EAST CAROLINA UNIVERSITY FACULTY SENATE
ACADEMIC, APPELLATE, AND SENATE COMMITTEE
ANNUAL REPORT
2007-2008 Academic Year
COMMITTEE: ACADEMIC
STANDARDS COMMITTEE
1. Membership
(include ex-officio members).
REGULAR
MEMBERS (with vote)
Linda Wolfe,
Chair; Nancy Spalding, Vice Chair; Mark Richardson, Secretary; Lora
Smith-Canter, Linda MItchell, Stacey Altman, Joseph Pestaner; Jazier Lorenzo,
William (Joseph) Thomas
EX-OFFICIO
MEMBERS (with vote)
Michael Brown,
Rep. of Chancellor; Linner Griffin, Rep. of Provost; George Bailey, Rep of
Chair of the Faculty; Mark Sprague, Faculty Senator; Yazid Finn, Student Body
President Representative)
2. Meeting Dates (include members present*).
* and members who contributed to
committee action, but were not at the meeting.
MEETING
DATE: September 17, 2007
PERSON
PRESIDING: Linda Wolfe
REGULAR MEMBERS IN
ATTENDANCE: Lorenzo, Pestaner, Richardson, Spalding, Thomas,
EX-OFFICIO MEMBERS IN ATTENDANCE:
Bailey, Griffin, Sprague
MEETING
DATE: October 24, 2007
PERSON
PRESIDING: Linda Wolfe
REGULAR MEMBERS IN
ATTENDANCE: Lorenzo, Richardson, and Spalding
EX-OFFICIO MEMBERS IN
ATTENDANCE: Bailey, Brown, and Sprague
MEETING
DATE: November 19, 2007
PERSON
PRESIDING: Linda Wolfe
REGULAR MEMBERS IN
ATTENDANCE: Altman, Lorenzo, Richardson, Smith-Canter, Spalding
EX-OFFICIO MEMBERS IN
ATTENDANCE: Bailey, Brown, Griffin, Sprague
MEETING
DATE: January 14, 2008
PERSON
PRESIDING: Linda Wolfe
REGULAR MEMBERS IN
ATTENDANCE: Richardson, Spalding
EX-OFFICIO MEMBERS IN
ATTENDANCE: Bailey, Brown, Sprague
MEETING
DATE: February 18, 2008
PERSON
PRESIDING: Linda Wolfe
REGULAR MEMBERS IN
ATTENDANCE: Stacey Altman, Linda Mitchell, Mark Richardson, Nancy
Spalding, and Yazid Finn (Student Body President Representative)
EX-OFFICIO MEMBERS IN
ATTENDANCE: George Bailey, Michael Brown, Linner Griffin, and
Mark Sprague
MEETING
DATE: March
17, 2008
PERSON PRESIDING: Linda
Wolfe
REGULAR MEMBERS IN
ATTENDANCE: Stacey Altman, Mark Richardson, and Yazid Finn (Student
Body President Representative)
EX-OFFICIO MEMBERS IN
ATTENDANCE: George Bailey, Michael Brown, Linner Griffin, and
Mark Sprague
MEETING
DATE: April 21, 2008
PERSON
PRESIDING: Linda Wolfe
REGULAR MEMBERS IN
ATTENDANCE: Linda Crane Mitchell, Mark Richardson, Nancy Spalding, and
Yazid Finn (Student Body President Representative)
EX-OFFICIO MEMBERS IN
ATTENDANCE: George Bailey, Michael Brown, Linner Griffin, and
Mark Sprague
3. Subcommittees established during the year
(include progress and/or completion of work).
Subcommittee
to draft outcome assessment criteria for Foundations courses (Dr. George
Bailey, chair)
4. Accomplishments during the year,
especially as addressed through committee goals. Please include recommendations made to any
University agency other than the Faculty Senate that will be noted under
#5.
·
Michael Brown and Linner
Griffin, ex-officio members of the Academic Standards committee, have agreed to
again serve our representatives on the Service Learning committee.
- Joseph
Thomas has agreed to again serve as our representative on the Athletics
committee.
