For Information
?
S.92-38
SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY ?
OFFICE OF THE VICE-PRESIDENT, ACADEMIC
?
MEMORANDUM
To: Senate ?
From:
?
Alison J. Watt, Secretary
Senate Committee on
Academic Planning
Re: External Review ?
Date: ?
May 12, 1992
School of Kinesiology
Attached is a summary of the External Review report of the School of Kinesiology for
the information of Senate. The review was discussed and received by the Senate
Committee on Academic Planning at its meeting on 6 May 1992.
Senators who wish to review the complete external review and departmental response
should contact Secretariat Services for copies.
1
U_j
I
External Review - School of
Kinesiology
The School of Kinesiology was reviewed in November 1990 by the
following review team:
Member ?
Dr. Robert Mirwald, Professor and Dean
Faculty of Physical Education,
University of Saskatchewan
Member ?
Dr. Robert Norman, Professor
Department of Kinesiology
University of Waterloo
Chair
?
Dr. Warren L. Veale,
Department of Medical Physiology,
and Dean, Faculty of Physical Education
The University of Calgary
Internal Member
?
Dr. Marilyn Bowman, Professor
Department of Psychology, SFU
I
The committee reported in January 1991, but because there was a change in
the Directorship in the School, the response from the School was delayed in
its preparation.
The recommendations of the review committee are attached.
13 May, 1992
0
22.
VII. RECOMIIENDAT IONS
1.
With the appointment of a new Director, a comprehensive review of the
School of Kinesiology be undertaken to provide a definition of focus
and mandate, and the development of a strategic plan which addresses
faculty and support personnel, equipment, facility space, undergradu-
ate and graduate curriculum, etc. The Director should be given the
support and assistance of the Dean of Applied Sciences and the Vice-
President (Academic), but should be held accountable to meet these
goals within a realistic timetable.
2.
The Director and faculty must fully and openly discuss the goals and
objectives of the School within the framework of the University.
R
ationalization of curriculum, research, scholarshi
p
, workloads, etc.,
must be addressed and a consensus reached on the mandate and focus of
the School of Kinesiology within the broad university objectives of
teaching, research, and service. Following this discussion, the
Director should develop a plan for the School of Kinesiology to
rellect and implement the consensus position.
3. The
undergraduate
curriculum should be thoroughly reviewed following
the
i
m
p
lementation of recommendation
51.
Dependent on the definition
Of the School's focus, it is imperative to provide curriculum
revisions which will strengthen and enhance the Kinesiolo
g
y curricu-
lum. Implied within this recommendation is the question in what areas
should the two new faculty appointments be made. The faculty appoint-
ments should be made upon the implementation of recommendations #1
and 12.
4.
The Director, in consultation with faculty, must address the space
allocation within the School prior to the completion of the proposed
new laboratory wing. Consideration should be given to providing space
or the rearrangement of existing space to allow for: realignment of
the main
faculty and staff
office;
room; undergraduate and graduate
student common room; and new laboratory space.
23.
5.
Given the curriculum and research demands, the School of Kinesiology
requires additional technical support. There is a need to address and
rationalize the current allocation to the School. The Dean of Applied
Sciences and Vice-President (Academic) must recognize this impediment
to the delivery of undergraduate, graduate and research programs. In
addition, the continuing major equipment needs of the School and its
programs must be recognized by the Dean and Vice-President.
6.
The Director should review the administrative structure of the School
- ? of Kinesiology and make recommendations.
9
0-
L
JAH/ta
SCAP 92-20
.
?
SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY
Office of the Director
?
memorandum
To:
?
Dr. J. Munro, Vice President, Academic
Dr. R. Marteniuk, Dean, F.A.S.
From:
?
J.A. Hoffer
Date: ?
29th April, 1992
Re:
?
External Review
Please find our School's response to the External
Review that took place in November 1990.
RESPONSE TO THE EXTERNAL REVIEW OF K1NESIOLOGY
April, 1992
prepared by
J. Dickinson, (Director until 30 April, 1991)
I.B.Mekjavic, (Acting Director, 1 May - 30 November, 1991)
J.A. Hoffer, (Director, since 1 December, 1991)
The review of the School of Kinesiology occurred in November
1990. The timing of the review was in some ways opportune and in
other respects was a poor choice. The advantage of the timing
was that the review came in the last year of the outgoing
Director's term. The review therefore
p
rovided a useful starting
point for the new Director. The internal self-study report
accumulated and summarized a large body of information which is a
valuable resource for the Director-elect and should facilitate
his rapid understanding of the School and enable him to make
recommendations for change more easily.
The timing of the review was less favourable with respect to
the d
y
namic change that was and is occurring within the School.
The School was entering a
p
hase of rapid change in terms of both
. ?
physical space and faculty com
p
lement. Because of this, many of
the recommendations of the report were already out-of-date by the
time that it was received.
The response to the external review has also been
complicated by the many changes occurring in the School. The
faculty agreed that it was best to delay the response until the
new Director had assumed his responsibilities. Also, it was
agreed that the response should convey, the School's vision, both
short term and long term. Since the School was holding a Retreat
following the external review, it was felt that some of the
issues addressed by the external review could be discussed, and
the view of the School incorporated in the response.
Finally, the School ,was hesitant to respond to the review by
offering its view on how it will address some of the critical
issues in the long term, prior to the new Dean and Director
presenting their strategic plans for the Faculty and School,
respectively. Strategic planning is now on the agenda at both
the Faculty and School levels. The School will hold a retreat
early in the Summer Semester, 1992, soecifically on this issue.
Q
2
General Comments:
The review presented relatively few direct
recommendations and involved relatively little evaluation of
the teaching and research of the School. In that respect,
it was disappointing. The most general comment of the
reviewers was with respect to the question of focus of the
School's teaching and research. This perceived lack of
focus was levelled as a criticism of the School in at least
six different sections of the review and, therefore,
deserves a separate commentary. A question that needs to be
asked is whether a "focus" for an interdisciplinary and
multidisciplinary unit is desirable at all. The vast
majority of academic units, even within the most traditional
departments, seldom have a single focus for their research
or teaching. Within Kinesiology at Simon Fraser University
there were, at the time of the review, 15 1/2 faculty
members whose terminal degrees emanated from eight different
disciplines, with interests ranging from engineering to
biochemistry and clinical medicine to psychology. While
interesting interdisciplinary research occurs within the
School, the probability that these individuals could all
subscribe to a single focus is slight.
