciaramitaro Vivian
University of
Pennsylvania Assistant Professor Cognitive neuroscience
4 Donaldson Tiffany
Northeastern
University
Associate
Professor Behavioral neuroscience
5 Hunter Richard Emory University Assistant Professor Behavioral neuroscience
6 Kaldy Zsuzsa
Rutgers University
Associate
Professor Cognitive Neuroscience
7 Moore Celia
Rutgers Univ. at
Newark Full Professor Behavioral neuroscience
8 Park Jin Ho
U.C. Berkeley Assistant Professor Behavioral neuroscience
9 Shukla Mohinish SISSA, Trieste, Italy Assistant Professor Cognitive neuroscience
10 Tronick Ed University of Wisconsin
Madison
Univ. Dist.
Professor Cognitive neuroscience
11 Zup Susan University of
Massachusetts Amherst Assistant Professor Behavioral neuroscience
51
As evident in Table 18, 5 of the 11 core faculty are Assistant Professors and only two have reached the
4th
year review stage. We successfully hired very strong new faculty and also met our goal for having
collaborative research clusters. All members of the group are currently involved in collaborations within the
program, and some have collaborations with members of the Clinical Program, with faculty in other
departments, and with faculty at other institutions. Core faculty engage in research on topics ranging from
cognitive development and psychophysics to neuroendocrinology and behavioral genetics. Students may
follow a Cognitive Neuroscience specialization investigating functional changes in perceptual and cognitive
abilities or a Behavioral Neuroscience specialization investigating neural and hormonal influences on
development and behavior, but all students take courses in both categories. All DBS students receive
rigorous core training in methods (dry and wet lab skills, advanced statistical methods, computational tools
like MATLAB) and work in labs using multiple levels of investigation including psychophysical and
neuropsychological evaluation, functional brain imaging (NIRS, ERP), and neuropharmacological,
molecular/cellular, and genetic/epigenetic methods.
B2. Course Offerings to Date
As shown in Table 19, DBS course enrollments have ranged from 3-7. This has occurred in the early
years due to cohort effects and the program has worked to establish future schedules of offerings that
combine across cohorts whenever possible. Our program has been approved, however, as one that can offer
courses with enrollments of 5 in keeping with the cohort size (the CLA requirement is normally a size of 8).
Course evaluations reflect overall satisfaction with the program.
Table 19. DBS Course Offerings During Its 1st Two Years
Semester Course
Number Course Title Instructor Enrollment Credits
Fall 2012 PSYDBS 601 Proseminar in DBS Celia Moore 5 3
Fall 2012 PSYDBS 610 Behavioral Neuroscience Jin Ho Park & Susan Zup 6 3
Fall 2012 PSYBS 694 Mentored Research (Mentor) 5 variable
Spr 2013 PSYDBS 620 Cognitive Neuroscience
Mohinish Shukla & Vivian
Ciaramitaro 5 3
Spr 2013 PSYDBS 694 Mentored Research (Mentor) 5 variable
Fall 2013 PSYDBS 601 Proseminar in DBS Celia Moore 5 3
Fall 2013 PSYDBS 611
Developmental Behavioral
Neuroscience Susan Zup 3 3
Fall 2013 PSYDBS 620 Cognitive Neuroscience Vivian Ciaramitaro 5 3
Fall 2013 PSYDBS 694 Mentored Research (Mentor) 10 variable
Fall 2013 PSYDBS 771
Matlab for Behavioral
Sciences Mohinish Shukla 7 3
Spr 2014 PSYDBS 610 Behavioral Neuroscience Jin Ho Park 6 3
Spr 2014 PSYDBS 621
Developmental Cognitive
Neuroscience Zsuzsanna Kaldy 6 3
Spr 2014 PSYDBS 694 Mentored Research (Mentor) 9 variable
Spr 2014 PSYDBS 734 Neurobiology of Addiction Tiffany Donaldson 5 3
Spr 2014 PSYDBS 796 Independent Study Richard Hunter 1 3
Spr 2014 PSYDBS 796 Independent Study Vivian Ciaramitaro 1 3
52
B3. DBS Students
We have successfully recruited 5 students each year and all are doing well regarding class performance
and research progress. The students and their backgrounds are shown in Table 20. Table 21 provides
information about the gender of these students (as well as those in the Clinical Program).
Table 20. DBS Students and Their Backgrounds Student Mentor Academic History
Sylvia Guillory,
2012
Zsuzsa Kaldy B.S. Cognitive Science and Applied Mathematics, University of
California Los Angeles, 2005
M.S. Cognitive Science, University of Edinburgh, 2008
M.A. Psychology, Brandeis University, 2011
Rhonda Lott, 2012 Tiffany Donaldson B.A. Anthropology and History, Marquette University,
Milwaukee, WI, 2007
B.A. Psychology, University of Wisconsin-Parkside, Kenosha,
WI, 2012
Amanda Madden,
2012
Susan Zup B.A. Psychology, University of Massachusetts Boston, 2010
Mahalakshmi
Ramamurthy, 2012
Erik Blaser B.S. Optometry, Elite School of Optometry, Biria Institute of
Technology, India, 2008
M.S. Vision Science, University of Waterloo, 2011
Scott Templin, 2012 Jin Ho Park B.S. Psychology, University of Maryland, 2008
M.S. Neuroscience, Brandeis University, 2010.