·
Discussion of the
list of issues that need to be addressed during this academic year
include: Consideration of courses
brought forward for Foundations Credit; Consideration of moving SOIS from paper
distribution to online (for on-campus courses) and the results of using the
on-line version for Distance Education courses; Preparing for the SACS
assessment of Foundations Credit courses (George Bailey has been working on
this); Consideration of using the CLA exam through discussions with Mike
Poteat. The committee agreed that we
would consider courses for Foundations Credit as they are submitted and can be
scheduled. We will again call Michael
Poteat to discuss the move of SOIS to an on-line version and how this has
worked for DE courses. In preparation
for the upcoming SACS review, we will invite David Weismiller (who has been
appointed by the Chancellor to head the preparations for the SACS review) to
speak with the committee with regard to our role in the preparations. It was agreed to again invite Michael Poteet
to discuss ECU’s possible move toward using the CLA and how that would impact
Foundations courses.
- Discussion
of our preparations for ECU’s review by SACS with regard to Core
Requirements for General Education.
Dr. David Weismiller, who has been appointed by the Chancellor and
Provost to head the preparations for our review for accreditation renewal
by SACS, discussed some of the issues regarding our committee in
assessment of Core Requirement for General Education. He explained that not many colleges have
assessment requirements, however there are programs within departments
that sometimes have outside accreditation.
ECU’s accreditation comes due in 2013, so preparations must be made
to see how we may achieve satisfactory assessment at the course level,
department level, and school level.
Bailey explained that as the Academic Standards committee will
oversee, the true GE outcomes would best be placed as the responsibility
of any unit or department since they are the most expert in the specific
discipline. For the SACS review
preparation, there might be a workgroup, perhaps ASC, for GE assessment,
another workgroup for DE assessment, and yet another for Quality
assessment. Another issue with
regard to SACS review is faculty credentials and the issue of the
SOIS. How could the SOIS be
improved upon and how should it be used?
Though it is early in the process, Dr. Weismiller stated that we
should look at those individuals that have worked on the SACS review in
the past. Faculty credentials as
they have been recorded are being stored and added to the SEDONA
database. One problem is explaining
faculty credentials that seem less established due to fields that are just
emerging. The committee will
continue to discuss these issues in future meetings
- Initial
discussion of the SOIS used for faculty assessment with regard to SACS
review. Dr. Poteat states that
there is a SACS standard for the evaluation of faculty—a policy applied to
all instructors regardless of tenure-track or non tenure-track
appointment. Bailey states that
there is already a measure for evaluation in place in that everyone
(excepting graduate students) teaching a course MUST be given an annual
evaluation.
- Discussion
of a change of policy to allow for SOIS evaluations of co-instructors for
DE courses rather than only primary instructor. Dr. Poteat explained that the SOIS
should be able to evaluate 2 instructors per course for DE courses just
like on-campus courses. The motion
was approved by the committee.
- Discussion
of the development of a secure system for storing SOIS results
on-line. Dr. Poteat asks for our
committee’s approval to explore moving SOIS results from paper copies to
an on-line database. Much time is
spent pulling out results for individuals that have misplaced their results. Of course the long-term consideration
for storage of SOIS results will need to be a secure database—perhaps
through One-Stop. Committee members
suggest that Banner might be the eventual ideal location. The committee voted to approve the
storage of SOIS results in an on-line facility.
·
Consideration of
combining small sections within units (if approved by the unit’s Chair) for the
sake of compiling an SOIS review. Dr.
Poteat explains that currently his office has Faculty Senate approval to
combine small sections of courses in Music and Art for SOIS surveys. He has extended this practice to other units
when approved by the unit’s Chair. This
is commonplace now in Music, Art, Theatre, English, Psychology, and Education
courses. This can be done with multiple
sections of the same course taught by the same instructor or the same type of
course. The recommendation was approved
with the addition that the faculty member as well as the chair must approve the
combination of sections.
·
Consideration of combining
small sections of face-to-face courses with DE courses (of the same course
type) for SOIS surveys when the sections are too small to evaluate
separately. Dr. Poteat said that this
situation often arises in the Business school when small sections of the same
course are taught both face-to-face and as DE versions. For instance, a graduate statistics course
with 3 students in a face-to-face setting could be combined with a DE section
containing 4 students. Usually these
courses are really the same course but with different section numbers. The data are combined so students cannot be
identified. Questions from the committee
arose, however, concerning the designation of the course—for there are some on
campus web-based courses and then there are off campus DE courses. The designation has to do with student fees,
though the assessment is alike. The
committee approved Dr. Poteat’s recommendation regarding the combining of small
sections of face-to-face courses with DE courses of the same course type for
SOIS surveys.