In addition, all except one faculty member, received
external funding for support of research. Many of these
grants are of the "individual operating" type. They are
awarded on the basis of excellence in research and
frequently have highly specific goals of development. The
opportunity researchers have to change their orientation
while maintaining their research funding is somewhat limited
and the value of doing so, in order to achieve a focus for
the School, is debatable. It is also worth noting that many
of the faculty are mature researchers with national and
international reputations in their diverse fields. To
anticipate that they would be willing to change the
direction of their research in order to conform more closely
to some focus, which may have limited value, is probably
naive.
This is not to suggest that cooperative research within
the School does not occur or that it should not be more
actively encouraged. However, it does suggest that a single
focus is probably neither desirable nor achievable. An
alternative view, that there should be "streams" or "foci"
of research, has merit. To a greater or lesser extent these
exist already and, while not made explicit within the
internal self-study, nevertheless are implicit in the
research groupings within the School. The report,
therefore, should serve the useful function of encouraging
the School to make these research streams explicit and to
identify them as the foci of the School. This should,
however, in no way detract from the academic freedom of
faculty to pursue lines of research and enquiry which
.
may be
relatively independent from such streams or foci.
?
40
3
The question of focus of the School was a major item of
discussion at the Departmental Retreat held in July, 1991.
There was general disagreement with the perception of the
?
. ?
external reviewers that the School had departed from the
traditional focus of Kinesiology, namely Human Movement.
Our School was a pioneer in the field of Kinesiology in
North America. Though originally our main, and only, focus
was Human Movement in classical terms, we have come to
appreciate that Human Movement does not only relate to
Exercise and Physical Education, but it also relates to
numerous diverse areas, which are currently represented in
our School; including Ergonomics, Environmental Physiology,
Motor Behaviour and Rehabilitation. The development of our
expertise in these applied areas was only possible with the
established base in the traditional fields of Physiology,
Psychology, Biochemistry, Biomechanics, Neurophysiology,
etc. It is not surprising that a small department with such
variety could be perceived as lacking focus, especially if
its long-term vision were not appreciated. However, it is
quite clear from our present expansion, that we have not
only established a critical mass of faculty in each area,
but that these expanding areas have overlapped and
consequently garnished collaborative research projects.
Specific Responses:
These responses will be limited to comments made by the
external reviewers and will be identified by page numbers in
?
?
•
?
the external review.
- ?
P.7: A Question of Definition and Title
The review criticizes the definition of Kinesiology
used by the School and claims it is unacceptable to "walk
away from the traditional focus of Kinesiology, human
movement...." Language is a dynamic phenomenon in which the
evolution of words and their referents is in a constant
state of flux. Less than 20 years ago Kinesiology was still
defined as biomechanics and in some areas this narrow
definition is still applied. To suggest that a discipline
should be limited in its study to what its title meant at
some arbitrary point in time is to deny both the dynamic
nature of research and language. A good example is the
extent to which ergononics and human factors have come to be
part of Kinesiology. One reviewer (Norman) from Waterloo
has been a significant proponent of this development in
Kinesiology. Much human factors research has little to do
with human movement and we therefore find it surprising that
the review should repeatedly criticize the evolution of the
discipline in this way.
It is our contention that Kinesiology is defined by
what we do and not by any historic limitations. There is,
however, one rationale for change which is compelling. Many
?
•
?
traditional departments of Physical Education, aware perhaps
of the academic prestige achieved by Schools of Kinesiology
such as ours, are changing their name to Kinesiology with
4
little or no modification to their curriculum or the quality
of their research. Another review of the name for the
School might therefore be in order. When the evolution of
the meaning of the word Kinesiology was in our own hands
(i.e., when we were one of only two or three similar
departments) we could have confidence in the perception of
the field externally. If the definition becomes coloured by
what a large number of other, often academically inferior
units, are doing, then a debate over the name is probably
appropriate.
In view of the fact that our School has been the
pioneer and a leader in the establishment of the study of
Kinesiology, it seems unwarranted to question its initiative
to expand beyond traditional limits. While Kinesiology at
S.F.U. was a department, this concern might have been valid.
Concern would also be warranted had we retained our original
structure despite evolving into a School. The process of
redefining our Department to a School was not one of
convenience. It was a step in the natural development of
our Department. This more recognizes that we have the
nuclei of several departments evolving in our School. As
such it should be viewed, as a bold initiative taken by our
School which will no doubt be adopted by other units in
North America.
P.8: Recent Hiring Practices
The review suggests that recent hiring practices could
be considered irresponsible. The position appears to be
that seeking the best qualified individual should not be
used as a hiring strategy and that the best candidate within
a narrowly defined field or segment of the discipline is to
be preferred. The School of Kinesiology has used a
judicious combination of these practices in our opinion.
Where there has been an identified specific need,
advertisements have been formulated.and candidates selected
on that basis. Searches for an M.D. and the 3-year search
for a biomechanjst are good examples. On the other hand,
where it has been perceived that adding strength to any of a
number of different sub-areas would be equally beneficial,
broadly based advertisements eliciting applications from
diverse fields have been used, from which the best
candidate, irrespective of specific area, has been hired.
The success of this combination of practices is reflected in
the fact that all faculty hired in the last decade have
received tenure (insofar reviewed) and all are active,
externally funded researchers. This does not in our view
constitute irresponsible hiring.
The broadly based advertisements in recent years
reflect the needs of our School in many areas. As a small
and evolving department, we could not afford to limit our
search to only one specific area, for the fear that we would
not attract appropriate Canadian candidates. The main
impetus for our previous hiring process was the desire to
attract the best scholars in Canada. Our 'present faculty
5
roster, clearly attests to the fact that we have achieved
this goal.
Recent hiring practices (1991-1992) have been based on
the requirements of our undergraduate programme, and have
been very specific. Indeed, our search for a Biomechanist
has lasted almost six years. Though we had applications
from excellent candidates, but whose research could only be
considered marginally in Bioinechanics, we continued the
search until the most appropriate candidate was secured. We
now have an ongoing search for an Ergonomist. This is far
from a frivolous or irresponsible approach to hiring new
faculty.
P.9: Undergraduate Program
The review is correct in stating that the undergraduate
curriculum is in need of revision. Such a revision is now
underway. We anticipate that, again, existing foci within
the School of Kinesiology may be translated into explicit
streams of courses for undergraduates. These would be
overlapping, but may not have the same core requirements or
the same range of electives. This review should be
completed within the year.
P.10:
Lack of Flexibility
We agree with the external review that a part of the
•
?
review of the undergraduate curriculum should have, as one
O
f its goals, increasing the flexibility students have in
their program. A thorough review of the number of required
courses and the ratio to elective courses must be made with
a view to eliminating any prerequisites and restrictions
which do not serve essential functions.