Doris Chow, 2013 Vivian Ciaramitaro B.S. Psychology with minors in H.R. Management and Global
Studies, University of Hong Kong, 2011
M.S. Psychology, University of Hong Kong, 2013
Allison Fitch, 2013 Mohinish Shukla B.A. Psychology, Honors, Human Development and Family
Studies, University of Connecticut, 2013
Brian Griffiths, 2013 Richard Hunter B.A. Psychology with Business Administration minor, Humboldt
State University, 2009
M.A. Psychology (Academic Research), Humboldt State
University, 2011
Hannah Lapp, 2013 Celia Moore B.S. Psychology, Biology minor, Saint Bonaventure University
Hayley Smith, 2013 Zsuzsa Kaldy B.A. Psychology (Honours) Macquarie University, 2011
Table 21. Gender of Our Graduate Students (2013-2014)
GRADUATE
TOTAL FEMALE MALE
GENDER
NOT
REPORTED
%
FEMALE
Clinical Psychology (Ph.D.) 55 45 10 0 81.8%
Developmental and Brain
Sciences (Ph.D.) 10 8 2 0 80%
Total CLA Graduate Students 560 369 190 1 65.9%
Total All Grad Degree
Programs 3008 1986 1019 3 66.02%
The predominance of female graduate students in the Developmental and Brain Sciences Program is higher
than is typical in neuroscience programs according to national data that identify women as a minority,
although national data may not be as dramatic if applied only to developmental neuroscience. With respect
to the ethnicity of our graduate students, 2/10 represent national ethnic minorities and 3 additional are
international students (China, India, and Australia).
Mentorship: Each student works with their advisor and an Advisory Committee to develop and monitor
a cohesive plan of work that reflects both program and individual goals. Students engage in research under
the direction of their advisor, beginning in the first semester and continuing through the dissertation
research. Since some students may need additional support to be successful within the program and these
53
needs are likely to be visible within the lab and/or the classroom setting, regular meetings of program
faculty are used to identify struggling students and determine how best to meet their needs. Support for
students is also available through University resources such as writing and organizational workshops.
Support is also available for all students in the form of active programs that bring students together with
graduate students in other University programs, and through pairing more advanced students with new
students (potentially including both Clinical and DBS programs). End-of-the-year review meetings are held
to discuss student performance and to better understand each student’s goals. Each advisor reports on his/her
students’ progress, strengths, and areas in need of greater attention. Program faculty make every effort to
develop strategies to address the needs of all students.
Monitoring of Programmatic Strengths and Weaknesses: Information obtained through the various
mentoring procedures helps to improve our application and selection process and also helps us to identify
program strengths and weaknesses. As well, overall programmatic success will be empirically evaluated
through monitoring increases in the numbers of applicants, the quality of applicants as defined by academic
backgrounds, collegiate GPA, and performance within the program, and ultimately, job placement and
career success of our graduates. Student performance will be assessed through perceptions of quality of
classroom and laboratory performance as well as through data on timeframes for milestone attainment
(completion of the MRP; completion of the Qualifier; completion of the Dissertation). Likewise, we will
carefully monitor retention and reasons for discontinuation in the program. Formal surveys may be
administered to assess student achievement, progress, satisfaction, and feedback.
B4. Student Activities and Achievements
During the Proseminar (taught by Professor Celia Moore), students are provided with a great deal of
information about the characteristics and ethics of doing and publishing research as well as information
about grantsmanship. The NSF Graduate Research Fellowship Program (GRFP) has been used as the
prototype program for the grant-writing component required in the course. Although an actual submission
is not required, all students in the first DBS cohort wanted to submit an application. Two were eligible for
the NSF and applied. The National Defense Science and Engineering Graduate Fellowship (NDSEG)
program was added as an alternative for a student who wanted to make an application but was ineligible for
the NSF. Two students were ineligible for all early stage fellowships because of their Master’s degree or
international status.
In the Proseminar for the second year cohort, Dr. Moore again used the NSF GRFP as the prototype for
the required grant-writing component. Again, actual submission was not required, but all students wanted to
submit. The syllabus was reordered to make training for research proposal writing earlier in the semester in
order to meet deadlines. Also, there was explicit attention to similarities and differences between the NSF
GRFP and the Ford and NDSEG. Three students from the 2013 cohort were eligible for one or more of
these. Two students were ineligible because of their Master’s degree or international status. IN her role as
Director of the Developmental Sciences Research Center, Dr. Moore initiated a voluntary grant writing and
career development program in fall, 2013, to follow up the Proseminar work for all students and expand it to
include a variety of grants and career development opportunities. Although a few students had scheduling
conflicts, most participated and submitted a total of 10 early stage fellowship proposals, as well as a variety
of travel and research support proposals. While decisions have not yet been made about funding for all of
these submissions, we have learned of several successes:
Doris Chow has received a travel award from the Office of International and Transnational Affairs
for an International Conference, “XIX Biennial International Conference on Infant Studies” in
Berlin, Germany;
Sylvia Guillory has received support from the Office of International and Transnational Affairs for
a project entitled “Visual Memory in Infants at Risk for Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD)”. It is
being done in collaboration with the Center for Brain and Cognitive Development in London;
54
Maha Ramamurthy has received the 2014 Elsevier/Vision Research Travel Award (VSS Student
Travel Award) for the 2014 Annual VSS Meeting. Maha was chosen for this competitive award as
one of 20 recipients in a pool of roughly 200 applicants.