·
Consideration of the
use of SOIS results from summer sessions and whether a policy should be
established or just left to the discretion of department units. Dr. Poteat explained that the use of SOIS in
summer session has been voluntary. A
proposal to make summer SOIS mandatory was defeated by the faculty senate. The question remains, however, if it is used
in the summer session if there should be an established policy on its use. Could the SOIS results during the summer be
considered for merit pay raises? Bailey
and others oppose this issue as the summer session is outside of the 9 month
contract—faculty elect whether or not to teach summer school and it should not
be used against those who elect not to teach during the summer to allow summer
SOIS to be used. The committee agrees
that the use of the SOIS during the summer should be left up to the discretion
of the department chairs and faculty member.
A faculty member may ask his or her department chair to include summer
SOIS results in his evaluation, but it should not be mandatory.
·
Discussion of the
revision of Appendix C in the Faculty Manual with regard to the use of the
Student Opinion of Instruction Survey in the evaluation of faculty to reflect
the Faculty Senate resolutions. Dr.
Poteat explained that it is necessary to revise the Faculty Manual Appendix C
to be more specific with regard to the use of the SOIS in faculty
evaluations. He suggests that the SOIS
results should be only one item and be move further down the list of criteria
that chairs should consider in faculty evaluations. He states that the use of the SOIS as the
primary method of evaluating teaching effectiveness is not warranted by the
extant research data. He suggests the following revision:
1.
The quality of teaching must be evaluated by means of:
a. formal methods
of peer review, including direct observation of the classroom teaching of new
and tenure-track faculty.
b. Review by the
unit administrator and/or peers of course materials including syllabi, reading lists,
outlines, examinations, audiovisual materials, student manuals, samples of
student’s work on assignments, projects, papers, examples of student
achievement, and other materials prepared for or relevant to instruction.
c. Data from surveys of student opinion when an
individual faculty member’s data is consistently (more than 2 semesters) and
significantly (more than 1 standard deviation) from the unit’s mean for similar
courses.
d. Other
procedures provided for in unit codes
The
hope is, Poteat said, that chairs will do things differently in looking at
final exams, syllabi, and course materials rather than primarily SOIS
results. Several members mentioned
problems, however, with what is set out and what is practiced. Bailey stated that SOIS results should really
be considered if there is some deviation—not for average teaching. This means that you would not be using the
SOIS as much for primary evaluation, and thus you would have to look at the
true content of the courses. There was
further discussion about item c) in the list above—it seems unclear and may be
misinterpreted. Linda Wolfe (Chair)
suggested and the committee agreed that this issue needs more discussion after
some further thought. Dr. Poteat will be invited to return to our next meeting
to facilitate the discussion on this topic.
·
Discussion of
Outcomes Assessment of Foundation courses.
Led by George Bailey who has prepared the draft for outcomes assessment,
the discussion centered upon the goals of the assessment and how these goals
conform to the requirements of the SACS review.
Bailey stated that there must be direct connections between the
Foundation goals and the learning outcomes.
You can target specific goals within the Foundation goals as long as
they fulfill an objective. He stressed
that we need to identify weaknesses and not just strengths so that we
can show improvements based upon these weaknesses. The individual units should evaluate and
assess their own foundation courses based upon the foundation goals and tell us
the outcomes. Poteat states that SACS
requests that each institution sets its own goals in assessment. He said that there are already some
assessment criteria from some units, but other assessment will need to be
done. The CLA is now mandated by the
State of North Carolina, which was approved by the Board of Governors and the
Faculty Assembly. Poteat states that
there will likely be a pretest and a post-test in Composition and maybe in
Mathematics. This will be a first step
toward the SACS review preparation. Dr.
Poteat then outlined the steps of the SACS review which involves an off-site
visit (with ECU reviewed and compared to other like schools), a written
response by ECU with regard to the list of deficiencies, an on-site visit (in
which the SACS reviewers look at the ECU responses and its plan to remedy) and
finally a Quality Enhancement Plan.
Other issues were raised concerning courses that were not recently
approved for Foundations credit—how would these be evaluated? Can or should outcomes assessment be used to
make older courses fall in line with current Foundation goals? Most agree that it will not be an easy task
to encourage faculty to list the weaknesses rather than the strengths of their
courses.
- Discussion
of ITCS proposal to change student e-mail.