This issue has been addressed extensively by the
Undergraduate Curriculum Committee and discussed at the
Retreat. The School is now pursuing a concerted effort to
establish four streams in the Undergraduate Programme, which
will give the students some flexibility regarding career
options, yet the programs will offer sufficient focus in
each stream, enabling the students to compete for jobs,
and/or
continue
their studies at a graduate level.
P.10: Counselling
The improvement in counselling is already underway and
will be continued.
Since the External Review, we have established a career
counselling
office, coordinated by the Kinesiology Co-op
coordinator. Though we have not made as large strides in
our academic counselling, methods of improving this are
being discussed by the Undergraduate Curriculum Committee.
6
P.11:
Many
Graduate
of the
Programcomments
?
with respect to the graduate
0
program have already received attention. The demands on
teaching assistants will become more homogeneous and
controlled under the new TSSU agreement.
The differences in expectations placed on graduate
students with respect to Masters thesis requirements is a
more difficult problem. With a faculty of such diverse
background, expectations from faculty tend to reflect
expectations from their "home" discipline. A thesis in
engineering may be very different from a thesis in
psychology or neurohysiology. A rough equivalence in terms
of time, effort and quality is probably the best that can be
achieved. As long as opinions of external examiners are
sought, as well as internal reviews by the Graduate Program
Committee, such equivalence can be achieved.
We agree with the comment that graduate courses should
be reviewed for content on a regular basis.
P.12:
Research
The comments on research in the review are superficial.
The research in the School is discussed in two paragraphs
and one of those is more concerned with teaching than
research. The only criticism of the research endeavour is
that there is little effort made to an "interdisciplinary
and/or multidisciplinary approach to research and research
questions." Frankly, this is wrong. Listed within the
internal report are the cooperative links between faculty in
the School and those in other faculties and institutions.
In addition there is considerable cooperation within
research groups within the School. It needs to be stressed
that with a large proportion of faculty supported by
"individual operating type" grants, there has been
significant individual research. The combination of
collaborative and individual research may change as funding
priorities and opportunities change. Again, it should be
noted that the School is composed largely of mature academic
researchers. They are-the best judges of where
collaboration would be useful and where individual effort is
to be preferred.
In the second paragraph the criticism is made that core
program courses are often taught by sessionals. In fact
relatively few core courses have been taught in this way,
but the point is well-taken. The goal of reducing the
number of sessjorials should be achieved with the new faculty
arriving between September 1991 and September 1992.
9
-
?
7
P.13: Su
pp ort Staff
Steps to improve the physical workspace of support
staff have been recently completed. The main office has
been redesigned to eliminate the constant flow of people
through the office, and to reduce the noise. Comments
regarding the new design have so far been only positive.
Staff cooperation and interpersonal relations have improved
significantly in the past months.
The electronics workshop has been relocated so that it
is more centrally located in the School. Reviews of the
functions of both clerical and technical staff either have
been made or will be made. As recommended, we agree that a
long-term strategic plan should be developed.
Personnel problems that have existed in the workshop
have been addressed by physically partitioning the workshop
into two labs, and assigning the responsibilities of
management and workshop accounting to one of the
technicians.
P.15: Space
All comments with respect to space are now obsolete.
Before receipt of the review, considerable reorganization
Wand reallocation of space occurred. The internal process
•
?
was prompted by a thorough review of allocations as well as
the need to accommodate new faculty. Current allocations
are considerably more equitable and significant pressure was
relieved by the new classroom building. However, our space
report in.icates that we are presently facing a shortfll of
17,000 ft . Recently, we have been allocated 1,000 ft of
classroom space, which will be used to accommodate incoming
faculty and faculty presently. without offices.
Despite the increase in the space allocation following
completion of the new building, we still do not foresee
Kinesiology being able to afford the space for a common room
for graduate students or undergraduate students, as
recommended, desirable though these may be.
Page 22 & 23: Recommendations
Where the recommendations have not already been
implemented, we agree that they should be. This is, we
accept all of the recommendations.
REVIEW OF SCHOOL OF KIWESIOLOGY?
FACULTY OF APPLIED SCIENCES?
SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY
NOVEMBER 19, 20, 21, 1990
rm
[]
0
2.
I. SITE VISIT TEAM
Dr.
R.
Mirwald, Professor and Dean, Faculty of Physical Education,
University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan.
Dr.
?
R. Norman, ?
Professor,
Department
of ?
Kinesiology, ?
University ?
of
Waterloo,
Waterloo, ?
Ontario;
presently
Rosenstadt ?
Professor, ?
School ?
of
Physical
and Health Education,
University
of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario.
Dr. W.L. Veale, Professor and Dean, Faculty of Physical Education, and
Professor, Department of Medical Physiology, Faculty of Medicine,
The University of Calgary, Cal
g
ary, Alberta.
Dr.. M. Bowman, Professor, Department of Psychology, Simon Fraser University
(available for consultation).
.
0
3.
II. THE
DOCUMENTS PROVIDED
?
S
The members of the Review Committee were provided with the following
documents:
1.
The Charge to the Review Committee
2.
The Self-Study prepared by the faculty and staff of the School of
Kitiesiology
3.
Data on enrollment in the Graduate Programs
4.
Simon Fraser University Calendar
5.
Schedule of the three-day visit
6. Guidelines for
the iniplerr:entation
of
External
Reviews
I
4.
Review of School of :Kinesioloa';
November 19 - 21st 1990
III.
Site-Visit Schedule
Arrival 18th November 1990
Dinner: Members of review committee
with
Dean. (Horizons)
19th November
Arrival-on Cam
p
us (School of Kinesio1oy)
Meeting with Director, KiesioIocy (K9639)
Meeting with VP Academic (Office of VP)
Meet i
ng with
Dean,
F.A.S.(Offace ozD.A.George)
Meeting with Dean of
S
cience (Office of C.Jones
Lunch: ?
Chair, U.C.C. and Chair G.P.C. (DUC)
Meetings with Kinesio1oy Faculty (AS39705)
Tour of Kinesiology
Dinner with faculty school of Kinesic1oy (DUC)
0
20th November
9 a.m
9.00-9.30
9.30-10.00
10.00-11.00
11.00-12.00
12.00-1.30
1.3C-5.00
5.00-5.30
6.30-9.00
Arrival
on Camus
9 ?
a.m.
Meeting
with
Graduate Pr-
o gram Committee (AS5923)
9.00-10.00
Meeting
with
Dean,
?