Allison Fitch has received support from the Psi Chi Graduate Research Grant to help support her
research in the amount of $1,500.
To date, one paper has been accepted for publication representing the work of a DBS student and her
mentor: Madden, A.M.K. & Zup, Susan L. (2014). Effects of developmental hyperserotonemia on
juvenile play behavior, oxytocin and serotonin receptor expression in the hypothalamus
are age and sex dependent. Physiology & Behavior, 128, 260-269.
C. Future Plans for the DBS Program
In the two initial years of this program, the DBS faculty have been quite busy dealing with daily needs,
research training and supervision, academically-focused lab meetings, and new course development and
offerings. All also teach in the undergraduate program. The faculty meet weekly to biweekly for
discussion. They have determined that the translational, multidisciplinary training goals of the program will
benefit from a weekly seminar of this ilk that would be attended by faculty and graduate students across all
cohorts. The first iteration of this seminar is informally occurring this semester, and will be offered as a
new course in Fall 2014. Likewise, thought has gone into the best order in which to offer methods courses
as well as the number needed. Thus, some program revisions are likely to be proposed in the next year.
VIII. Professional Certificate Program in Infant and Parent Mental Health
In addition to our outstanding doctoral programs, our department also hosts the highly acclaimed Infant-
Parent Mental Health (IPMH) Postgraduate Fellowship/Certificate Program developed by Distinguished
Professor Ed Tronick who joined our faculty in 2007, with Program Director, Dr. Dorothy Richardson,
Associate Program Director Marilyn Davillier, and Napa Program Director, Dr. Kristie Brandt. This
program is offered in two locations, a Napa Program and our program at UMass Boston. A brochure
describing these programs is attached in Appendix VIIIA. The program is designed to advance the quality
of mental health services for infants and young children in the context of their earliest relationships. Fellows
have the opportunity to learn directly from world luminaries, including Chief Faculty, Ed Tronick, T. Berry
Brazelton, Dan Siegel, Bruce Perry, Charles Zeanah, Joy Osofsky, Kevin Nugent, Beatrice Beebe, George
Downing, Peter Fonagy, and many more.
The program provides comprehensive training (over 260 hours of direct classroom learning) in infant
and early childhood mental health (Birth to Six), research, theory, assessment, and interventions. More
specifically, topics include:
Neurodevelopmental models of risk and resilience, effects of trauma on early relationships and early
brain development;
Therapeutic interventions with infants and families (including neurodevelopmental models of
intervention, dyadic and family systems psychotherapies, such as child-parent psychotherapy,
parent- child interaction therapy, therapeutic use of videotape with families, Early Start Denver
Model, and more);
Infant and early childhood screening and assessment tools and measures (including NBO training,
NCAST Parent-Child Interaction Scales training, DC:0-3R training, and many other screening and
diagnostic tools);
Research, diagnosis and multidisciplinary approaches to treating infant regulatory disorders,
developmental and social communication disorders, mood and anxiety disorders, post-traumatic
stress disorder, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder and other behavioral disturbances in early
childhood;
55
Postpartum mood disorders and therapeutic interventions to support parents and parent-child
relationships;
Reflective practice/facilitated integration of course material with individuals’ practice at every
session;
Faculty support on an independent project of Fellow’s choosing, showing a unique contribution to
the IPMH field in assessment, intervention, policy or research.
The UMass Boston Program welcomed its 4th
class of Fellows in January 2014, whereas the Napa
Program has been training fellows since its establishment in 2002. The two programs have similar content
but the UMass Boston Program is offered over a two year period and the Napa Program over 15 months.
Here at UMass Boston, the IPMH Program is a part-time post-graduate program consisting of 12 intensive,
interactive three-day weekends, meeting every other month (Jan, Mar, May, July, Sept, Nov.) over the
course of two years. A booklet describing the 2012-2013 Fellows and their activities and accomplishments
is attached as Appendix VIIIB. This class of 26 professionals represented many different disciplines,
including Pediatrics, Neonatology, Clinical Social Work, Nursing, Mental Health Counseling, Infant
Massage Therapy, Special Education, Child and Family Law and Clinical Psychology. They came to the
program not only from all over the United States, but all over the world, including Canada, Chile, Cyprus,
Italy, Kuwait, Peru, Singapore, and Sudan. All entered the program to learn more about infant-parent
mental health in order to enhance their work with young children and families and to focus their careers on
improving the mental health of infants and their families. The richness of this program can perhaps best be
captured by perusal of a handful of the projects undertaken by the Fellows (excerpted from booklet in
Appendix VIIIB).