George Bailey, on behalf of the Academic Standards Committee, had
initiated a survey with regard to the potential change in student e-mail
provider from in-house to Microsoft Windows that had been proposed by
ITCS. Bailey had sent the results
to the ITCS staff with a series of specific questions to be answered. ITCS staff members in attendance came
prepared with a written response to the questions raised in the Academic
Standards survey. They explained
that the chief reason for the proposed change is to provide students with
more e-mail storage space; each student currently only has 50 MG. While ECU has the lowest technology fee
in North Carolina, we are one of the most efficient in our computer labs. Since the university does not have the budget
in the student fees, the ITCS staff began investigating how the problem of
limited student storage space might be resolved. It was explained that the change would
affect only the student e-mail accounts, not the faculty and staff who
will continue to use Outlook and have more storage space than the students
(also aided by the use of e-mail vaulting). The committee has agreed to
ITCS’s proposal for the change to the Microsoft Live e-mail service for
student e-mail accounts, and we will present a report to the Faculty
Senate presenting the main concerns that we raised and that were answered
by the ITCS staff as well as the results of our survey.
·
Discussion of
teaching outcomes and assessment. The
committee discussed revisions to the draft of the document prepared regarding
the goals and the process of outcomes assessment of Foundations Courses. The assessment goals and procedure will go
into a computer software program for the actual statistics. Our committee is simply providing the
procedures, while the administration will instigate the operations. Assessment by the particular discipline
involved should be easier since they are most knowledgeable.
- Discussion
of a request from Ellen Arnold, Director of Ethnic Studies, for
Foundations Credit for ETHN 3501 Selected Topics in Ethnic Studies,
Humanities and ETHN 3502 Selected Topics in Ethnic Studies, Social
Science. While the members present
seemed ready to approve the two courses for Foundations credit, the committee
did not have a quorum of voting members.
It was decided to revisit the approval of the Ethnic Studies
courses at the next meeting when more members will be present.
- Discussion
of Outcomes Assessment of Foundations Courses. Dr.
Michael Poteat arrived at the meeting to aid in our discussion of
the draft of Outcomes Assessment of Foundations Courses. The main changes are the courses that
would be affected would just be the 1000 and 2000 level courses. Poteat said that the administration is
looking for a database to put the assessment results in. George Bailey said that he would take
the revised draft and see that it meets the requirements. It was decided to change the format so
that it is not in a question and answer format (it may remain like this
for the website for answers to frequently-asked questions) but as direct
as a standard report. Dr. Bailey
will revise the draft and prepare it for submission to the Faculty Senate.
- Review of
the discussion from 1/14/08 meeting regarding the acceptability of ETHN
3501 Selected Topics in Ethnic Studies, Humanities and ETHN 3502 Selected
Topics in Ethnic Studies, Social Science for Foundations credit. Dr. Ellen Arnold, Director of Ethnic
Studies returned to answer follow-up questions regarding ETHN 3501 and
ETHN 3502 for Foundations credit.
After summarizing the courses and foundation goals of each (and
with a quorum of the committee now present), a motion for approval was
made and approved.
- Discussion
of teaching outcomes and assessment.
The committee discussed the Outcomes Assessment of Foundations
Courses prepared by George Bailey with the support of others on the
committee and its new revision. Dr.
Bailey explained the initiatives of the general administration as well as
the independent group formed for the UNC Tomorrow will likely have an
impact on our Academic Standards committee. He hopes that we can begin to integrate
these initiatives within existing courses.
This will likely mean that the assessment of Foundations courses
will need to be more detailed with regard to critical thinking skills and
writing skills, and we need to think about what could be built into the
guidelines. Dr. Bailey suggests
that we need to distinguish standard outcomes from special circumstances
that occur from time to time (particular projects that the university
administration wants to monitor for a particular time such as writing
assessment). He is aware that the
group is concerned with students learning about global issues and
leadership. Dr. Bailey stated that
he would make changes to the outcomes guidelines according to the results
of these committees. He is working
with the UNC Tomorrow group and is also interested in our suggestions as
he states that it is important that we be proactive. When the question of remedial courses
was raised, Dr. Bailey clarified that SACs states that credit cannot be
given for remedial courses—all credited courses must be at the university
level. It may be possible for
Student Life to take over and organize remedial courses. The UNC Tomorrow’s report is
recommending that Foundations courses address globalization—but the
recommendations are rather broad and not pointing to any specific
group. The skills that the
administration wants us to access are not just those for the Foundations
courses, but also those that involve mastering skills at the major’s
level. This will mean that the
university will have to assess at the senior level in each major to assure
that all graduating seniors in each major master writing skills. Some of these assessments, however, do
not fall on our shoulders; foundations courses are designed for the first
2 years of study, while improvement of these skills (and mastering these
skills) is conditional with progress within the major. Dr. Bailey will keep our committee
informed of the recommendations of the UNC Tomorrow group and the
university administration; the topic of outcomes and assessment will be
revisited at a future meeting.