Graduate Studies
?
(Office of
B.
?
C1aan)
10.00-10.45
Meeting
with
Undergraduate reresentatives
?
(ASE398)
10.45-11.30
Meeting
with
Graduate representatives
?
(AS39898)
11.30-12.15
Lunch:
Dean,
F.A.S. ?
Assoc.V.?. ?
Academic
12.30-2.00
Meeting
with
Kinesiolocy Lab Instructors
?
(AS39393)
2.00-2.45
Meeting
with
Support Staff & Dept.Assistant
?
(AS39398)
2.45-3.30
Meeting
with
Technical Staff (AS39893)
Irl
3.30-4.15
Dinner
with
Director, School of Kinesiology
21st November
Arrival on Camus
?
9 a.m.
Meeting with Undergraduate Curriculum Committee
(K9624)
?
9.00-9.45
Meeting Co-op Coordinatcr (K9624)
?
9.45-10.30
Final meeting with Dean, F.A.S. and
V.P. Academic (AD 3173)
?
11.30-12.00
S
Lunch: Dean of Education (DUC) ?
12.00-2.00
Afternoon meeting of the Committee alone.
Departure late afternoon
'
/early evening.
.
5.
IV.
Charge to the Review Committee
The task of the review committee is to examine the unit and report
on the following existing conditions and comment on any
opportunities for improvement:
1.
The strengths and weaknesses of the undergraduate and
graduate programs;
2.
The size and background of the faculty
complement in relation
to the unit's responsibilities and workload;
3.
The research and teaching contributions of facult
y
members,
including the level of external research support;
4.
The adequacy of the support staff;
D. ?
The adequac
y
of resources provided, including library and
computing resources;
6.
The provision of office space, laboratories and other special
facilities;
7.
The quality of graduate student research;
S. ?
The adequacy of support for graduate students;
9.
The progress of students through the graduate programs;
10.
The effectiveness of the dmiruistration of the unit, the
relations of the unit with others within the University and with
other institutions and the outside community.
1990-11-01
6.
V. OVERVIEW
The members of
the School ?
of ?
Kiriesiology ?
undertook a process
of self study
which ?
resulted
in ?
the ?
document ?
"A ?
Review ?
of
?
the
School
?
of
Kinesiology"
October 1990.
It
?
is stated ?
in ?
the preface of this self study
document that
The review describes the state of the School at the moment.
Where future trends and predictions can be made these have been
identified, but speculation in terms of long-term development is
not included. ?
There are two reasons for this. ?
Firstly, a new
Director of the School is about to be appointed. In part, the
rationale for the decision to do an external search was made on
the basis that a new Director would contribute to the development
of long-term planning. Seccrdly, the uncertainty in the Province
of British Columbia concerning developments in post-secondary
education may make such planning irrelevant. For example,
decisions with respect to establishment of a Fraser Valley
university would have significant impact on the School and its
direction.
- ?
On page two of the self study document the following perceived mission of
the School of Kiresiolocy is stated.
To strive for excellence in scholarship in the general field of
human structure and function;
To educate undergraduate students in the field of human structure
and function by providing appropriate courses and programs, and
opportunities for practical application;
To train graduate students in the process of research in the
field of human structure and function; and
To provide service to the communitythrough providing non-credit
courses in areas of the School's expertise, offering testing
services within its area of expertise, and liaising with industry
through joint ventures, contract work and co-operative education
The self-study document provides specific information with respect to the
history of the field of Kinesiology in Canada and the evolution of the
School of Kinesiology at Simon Fraser University. Further details are
given of the University Administration and of the School's Faculty, staff,
research activities, undergraduate and graduate programs of study, funding
and space. ?
The reviewers are of the opinion that the written materials
7.
S
provided to them were of sufficient substance to form an information base
on which to conduct the site visit. Prior to the visit, further
information was requested and received related to operating and capital
budgets, Faculty workloads and student employment.
The ?
orientation ?
of
?
the ?
external ?
reviewers ?
with ?
respect ?
to ?
the review ?
and
report ?
is ?
one ?
in
?
which ?
areas ?
are ?
identified ?
as ?
potentially
in ?
need ?
of
adjustment ?
and ?
suggestions ?
are ?
made which ?
may ?
improve ?
activities ?
in ?
these
areas. ?
Throughout
?
this ?
report ?
the ?
issue ?
of ?
an ?
apparent,
probably
longstanding, ?
disagreement ?
as ?
to ?
what ?
the ?
focus ?
of ?
the
School ?
of
Kinesiology
?
is
?
or
?
should ?
be ?
will ?
surface ?
repeatedly. ?
Although
the ?
School
has ?
many ?
strengths,
?
most ?
of ?
the ?
problems ?
seem to
?
be ?
related ?
to
?
a ?
lack ?
of
acceptance of a
?
common focus. ?
We will ?
address this
?
specifically
in ?
section
10. ?
The members of the review team sensed
?
that the
?
self-study
process ?
had
already ?
ldenti7ied ?
to members
?
of ?
Faculty ?
and Staff ?
that certain weaknesses
need ?
to be
?
addressed.
?
iOst ?
people with whom we
?
spoke were of the ?
opinion
that
?
now ?
is ?
the ?
appropriate ?
time ?
to ?
address ?
areas ?
of ?
concern. In ?
fact,
there were
?
significant
?
sicris ?
of ?
optimism and ?
an ?
expression ?
that the ?
School
had
?
now ?
'turned ?
the ?
corner' ?
and ?
was ?
in ?
a ?
cood ?
position ?
to
meet ?
the
challenges ?
ahead.
It is a concern of the site visitors that the 'self-definition' of Kinesi-
ology could be more aptly applied to a department or Anatomy than to one of
Kinesiology. This point is one of the central and primary issues which
must be addressed immediately by the faculty, Director, and senior univer-
sity administration.
?
In reviewing the self study document and comparing
past calendar descriptions it appears that the School has modified its
focus and mandate. There are a number of problems that this modification
has created, and the following issues must be addressed:
I.
?
?
The School of Kinesiology must have a mandate defined by its faculty.?
It is unacceptable to walk away from the traditional focus on Kinesi-
ology, Human Movement, without rationalization or justification.
8.
2.
The School of Kinesiology is responsible to define its focus. How-
ever, the definition should not be made from a simple pragmatic
point-of-view, that is, how the current faculty complement is com-
prised, but rather from a defensible, rationalized, and justified
philosophical base. It could be interpreted by some that the recent
hiring practices have been irresponsible. The luxury of hiring on the
'best person' criteria is difficult to defend in the most liberal of
environments especially without attention to the needs of the curricu-
lum and students or how complementary the hiring is to the School's
research programs. When this practice is applied to a unit without a
defined and agreedto focus, it leads to serious internal and external
difficulties which ultimately impact on the university, the School,
its faculty, and students.