Title: Developing Baby Board Books as a Medium for Parent Education.
Research tells us that healthy communication between parent and infant, and a parent’s attentive, appropriate response
to his or her baby, have long-term effects on the healthy social, emotional, and cognitive development of the child.
However, many parents do not have access to basic information about how babies communicate, such as the states of
consciousness or cues. To help fill this information gap, “Read to Me and I’ll Teach You About…My Baby States” is a
board book that gives parents easy access to information that will improve their understanding and facilitate more
positive communication between parent and infant. Board books are written in basic language that can be understood by
a large portion of the literate population, and are readily accessible to many parents, making them an ideal medium for
parent education. “Read to Me…” is the first in a series of board books that will provide basic parent education in
regard to Infant-Parent Mental Health principles.
Title: The Developmental Consequences of Early Childhood Neglect: Sounding the Cry for a Non-Professional
Audience
The often devastating impact of childhood sexual and physical abuse has, over the last 30 years, come to be widely
recognized by both mental health professionals and by our society at large. More recently, the long-term effects of
children’s exposure to domestic and community violence have received substantial attention as well. The problem of
emotional neglect of children, however, has remained largely unstudied and often overlooked, in spite of its prevalence,
and increasing evidence for its toxic effects. This presentation will summarize recent research on the specific
developmental consequences of early childhood neglect, in the hopes of providing a template for educating a non-
professional audience. In doing so, it will draw on models and research presented during the IPMH fellowship by
Tronick, Zeanah, Murray and Cooper, and Osofsky.
Title: A parent-child interactive and regulational perspective to children's bedtime routines: An exploratory study in
two cultural contexts
The current study explored children's sleeping bedtime routines based on a parent-child interactional and regulational
model (Tronick 1988). For this purpose, participants were 4 middle class first time mothers (between 25 and 44 years
old ) with children between 12 and 24 months. Two dyads came from Rome (Italy) and two from Lima (Peru). Mothers
completed a questionnaire ad hoc about their children with items such as sleep patterns and environment, sleep related
parental interventions, sleep positions and demographic information. Mothers were interviewed with regard to their
subjective experience about getting their children to sleep and their own bedtime childhood memories The study
included videotaped mother-child bedtime routine observational data filmed by the mothers.
56
Title: The Establishment of the Clinic for Understanding Baby Behaviors (“CUBB”)
The Clinic for Understanding Baby Behaviors (“CUBB”) will be established as a program of the American Foundation
for Family Attachment, Inc., a non-profit family therapy center in Springfield, VA. CUBB will provide emotional and
relational support services for families with infants (aged 0-3) who are experiencing problems with self-regulation,
including excessive crying (colic), sleeping and feeding issues. With an early attachment focus (i.e., the caretaker as
modulator of infant affect), CUBB will provide parents of fussy infants with tools and support for managing their babies’
dysregulation at home and when out and about. The CUBB model will closely follow that of The Cry, Colic and Sleep
Clinic at the Brown Center for the Study of Children at Risk. The CUBB model will also include the Newborn Behavioral
Observations Systems, infant massage instruction, and clinical lactation services when deemed appropriate.
Title: Integrating Infant Mental Health Concepts in Nurse Case Management of High Risk Pregnant Substance
Abusing Women for Network Health Insurance
This project will look at telephonic nurse case management of pregnant women that have abused substances during their
pregnancy. Babies born to women abusing drugs are at high risk of being born prematurely, having low birth weight and
having developmental and behavioral problems. I will focus on the importance of engagement, coordination of
comprehensive care and early referrals for pregnant women that have a current or past history of substance abuse.
Nurse case management will include working in collaboration with other team members, as well as community services
that are available. Education will include the importance of early relationships with the mother and baby starting in
pregnancy. Helping women recognize and see their baby’s uniqueness, the important role they have in their baby’s
development while they are pregnant and once their babies are born. The need of coordination of care in pregnancy,
delivery and postpartum will be discussed. Involving mother’s in the care of their babies once they are born and the
importance of continued support for the family will be included.
The IPMH Program at UMass Boston continues to be a highly successful program and it currently
(2014-2015) has a highly accomplished cohort of Fellows representing over 12 different disciplines, from
over 13 different states and 8 different countries. The Napa Program has now served 262 Fellows who are
either currently enrolled or have graduated since 2003. Like the UMass Boston Program, Napa serves
individuals from multiple professions.
IX. Service to the Institution and Profession
Our department is a service intensive one with respect to the departmental contributions that are demanded, the
college and University level service that is expected, and the community and professional service that is generously
volunteered by the faculty. Examination of last year’s Annual Faculty Reports indicated that all full-time tenure track
and non-tenure track faculty served on two or more departmental committees, 9 served on college committees, 20
served on University-level committees, 11 served on committees or boards for organizations in the New England area,
and 9 faculty held offices in national professional organizations with an equal number on Editorial Boards of
prominent journals. This level of activity has also led to national recognition through university and, also, national
special awards. Most recently and notably, Dr. Karen Suyemoto (Associate Professor now undergoing promotion
review) was nominated for, and won recognition as, a White House Champion of Change in the category Asian
American Pacific Islander women as previously described. Thus, we clearly have a highly dedicated and engaged
faculty. In our department, it is more frequent that a member needs to be advised about protecting their time and not
over-committing to service, than having to beg someone to take on a task. We value service at all levels and, indeed
exemplify the University mission with respect to contributions to the institution, the community, the Commonwealth,
and beyond.