3.
The School of Kinesiolocy must be held accountable by the Dean,
Faculty of Applied Science and the Vice-President (Academic). The
School must provide a definition of its focus, but it must be a
definition which fits into the University's overall goals and objec-
tives. Therefore,
the
process to define the unit's focus must include
the Dean and the Vice-President. The new Director is the key element
in the definition process and he/she should be given central adminis-
tration support and assistance.
9.
S
VI. ASSESSMENT
1. Undergraduate Program
A strength of the undergraduate program is that it is research-based and
that the members of the Faculty are engaged in active, competitively funded
research programs. The Kinesiology program is perceived by some as a very
rigid proscribed program with little 'free' election available to students
either within the School or through other departments. Given the comments
of students, faculty, and members of the Undergraduate Curriculum Com-
mittee, the curriculum needs a comprehensive review and a major revision.
From a student perspective the current pattern of course offerings when
combined with required Kiriesiology courses places enormous logistical
strain on students.
There ?
are ?
some ?
rajor
.
?
deficiencies. ?
Kinesiology ?
is
defined ?
from ?
the
traditional ?
perspective, ?
human movement, yet there
?
is ?
no
required ?
course ?
in
the ?
human ?
psychomotor ?
learnin g ?
area. ?
There ?
is ?
limited
raculty ?
support
?
in
the ?
biomechanics ?
area. ?
Although
?
there ?
has ?
been
sufficient
?
course
development ?
in ?
biomechanics,
?
there ?
is ?
insufficient ?
faculty support ?
with
only ?
one ?
faculty ?
member. ?
Assuming ?
the ?
School's ?
focus
remains ?
within ?
the
traditional ?
definition ?
of Kinesiolocy, ?
consideration ?
should
be given to the
two ?
new ?
faculty ?
appointments ?
being ?
made ?
in ?
the ?
areas ?
of ?
psychomotor
learning and biomechanics.
The teachin
g
approach which is used within the undergraduate program is
lecture plus laboratory or tutorial and represents a rigorous and stimulat-
ing way of presenting the undergraduate curriculum. The vertical building
of courses in the physiological area and, to some degree, in biomechanics
is, indeed, a strength.
In the interviews with undergraduate students it was clear that the stu-
dents were proud and excited about their educational opportunity and the
40
academic challenges placed before them.
?
One area of concern about the
undergraduate progra-m is that it would appear that the opportunity for
10.
students to gain exposure in the psychomotor area was limited. Indeed,
there is no required course in the social sciences at the present time.
There was concern expressed by students of the lack of flexibility in the
curriculum which resulted in very little opportunity for courses outside
of
those prescribed by the School of Kinesiology to be taken. Concern was
expressed about the availability of courses from time to time, particularly
for students in co-op programs, which could result in waiting a semester or
even a year to pick up a required course.
There has been a tendency in the undergraduate program for courses to
expand as new faculty have been hired and begin to offer electives in their
particular area of research activity. Concern was expressed by both
students and teaching Faculty that faculty members did not focus on the
core program but rather were more likely to expend their energies in new
course offerings in the electives progrn. An area which seemed to be in
need of further development was that of student program counselling. The
elective course opportunities give some students the feeling that
developino packages of courses, so that they can graduate with a
concentration in some area, is overwhelming.
?
The University calendar, by
itsef, is not an adequate guide. The School should consider developing a
student handbook of elective packages, streams within the program, etc.
make course selection advising better known to students or, in other ways,
improve student counselling.
The members of the Review Committee recommend strongly that the School
redefine its focus and areas
of
emphasis. Once this is done, a review
of
the undergraduate core curHculum should be undertaken with special atten-
tion to the appropriateness of the core offerings and restricted electives.
Attention must be given to the logistics
of
course sequencing as they
relate to students finishing their program in the appropriate time.
C
11.
S
Graduate Program
Graduate students, for the most part, receive excellent financial suppert
and supervision. Concern was expressed by
graduate
students to the members
of the Review Committee about the time avaiable to devote to research
since demands associated with teaching assistantships seem to be increas-
ing. ?
This is a matter that is being sorted out within the Faculty of
Graduate Studies at the present time. Concern was raised by graduate
students that perhaps the level of expectation for a Masters thesis was a
bit inccnsistent and that some common level should be agreed upon by all
faculty members. The members of the Review Committee had no way of assess-
ing this other than to indicate that as faculty members become more experi-
enced this concern will decrease. Concern was expressed by students that
the level of te a
-chino in several courses in the craduate program was disap-
pointing in that graduate courses from time to time were really just
undergraduate courses with extra assignments such as research papers. This
situation should be reviewed and rectified if necessary.
?
S
ifl
?
general,
the
graduate
P
,
ograms
seem
?
to
?
be
cperating ?
in a ?
satisfactory
manner. ?
The
members of
t
he
j-eview
group were
impressed that
the members of
the ?
graduate
committee were
?
well
aware ?
of ?
the
?
shortcomings
or
?
the program
and ?
had ?
alreaoy
begun ?
to
introduce ?
processes
to
?
make
?
i
mprov e
men t s.
?
ihese
chances ?
must
be
supported
by ?
all
members ?
of
the
?
faculty ?
of the ?
School ?
of
K i ne s io logy.
2. Faculty Complement - Workload
Specific information was provided to the members of the Review Committee
with respect to faculty workload. It appears that the University norm for
faculty is to teach two courses in each of two teaching semesters. In the
School of Kinesiology the teaching of graduate students is considered an
on-going teaching commitment and therefore it is the common practice to
allocate three courses per year of formal classroom or laboratory contact.
?
40
The number of hours per week varies with the course taught from a minimum
of two contact hours -per week per course to a maximum of
six
hours per week
12.
Ob
per course where the faculty member teaches his/her own laboratory or
tutorial. It is also the norm that faculty members in Kinesiolocy provide
individual instruction to both undergraduate and graduate students.