X. Departmental Staff
Staff in the Department include state-supported and grant-supported personnel. Full time employees are
members of the Professional Staff or Classified Staff Unions.
57
A. Professional staff
The Department has five full-time professional staff employees, including one that is new for the DBS
Program as of February, 2014. Three of these individuals report to the Chair of the Department and two
report directly to the Director of Clinical Training (DCT, or Graduate Program Director) or the Graduate
Program Director for the DBS Program, each reporting indirectly to the Chair. Each is described below.
Eric Berry, B.A., Director of Laboratories: Under the direct supervision of the Chair of the
Department, but with considerable autonomy, the Director of Laboratories provides technical assistance to
the Department’s faculty, staff, and graduate students and oversees all operations with respect to provision
of technical equipment and servicing in human and animal labs, maintenance and repair of laboratory
facilities, and equally large and notably, construction and planning of new facilities, a major job in recent
years. In the last seven years, providing labs for new faculty has involved 4 major construction planning
and supervision efforts: the new animal lab in the Science Building (Zup and Park); the laboratory for Dr.
Ed Tronick in the Wheatley Building; renovated space for the Center for Evidence-Based Mentoring in the
Wheatley Building, renovated space on the second floor of the McCormack building that provides DBS
program space and three new laboratories, and last but, by no stretch least, the planning, management, and
oversight of the construction and equipment needs for the Psychology labs, animal and human, in the new
Integrated Sciences Complex. On a daily basis, the staff member is also responsible for the purchase,
maintenance, and management of laboratory equipment, psychological tests, audio-visual equipment,
computer hardware and software, animal lab supplies and equipment, and, on occasion, construction of
specialized electronic equipment or interfacing utilized in departmental teaching, research or administration.
Departmental research includes studies of human and animal behavior, with laboratories utilizing
physiological imaging systems (EEG, NIRS), real-time computer controlled display and recording
equipment (imaging systems, eye trackers, computer network systems, video, audio, and physiological
recording and analysis systems). The number and complexity of our labs has grown tremendously since the
original establishment of this position as will be discussed in the section on Critical Staff Needs: in short,
we desperately need another support staff position in this category. In the last 2-3 years, the department has
provided support for a part-time technical assistant through expenditures from our RTF account, and
occasionally from specific grant budgets.
Michelle Browning, M.Ed., Department Office Manager: Under the direct supervision of the Chair
of the Department, but with considerable autonomy, the office Manager supervises and supports the day-to-
day operation of all aspects of the Department. She assists the chair in tasks related to oversight of budgets,
course scheduling, course evaluations, student registration and advising, staff and faculty hiring (including
preparation of all personnel action forms for state-supported personnel), and interactions with various
services within the University and Commonwealth. The Office Manager is the primary person seen by
students on routine academic and related issues, including transfer courses, degree audits, assignment of
appropriate advisors, etc. She prepares and maintains all confidential personnel and budget records for the
department faculty and staff. She prepares reports related to budget; budget projections and allocation of
requests and advises the chair on expenditure of resource allocations. The Office Manager also works with
the Chair and Associate Chair in recruiting and orienting part-time faculty and in preparing their hiring
contracts.
Leon Litchfield, Ph.D., Departmental Grant Administrator: Beginning in 2007, the Dean’s Office
began to support this position at the 70% level which grew to 100% in 2009. The departmental grant
administrator manages the majority of the pre-award and post-award activities related to grants within our
department (excluding activities within the HORIZON Center and the Mentoring Center), provides
purchasing assistance, does hiring contracts for grant employees, and keeps all formal records of relevance
to financial management of the grants. Given the number and complexity of grant management across the
58
many public and private sources of funding provided to our faculty, additional support is now necessary for
departmental grant administration (see section on Critical Staff Needs).
Linda Curreri, M. Ed., Assistant Director of Clinical Psychology: The Assistant Director of Clinical
Psychology assists the DCT in administering the program. She works with the team of our Department Staff
and has one-two undergraduate work-study students who directly provide assistance to her. Under the
direction of the DCT, the Assistant Director is responsible for designing administrative systems and
carrying out varied tasks related to program activities including: overseeing the graduate admissions
database; supporting the work of the Clinical Executive Committee and the Clinical Program Committee;
helping prepare program brochures, newsletters and other materials; and providing general staff assistance
to the DCT. She keeps track of the program budget and does the accounting for the program. She also
serves as the program’s web master and assists the DCT and program committee chairs with scheduling and
publicizing of program activities, creating contracts for graduate student stipends, and maintaining the
databases necessary for annual reports required by APA and the Office of Graduate Studies.
Karyn Aiello, B.A., Graduate Program Assistant for the DBS Program: The DBS Program
Assistant supports the GPD in administering the program including advertising and recruitment activities,
development of contracts for graduate student stipends, development and maintenance of administrative
systems necessary for record keeping regarding program activities and accomplishments, and updating of
the web page. She also supports the work of the DBS Executive Committee and manages and does the
accounting for the DBS budget. Until the program reaches an asymptotic level of students, she also assists
the Departmental Grant Administrator on various student grant applications and in purchasing and
reimbursement activities for grants held by DBS faculty. This is one way we are currently supporting the
Departmental Grant Administrator in completion of his responsibilities.
B. Classified staff
For most of the period under review, the Department has employed three classified staff members.
These individuals each perform a variety of tasks to support the Chair, Professional Staff, and faculty
members in teaching, research, and administration. In the last few months, the position of Animal Care
Technician, has moved under the umbrella of the Office of Research and Sponsored Programs.
Odeh Kraskian, Administrative Assistant to the Chair: This assistant reports to the Chair and the
Office Manager and performs a variety of clerical and administrative activities for the faculty and for the
chair of our large, complex department. The assistant manages many activities for faculty such as
photocopying of exams and syllabi, and acquiring signatures on hiring, IRB, personnel, and grant-related
documents. She also is responsible for “timekeeping” for our large number of departmental and grant-
supported employees. For the Chair, she is responsible for database management and record-keeping of all
official departmental policies and documents. She attends department meetings and drafts minutes.
Likewise, she assists in scheduling the many other meetings and committees for the Chair and faculty. This
involves not only doodle polls but also the scheduling and identification of the rooms in which groups will
meet. Many of these activities are confidential in nature, and concern faculty and student careers. The
assistant also manages the daily activities for and provides the training, supervising and scheduling of the
work performed by our 4 work-study student assistants. She also maintains the office supply inventory and
oversees the daily needs related to photocopying and printing, and the related trouble-shooting and repair of
printers and copiers provided through the central administration.
Chris Goldy, Laboratory Technician II: This technical assistant reports to the Director of
Laboratories and indirectly to the Chair. He assists the Director with technical and logistical support for
both research and teaching laboratories, acts as purchasing liaison for departmental functions, including
grant-supported research, and interfaces with faculty, students, and vendors to optimize purchasing within
59
university purchasing guidelines. He maintains records of departmental purchases and various software and
program licenses. He also assists with the upgrade and administration of the departmental servers, various
computers, and other office technology. He assists in the maintenance of an adequate spare parts inventory
of systems, subsystems, and component parts used in repair work, and consumable media for computer
peripherals and instructional technology within departmentally-maintained classrooms.
Elizabeth Boates, Laboratory Technician II: This animal laboratory technician reported directly to
the Director of Laboratories and indirectly to the Chair until the end of the fall semester 2013. She now
reports to the Director of the Office of Research and Sponsored Programs. The line was originally placed in
the Department for administrative purposes but has always been shared functionally with Biology (and, in
principle, any other unit doing vertebrate animal research). The Technician is responsible for the day-to-day
operation of a vivarium that supports vertebrate animal research in Biology, Psychology and medical
disciplines (currently, predominantly rats and mice). She works closely with the consulting veterinarian,
staff from Facilities, faculty PIs, and part-time student workers under her supervision to maintain the
facilities and take care of the animals within federal guidelines. She is also called upon to perform routine
laboratory tests and to supervise adherence to animal lighting or feeding schedules under the supervision of
faculty using the facility.
C. Student employees
The Department typically employs 4-5 part-time undergraduate student employees, paid largely through
work-study funding (covered by the departmental Curriculum Trust Fund which generally begins paying
100% in April when work-study funds have been fully expended), to assist the full-time office staff in their
duties. One of these work-study students assists the Clinical Psychology Program. Additionally, two work-
study students are employed to support the technical work of the Director of Labs. The length of
employment may be only a single year since students graduate and move on, however, four of this year’s
student office staff members have been with us from 2-3 years as have the technical assistants. This
stability of the student workforce has allowed them to take on increasingly complex responsibilities,
bringing tremendous value to the efficiency of our department. Student employees are supervised by the
professional and classified staff. They maintain coverage of the front reception desk for most of the
working day, take care of most duplicating, scanning, and filing needs, assist with the organization and
processing of course evaluations, and assist with record-keeping of deliveries of office and research
supplies. They help in a variety of other duties as needed, including assisting with technical work in the
teaching and research laboratories.
D. Grant supported personnel
In recent years, we have annually had more than 50 grant-supported employees in addition to the
departmental staff named above. At present, research funds support 60 full- or part-time staff within
departmental labs. There are an additional four staff persons working in the Center for Evidence-Based
Mentoring. These individuals include undergraduates, graduate students, post-docs, Project Managers,
administrative staff, and research faculty.