It is the opinion of the members of the Review Committee that 13.5 faculty
members, which soon will be increased to 18.5 faculty members, plus 3.5
instructors, represents a sufficient complement of faculty to carry out the
mandate which has been identified by the members of the School of Kinesi-
ology. As has already been stated, it is recommended that a process be
undertaken which is aimed at refocusing the direction of the the members of
the Faculty of the School of Kinesiology in such a way that specific
thrusts are identified. At this point in time, there is evidence to
suggest that many members of the School are working as individuals with
very little interface with others. Once such a review has been carried out
and a focus agreed u
p
on, the under
g
raduate curriculum needs to be re-
examined and re-defined consistent with that particular focus. A specific
effort must be made to identiry the uniqueness
of
the undergraduate program
of the School of Kinesiolocy. The members of the Review Committee
recommend that rationalization be established for the recognition of
undergraduate and graduate teaching as WCI1 as graduate supervision and
research activity in assigning of ir.divicuai work loads.
3. Research
All members of the School of Kinesioloc
.
y are active in research and all
have published their research in refereed journals within the last two
years. Fourteen of the fifteen faculty have received external support for
their research within the last two years. Research grants and contracts to
Faculty members totallea S724,000 in the fiscal year 1989/90 which repre-
sents almost S50,000 per faculty member per year. This level of research
activity places the School of Kinesiology in good standing with respect to
other schools and departments within the University. Further, this level
of activity in research also places the School of Kinesiology in a satis-
factory relative positicn with respect to other similar schools in the
S
13.
country. It is always desirable that more support for research activity be
attracted from na
t
ional granting agencies. There seems to be little effort
being made to an interdisciplinary and/or multi-disciplinary approach to
research and research questions. Although a critical mass of faculty
expertise is required to undertake this approach, there exists within the
School of Kir.esiology areas of mutual interest and inquiry. Certainly,
with 10 out of the current 15.5 faculty members in ph
y siolo
g
y, one would
assume greater interaction and cooperative endeavours within this group.
The concern was expressed that the teaching contributions of faculty
members be rationalized in such a way that the research activity and
graduate student supervision be factored into the teaching expectations
more heavily. Members of the Review Committee were concerned that many
individual faculty members seemed to be moving away from teaching in the
core courses an rcomendd electives towards "specialty" electives. As
this trend continues, there seems to be the pattern evolving that core
program courses are often bein
g
taught
by
sessionals rather than full-time
research-based teachin
g
faculty. This is a concern since one of the major
reasons for doing research in a University is to keep the faculty member on
top of his/her discipline so that he/she is a more effective teacher. It
is recommended that this perceived trend be examined and that each faculty
member make a strong commitment to the teaching of the core curriculum and
recommended electives.
4. Support Staff
The four secretaries within the School seem to be able to carry out their
responsibilities with respect to the teaching both in the graduate and
undergraduate programs. Of course, additional resources would be welcome
in this area and would permit greater support for students and faculty.
The lack of communication between members of the secretarial staff seems to
be an area of concern. However, the situation is exaggerated by the
physical working space for the secretaries which is totally unsatisfactory.
14.
.
They have been asked to work in the middle of 'Grand Central Station.
'
?
In ?
addition, there is no faculty and staff room which further exacerbates the
situation. ?
These conditions must be addressed as a high priority in the
?
new space allocation.
With respect to technical support, the two individuals available for
general technical support within the School seem to be able to provide a
basic support for the teaching needs but to only a limited extent are they
able to contribute to the research programs. The two other support staff
are committed to the physiolo
g
y unit (Environmental Chamber). Given the
commitment of personnel and resources to the physiolcgy unit, every effort
must be made to make this facility self-sufficient. A long-term strategic
plan should be developed which would eventually provide some technical
relief to the School generally.
0
?
5. Library and Computing Resources - Other Resources
The members of the Review Committee had no opportunity to assess the
quality of the Library and Computing resources. However, these areas were
mentioned by several of the people who were interviewed and it was
indicated that these resources were adequate.
In the interviews it became clear to the members of the Review Committee
that faculty members of the School of Kinesiology felt that the School had
been significantly underfunded for several years. This pattern of funding
was related to-feeling that research carried out in the School of Kinesi-
ology was not in need of the same level of funding as that carried out in
more traditional scientific disciplines. Further, it was felt that with
the School of Kinesioloay located in the Faculty of Interdisciplinary
Studies, comparisons were made between departments and that the "real"
budget needs of the School were not appreciated. it is clear that this
pattern has now changed. Since the School of Kinesiology has become part
of the Faculty of Applied Sciences, the perception and associated depart-
I]
15.
ments have changed and therefore significant increases in budget alloca-
tions have been provided in the year 1990. If funding were to be continued
at a similar level, then it could be rated as adequate. On the other hand,
appreciation must be given to the fact that tiiis School was significantly
underfunded for several years and that some makeup is badly needed. An
increase in both the operating and capital budgets would permit research
monies to have some of the "Pressures" removed from them and a significant
upgrading of activities would most likely result. These effects would form
a positive cascade throu
g
h the entire range of activities within the
School.
6. Space
It became clear to the members of the Review Committee that lack of space
within the School of Kinesiology is a problem. it would appear that this
is not a concern unique to the School of Kiresiology but is a concern
within most parts of the University.
?
The site visitors would like to
identify three areas of major concern with respect to space. First, the
unevenness of allocation of space to faculty members for their research
programs. This is well known to the present Director and he has suggested
means of addressin g
this issue. Nevertheless, active well-funded young
investigators are inade
q
uately housed whereas other members of the Depart-
ment, although not over-housed, certainly are much less under space
pressure. A rationalization must be made of the use of space within the
School. Some relief fromthese pressures will be provided with the new
building development but this will be offset by the addition of three new
faculty members. Second, neither undergraduate nor graduate students have
a common room in which they can meet and discuss matters related to their
programs. Third, the arrangement of the front office is disruptive to the
work of the secretarial support staff.
0
16.
It is unrealistic and inconsiderate to place full-time support staff in
circumstances that are far less than ideal.
?
These individuals are on the
job eight hours per day, five days per week throughout the year. They
require a work environment that is conducive to productivity. They do not
have the luxury of working off-site or at home. In the planning of the new
space allocation, serious consideration should be given to the main office
issues. Similarly, a faculty and staff room is equally important.
Although these amenities may be viewed as less vital from a research
laboratory perspective, they provide an informal, social opportunity for
faculty and staff. The undergraduate and graduate common room is equally
important in that students are important elements in the School's
operation. It is suggested that the School begin to realize that students.
require space and that consideration be given to the conversion of an
existing classroom to a student common room.
7.
Graduate Student Research
This particular question was not addressed in detail by members of the
Review Committee. However, graduate student research is directly related
to the research of faculty members which is, as stated earlier in this
report, considered to be quite good. In reviewing many of the publications
of the faculty members it was clear that graduate students were included on
these publications arid, therefore, were considered major contributors to
the work. Overall, this was not a concern for the members of the Review
Committee and this issue is now being monitored by what appears to be a
very effective graduate committee.