E. Critical Staff Needs
While we have adequate office staff, we are in critical need of technical support staff for the Director of
Labs and of additional support staff for the Departmental Grant Administrator. These issues have been
discussed and empirically-informed by deliberations at retreats, notably the March 2012 retreat. Below is a
modified slide from that retreat (see Figure 9) that illustrates how our faculty have changed with respect to
the nature and volume of laboratory activities, while the technical staff have remained constant. The point
of focus should be the number above the bars: those indicate the number of technically-demanding labs
60
(instrumentation-based) and show that the staff were put in place when we had 3 instrumentation-based labs
and 23 faculty. We now have 15 instrumentation-based labs and 25 tenure stream faculty. (It is also
interesting to note that despite our recent growth, the number of faculty in our department is minimally
larger than what we had in 2000.) Research activities in our department now also differ with respect to
equipment sophistication. Our main point here is that one Lab Director with one full-time assistant is not
adequate to manage the needs of our department.
While sometimes grants have been able to support technical personnel, this has become increasingly less
true as not only are grants harder to get, but when awarded, they are in lesser amounts, often precluding
covering things such as technical support or grant management staff: things expected to be adequately
covered through the indirect costs. Thus, our research infrastructure would benefit greatly from an
additional technical support staff member.
We have previously discussed growth in the numbers of departmental grants during the 7 years under
review. During that period, the numbers of grant-supported staff have also tripled (21in 06-07 to current
60). Management of the increased number of grants also demands increased personnel. Due to immediate
need, our current adaptation has been to designate some of the DBS Program Assistant’s time to assisting
the departmental Grant Administrator. This will be helpful, but not fully adequate, and will only be possible
for perhaps two more years as the DBS Program grows to an asymptotic number of students.
XI. Material Resources
A. Facilities and Technology in Support of Research and Teaching
The Psychology Department maintains its own technological resources. We provide access to the
department’s Windows 2008 servers and storage area network over a gigabit per second access in all offices
and labs providing 24 hour access to printer file sharing backup and Internet services. The graduate students
have also been given access to a new Palo Alto VPN concentrator. This allows them to access all resources
Figure 9. Changes in Departmental Technical Support Needs Since 1994
61
on the psychology network as well as the university network from anywhere off campus with internet
access. This effectively allows them to work from any location.
The department has four dedicated multimedia instructional classrooms: 1) Our classroom on the
second floor of McCormack is largely used for graduate courses in the Clinical Program and for Statistics
courses. It has 13 virtualized windows 7 workstations, with an instructor’s smart podium, data projector and
HP laser printer; 2) Our classroom in the Science Building is used primarily for undergraduate instruction in
our upper level Experimental Methods courses, Internships, and Honors classes. It is an eight station fully
networked virtualized Windows 7 pro multimedia instructional lab, with data projector, HP laser printer
and a large format color poster printer.; 3) McCormack, 4th
floor, Room 603 is utilized primarily by the
Clinical and DBS Programs and has an instructor’s smart podium and data projector; 4) Our new DBS
classroom also has a smart podium and data projection system. Additionally, we have a room on the 3th
floor of the McCormack Building that houses a production computer laboratory exclusively for graduate
student use. It is fully networked and contains 8 Windows 7 workstations and an HP laser jet printer.
All faculty offices and laboratories are equipped with multi-platform workstations
(Mac/Windows/Unix). Available software includes SPSS (full current version), Matlab, Simulink, Adobe
Creative Suite, SAS, Microsoft Office, MMPI, WAIS, and Rorschach scoring software and NVIVO. The
department also houses an electro-mechanical fabrication and full service machine shop for building
research equipment. The Director of Laboratories and a full time technician provide hardware, software and
research equipment support, on the basis of priorities and chronological order of requests. In recent years, it
has become necessary and efficient to utilize a scheduling system called RequestTracker that the department
provides.
In 2011, the Developmental Sciences Research Center (DSRC) was awarded a congressional earmark
under the fund for the improvement of post-secondary education (FIPSI). Funding through that grant helped
to provide some of the equipment and software that graduate students are able to access for use in their
research training. Some of those resources include: access to a confocal microscope (housed in Biology),
use of a Tobii t100 eye tracker, and use of Noldus Ethovision XT – a software platform that tracks animal
behavior.
In the last two years, our department has, in collaboration with UMass Lowell and the President’s
Office, begun to offer access to virtual machines to students off campus. This offering has the potential to
enhance many of the classes that we teach in many ways, not the least of which is giving students access to
software from anywhere needed to complete coursework. The best example of this has been its value within
our Statistics courses. Students used to have to come to campus to gain access to SPSS software. This
offering allows them to access that software from wherever they are, and on just about any device, with an
internet connection. In addition to student access, it allows the instructors of the courses to offer larger data
sets for analysis. This makes for a richer experience with the curriculum.
B. Current and Coming Classroom Facilities
Since our 2007 AQUAD Review, the university has upgraded almost all of our classrooms into “smart”
classrooms. However, we do not have enough of them and more are now under construction. UMass
Boston's General Academic Building No. 1 will serve a large cross-representation of students, faculty, and
staff and support the university's growing student enrollment and course offerings. The four-story building
will provide nearly 2,000 seats in state-of-the-art general purpose classrooms, faculty and staff offices, a
café, student lounge and study spaces, as well as specialized space for three academic programs: art,
chemistry, and performing arts.
The GAB1 will provide the following general classrooms and support spaces of relevance to our
department:
a 500-seat lecture hall;
62
four 150–200-seat lecture halls;
two case-method classrooms;
a multi-media 63-seat studio classroom;
thirteen 30–40-seat classrooms;
five 20-seat seminar classrooms;
a café; and
student lounge and study spaces
C. New Laboratory Facilities: The Integrated Sciences Complex (ISC)
UMass Boston is nearing the completion of the construction of the Integrated Sciences Complex (ISC),
the first new academic building on campus in nearly 40 years. The new building will advance student and
faculty access, engagement, and success with state-of-the art research, teaching, and training laboratories. It
will promote collaboration among students, faculty, staff, and visitors while opening doors to strategic and
community partnerships and funding opportunities. Expected move-in dates for laboratories are Fall 2014.
The ISC will provide the following spaces of relevance to some of our departmental labs and many of
our students:
Research lab and support space (for biology, chemistry, environmental sciences, physics, and
psychology);
Undergraduate introductory biology teaching laboratories;
Interdisciplinary undergraduate sandbox teaching labs;
The Infant and Child Development Lab (within our individual lab area); and
The Developmental Sciences Research Center.
D. Departmental Budgets
The operating budget in the Department comes from five sources. The primary budget comes from
the annual allocation of state funds from the Dean of CLA into the Curriculum Trust Fund (CTF) account
(now part of the General Operating Fund, GOF account). In the last several years, this account has received
about $70,000/year based on a formula that considers the number of faculty, number of majors, and number
of programs. Each doctoral program has a separate CTF account. The CTF budgets are supplemented with
an Educational Sales and Services (ESS) account, which receives funds for our administrative support of
educational work outside state-supported sessions, including administrative services provided by the
Department to CAPS and earned through curricular offerings. Annual income in this account averages
approximately $5000/year. Funds in the Research Trust Fund (RTF) account come from an allocation of
20% of the indirect costs on grants (15% for use by the Department and 5% earmarked for use by PIs
generating the grant). We discussed this account more fully as a Faculty Resource in Section III. A Lab
Fee account (about $2000 in FY14) comes from fees charged to students enrolled in courses that use
software licenses, equipment, psychological tests, and expendables. A small Development Fund (about
$2000/year) comes from donors that specify the Department as the recipient. We are hopeful that this
account will grow in the coming years as more visibility is brought to our excellence through the efforts of
the Office of Advancement with our collaboration.
The CTF supports basic phone and mail charges, office supplies, and duplicating costs, which together
account for over 60% of expenditures. Other costs include service contracts on office machines,
replacement of office equipment, occasional support for speakers, event costs, recruitment of faculty, and
salaries for part-time employees. The ESS account is used flexibly to supplement CTF, which is
particularly useful when there are major expenses, such as replacing machines in our teaching classrooms or
replacing/enhancing departmental servers. In FY12, for example, the ESS account was used to completely
63
refurbish the graduate student laboratory with new computers, a duplex printer, and furniture. The critically
important RTF account has previously been discussed as the major source for our departmental research
infrastructure. The Lab Fee account is used to contribute to course expenses such as maintaining our
departmental classrooms and purchasing software and licenses (such as statistical software; PsychData, a
survey system). The Development Fund is used to support special events for students, student research, and
prizes.
XII. Plans for the Future
At the departmental level only, we have just finalized changes in our B.A. major that will alter it from a
12 course to a 13 course major. This is based, in part, on the results of our departmental Assessment and the
influences of national changes and new faculty expectations in departmental discussions. Our department
has decided that additional training in research methods and critical thinking will improve the knowledge of
our majors and their ability to be lifelong critical thinkers and better informed citizens. Thus, we have
chosen to add an essential new course, Research Methods II, that will be piloted this fall, following a
committee-based creation of the syllabus. The Research Methods committee has been formed of all faculty
who teach our current research methods or Statistics courses. Following its initial offering, we will then
finalize content, propose the new course for approval through governance, and then submit a proposal for a
change in the major. Other changes to be submitted/requested at that time include an additional requirement
re performance of our majors: majors will be allowed to graduate with only 1 D and 1 P/F course within the
major. We currently have the restriction to the one P/F course, and have carefully analyzed the impact of
adding the one D requirement, and determined it to be minimal but important, affecting perhaps 5-10
graduates each year.
Based on discussions at our retreats and department meetings, we also have decided that requests for
new tenure-track faculty should prioritize the needs of the undergraduate program in the methodological and
social psychology areas. Our past focus on strengthening the graduate programs has come at some sacrifice
in these areas with respect to numbers of faculty and teaching of courses in these areas by tenure-track
faculty.
Additionally, we hope to strengthen bridges between our graduate programs, perhaps through additional
courses that might attract students across programs (Developmental Disorders, Statistics for Developmental
Research, the Neurobiology of Mental Health Disorders). We are also examining the possibility of jointly
pursuing a training grant for graduate students and post-docs that is focused within the arena of disparities
mental health and in maternal and child health. Our department aspires to become truly outstanding with
respect to graduate, professional, and undergraduate training within the spirit of the University and
departmental mission.
XIII. Appendices