8.
Support for Graduate Students
In general, the support for graduate students is very good. Members of the
research committee would like to encourage graduate students to seek
outside funding from federal
and
provincial agencies and not rely totally
on funding provided within the University. The graduate committee is well
aware of the changes that may improve the support for graduate students
17.
and are taking steps in the improvement of graduate student funding. A new
?
S
system is now in place for allocation of graduate student support units.
9.
Progress.of Students through the Graduate Program
At ?
the ?
present
time, ?
students ?
in ?
the ?
School ?
of
?
Kinesiology
take about ?
the
same
?
nur.ioer ?
of
years ?
to
com p lete ?
their ?
Masters ?
and ?
Ph.D.
degrees ?
as ?
do
those ?
in ?
other
graduate
programs ?
at ?
Simon ?
Fraser. ?
Members ?
of ?
the ?
Review
Committee would
describe
the ?
progress ?
through ?
the ?
programs
as ?
slower ?
than
necessary. ?
It is
?
clear
that ?
the ?
Dean ?
of Graduate ?
Studies,
as ?
well ?
as
?
the
members ?
of ?
the
graduate
committee ?
are well ?
aware ?
of ?
this
shortcoming ?
and
are taking ?
steps to enforce time
?
lines and to reduce the time
?
in program.
10.
Administration
The School of Kinesiolooy is now about to appoint a new Director from
outside Simon Fraser University. This is a positive development and will
permit an opportunity 1
7
or the re-Focusing of the efforts or the faculty and
staff members into a much more defined thrust than existed in the recent
past. it •:ould ap
p
ear that relationships with other units within the
University could be more fully developed .to the benefit of the School.
There are a few examples of interactions with other Faculties but a great
deal could be gained by irterfacuity and interschool interactions. One of
the strengths of the School of Kinesiology is that it has been given
significant independence by the present Dean of the Faculty of Applied
Sciences. ?
On the other hand, the. major weakness of the School is the
?
development, over the twenty years of its existence, of an increasingly
hazy focus of mission.
?
The Review Committee is sufficiently concerned
about this to discuss it fully. A new director, unless he/she is an
experienced University administrator and has the immediate and complete
support of the faculty members, may have difficulty resolving this matter.
r
18.
Several
?
faculty
?
members ?
and
?
students ?
indicated ?
to ?
the ?
site ?
visitors
either
?
that ?
there was
?
no ?
focus ?
or ?
direction ?
for ?
the ?
School, ?
or, ?
if ?
there
were a focus,
?
they did not
?
know what it was.
?
A few, ?
particularly the newer
faculty when asked about the focus, described it according to the statement
in ?
the ?
briefing
?
materials ?
as
?
the ?
"scientific ?
study ?
of human ?
structure ?
and
function." ?
Two or three people emphasized the need to return to a focus on
the ?
science
?
of ?
human ?
movement. ?
The ?
Committee ?
has ?
concluded,
?
indeed, ?
that
there ?
is ?
certainly ?
no ?
unanimity ?
amongst ?
even ?
a
?
small ?
majority ?
of ?
the
faculty ?
as ?
to ?
what ?
the ?
focus ?
is.
?
Moreover, ?
several ?
of
?
the ?
newer ?
members
appear ?
to ?
have ?
no ?
backround,
?
and ?
probably ?
little
?
interest ?
in ?
the ?
science
of ?
human
?
movement ?
as
?
a ?
focus. ?
We ?
feel ?
that ?
this ?
lack ?
of ?
even ?
a ?
weak
consensus ?
is
?
a
?
major ?
problem ?
for ?
the ?
future ?
well-being ?
of
?
the ?
School ?
and
must be resolved as
?
quickly ?
as ?
possible. ?
The ?
faculty must either agree to
a ?
focus ?
for ?
the ?
School, ?
even ?
if ?
their ?
own ?
interests ?
do ?
not
?
fit,
?
or ?
a
mechanism must
?
be ?
set ?
up ?
to ?
rationalize ?
several ?
different ?
foci; ?
Changing
the ?
definition of
?
the word ?
"kinesioloqy" ?
is ?
not the
?
solution.
?
Changing the
name
?
of ?
the ?
School, ?
within ?
which ?
two ?
or ?
three ?
"programs"
?
or ?
"streams" ?
are
housed may be a possibility.
?
We would ?
like ?
to elaborate.
The bi-ifjnq materials (pace 7) state that "the original definition of
kiresiolooy as a unit devoted to the scientific study of human movement is
probably no longer appropriate." The Committee assumes that what is meant
by this statement is that the School of Kinesiology is a unit which has
chanced its interests and activity over the years so that now the defini-
tion of the word "kitesiolocy" is no longer an appropriate description of
the interests or activities of the majority of faculty members. The
Committee concurs with this statement according to the evidence of the
background of recent recruits to faculty, research activities and the
nature of a number of undergraduate and graduate courses taught by both
junior and senior faculty with professorial rank.
Later on page 7 a definition is proposed ". ..that kinesiology is the
Scientific study of human structure and function." The wording of this
statement could be interpreted to imply that the word "kinesiology" should
be redefined to meet the current interests of the faculty at SFU so that
everybody feels central to the mission of the School. The Committee does
19.
not concur with this interpretation, if it were intended.
?
One does not
redefine, words to match the interests of people. The dictionaries and
other sources that 'were consulted all included the idea of the science of
movement in definitions of "kinesiolocy." Moreover, to the knowledge
of
the Committee, all Departments, Schools or other units that call themselves
"Kinesiology" in both Canada and theUSA have as an emphasis, the study or
science of human movement.
The Committee feels that the interests of the majority of current faculty
no longer correspond to the balance that is required to offer a comprehen-
sive kinesiolo
g
y program. Kinesiology, according to the original defini-
tion of the School and other sources as the science of human movement,
involves several sub-disciplines. These include work or exercise chemistry
and physiolo g
y, neuromuscular control
?
of human motion, psychomotor
behaviour, biomecharujcs and, it could be arcued, sociology.
?
All of these,?
except the last, are included in course offerings at the under
g raduate and
graduate levels.
?
However, of the current 15.5 FTE faculty, there appears
?
to be only one biomechanist, two psychomotor behaviourists, a person who
works in the area of anthro
p ometr
y
and a half-time physician. The others
are all involved in physiological or chemistry related research, much of
which, according to funding sources and publications, has nothing to do
with human movement.
?
The faculty complement is heavily weighted towards
the biochemistry/physiology end of the discipline. As noted earlier in
this report, this has and will continue to lead to a shift in the nature
of
the course offerinos at both the undergraduate and graduate levels and,
thus, the type of education that students acquire. In this regard, it was
of
interest to the Committee that there was no required course in the
program in the social sciences.
POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS TO THE FOCUS PROBLEM
Rather than try to force a consensus on focus, a direction likely to meet
with failure, given the current imbalance in faculty interests, it might be
of
useful
"kinesiology"
for the School
is inappropriate
to consider
in
a
our
name
opinion.
change.
A
Changing
name could
the
be
definition
selected
?
40
to reflect the very.broad scope of activities that has emerged over the
20.
• ?
years ?
and
?
to ?
provide
?
freedom ?
to
?
range ?
for
possible ?
future ?
developments.
Kinesiology
could be
advertised as ?
a division
or program within the
School.
In
?
the
?
long
term, ?
one ?
might ?
visualize ?
departmentalization
?
of ?
divisions
within ?
the
Faculty
of
?
Applied ?
Sciences.
The ?
University
?
has ?
expressed
interest ?
in
formally
stating
?
its
?
activity ?
in the ?
health
?
sciences.
A name
containing
?
the
word ?
"health'
might be found.
If a balanced kinesioiocy program were to be re-established, it is the
opinion of the Committee that there should be a social sciences require-
ment. In addition, the type of biomechanist that is* needed is one who
specializes in the area or the biomechanics or human motion to complement,
not to duplicate, Dr. Chapran's work. With only one biomechanist currently
on the faculty, a new hire in tissue biornechar,ics, cardiovascular or
respiratory biornechanics spreads the biomechanics area too thinly. If Dr.
Chapman were to leave or take on heavy administrative responsibility, the
ability to mount a
g
raduate program in this area of kiresioio
q
y would be
severely compromised.
Before ?
new ?
faculty ?
are ?
hired ?
the ?
focus ?
issue ?
must
?
be ?
resolved.
Disagreement ?
over ?
direction ?
is
?
resulting ?
in ?
interpersonal ?
antagonisms
amongst ?
some faculty ?
that are
?
spilling ?
into ?
interactions ?
amongst at
?
least a
few ?
staff
?
and ?
students. ?
The ?
current ?
imbalance ?
in ?
faculty ?
breadth ?
has
resulted from a
?
rather ?
long-standing
?
lack o.f focus.
?
This ?
seems ?
to have ?
led
to ?
a ?
policy ?
of ?
the ?
hiring, ?
not ?
of ?
people ?
to
?
strengthen ?
weaknesses ?
in ?
the
components of a
?
long-term plan,
?
but rather the
?
scientist with ?
the strongest
publication ?
record
?
of
?
those ?
who ?
applied ?
for ?
rather ?
loosely ?
defined
openings. ?
One ?
faculty ?
meiber ?
speculated
?
that ?
the ?
chemistry/physiology
applicants ?
were ?
stronger ?
because ?
they ?
had ?
several ?
years
?
of ?
post
?
doctoral
experience. ?
The ?
research ?
records
?
of ?
applicants ?
in ?
other
?
areas ?
of
kinesioloay ?
were ?
weaker ?
because ?
their ?
scarcity ?
made ?
them ?
employable
?
at
other ?
universities without
?
post ?
doctoral ?
experience. ?
A ?
very
?
strong ?
group
of ?
biological ?
scientists ?
has
?
been ?
assembled. ?
We
?
wonder, ?
however,
?
whether
some
?
of ?
them ?
will ?
be ?
able ?
to ?
continue
?
to ?
compete ?
effectively ?
for
diminishing
?
financial ?
resources ?
with ?
scientists
?
who ?
have ?
much ?
more
extensive ?
infrastructure ?
support
?
in faculties ?
of medicine ?
than Simon Fraser.
will ?
be able ?
to provide.
21.
With the appointment of a new Director, the second task requiring attention
after the definition of the School's focus and mandate is the organiza-
tional structure of the unit both internally and externally. The School of
Kinesiology can be characterized by the unevenness of its operation ranging
from faculty meetings to committee responsibilities: for example, the
frequency of meetings of Undergraduate Curriculum Committee and the
Graduate Committee. ?
Externally, there seems to be little effort made by
?
Kinesiolo
g
y faculty to be part of the total university community and its
formalized committee system. In addition to the inherent responsibility of
faculty to be involved in the larger university community, it is simply
'politically' astute to maintain a Kinesiology profile in the larger
university community.
.
0
22.
VII. RECOMMENDATIONS
1.
With the appointment of a new Director, a comprehensive review of the
School of Kinesiology be undertaken to provide a definition of focus
and mandate, and the development of a strategic plan which addresses
faculty and support personnel, equipment, facility space, undergradu-
ate and graduate curriculum, etc. The Director should be given the
support and assistance of the Dean of Applied Sciences and the Vice-
President (Academic), but should be held accountable to meet these
goals within a realistic timetable.
2.
The Director and faculty must fully and openly discuss the goals and
objectives of the School within the framework of the University.
Rationalization of curriculum, research, scholarship, workloads, etc.,
must be addressed and a consensus reached on the mandate andfocus of
the School of Kinesiology within the broad university objectives of
teaching, research, and service.
?
Following this discussion, the
is
?
?
Director should develop a plan for the School of Kinesiology to
?
reflect and implement the consensus position.
3.
The undergraduate curriculum should be thoroughly reviewed following
the implementation of recommendation #1. Dependent on the definition
of the School's focus, it is imperative to provide curriculum
revisions which will strengthen and erhahce the Kinesiology curricu-
lum. Implied within this recommendation is the question in what areas
should the two new faculty appointments be made. The faculty appoint-
ments should be made upon the implementation of recommendations #1
and #2.
4.
The Director, in consultation with faculty, must address the space
allocation within the School prior to the completion of the proposed
new laboratory wing. Consideration should be given to providing space
or the rearrangement of existing space to allow for: realignment of
the main office; faculty and staff room; undergraduate and graduate
student common room; and new laboratory space.
23.
5.
Given the curriculum and research demands, the School of Kinesiology
?
40
requires additional technical support. There is a need to address and
rationalize the current allocation to the School. The Dean of Applied
Sciences and Vice-President (Academic) must recognize this impediment
to the delivery of under
g
raduate, graduate and research programs. In
addition, the continuing major equipment needs of the School and its
programs must be recognized by the Dean and Vice-President.
6.
The Director should review the administrative structure of the School
of Kinesiology and make recommendations.
.
ET
.