- Consideration
of the request for GEOG 1300 (Weather and Climate) to receive Basic
Science Foundation Curriculum credit.
Dr. Scott Curtis (an Atmospheric scientist) and Dr. Ron Mitchelson
(Chair of ECU’s Geography Department) presented the background of the
course and the department’s desire to seek Foundations credit. There were
a number of faculty present from other departments that came to speak in
opposition to the proposal. The
majority of the college apparently did not approve the course, and many
were present in the room to voice their concerns. Additional opposition to
the GEOG 1300 course was introduced in the form of two memos: one from
Steve Culver, chair of the Department of Geological Sciences, who states
that Geography is NOT one of the core disciplines in the Basic Sciences
and that the course is actually not a basic science but rather an applied
science in atmospheric physics; the other from John Sutherland, Chair of
the Department of Physics, Ricky Hicks, Chair of Chemistry, and Steve
Culver, Chair of Geology, who state
that the subject of GEOG 1300 is atmospheric science which is an
application of both physics and chemistry to atmospheric processes which
is already covered in PHYS 1050 Physics and the Environment course. Eventually, a paper ballot was distributed
to each voting member of the committee to vote for approval of the course
for Foundations credit. The
response from the Committee was evenly divided with 5 admitting the course
and 5 denying the course. Because there
must be a majority for approval, the proposed course GOEG 1300 was denied.
- Discussion
with Michael Poteat on The Academic Standards Committee Report of Proposed
revisions to Appendix C, Section II, Evaluation in reference to the
Student Opinion of Instruction Survey and evaluation of classroom
teaching. It was agreed by most of
the committee that the SOIS is given too much weight in faculty
evaluations; hence the need for the revision to the evaluation of
classroom teaching statement seems justified and needs to be adopted as
soon as possible by the faculty senate.
Also agreed was with regard to the evaluation of faculty teaching,
the SOIS instrument result should be moved further down the list of
materials to be considered (after peer-review evaluations and review of
course materials such as syllabi, reading lists, examinations, etc). Further discussion centered on the how
the SOIS results should be evaluated.
It was agreed that the data from surveys should be relevant only
when an individual faculty member’s data differs consistently (more than
two semesters) and significantly (more than 1 mean absolute deviation)
from the unit’s median for similar courses. Thus the proposal to revise Section III.
Evaluation 1. Teaching in Appendix C of the ECU Faculty Manual is as
follows:
“The quality of teaching must be
evaluated by means of:
a. data from
surveys of student opinion, when such data have been gathered in accordance
with established procedures of the department or the university, which
guarantee the integrity, and completeness of said data. As part of the effort to evaluate the
teaching of faculty members, each unit shall either: develop and use its own
instrument(s) as approved by the chancellor to determine student opinion of
teaching or utilize the instrument developed by the Teaching Effectiveness
Committee to determine student opinion of teaching.
b. Formal methods
of peer review, including direct observation of the classroom teaching of new
and tenure-track faculty.
c. Review by the
unit administrator and/or peers of course materials such as syllabi, reading
lists, outlines, examinations, audiovisual materials, student manuals, samples
of student’s work on assignments, projects, papers, examples of student
achievement, and other materials prepared for or relevant to instruction.
d. Data from
survey of student opinion when an individual faculty member’s data is
consistently (more than 2 semesters) and significantly (more than 1 mean
absolute deviation) different from the unit’s median for similar courses.
e. Other
procedures provided for in unit codes.”
Motion to approve was made and seconded. The committee has approved the revised
statement, so it will now be taken on to the Faculty Senate for their review.
- Discussion
of teaching outcomes and assessment for Foundations courses. Final discussion of the Outcomes
Assessment of Foundations Courses prepared by George Bailey with the
support of others on the committee and its new revision. The committee approves the Outcomes
Assessment of Foundations Courses document. Linda Wolfe will present this document
along with the document outlining revisions to the evaluation of classroom
teaching at the Faculty senate meeting on April 22, 2008.
- Consideration
of the request for Music in Therapy (MUSC 3677) for Foundations Credit in
the area of the Arts. Dr. Barbara
Memory, Professor of Music Therapy at School of Music, introduced this new
course to the members of the committee as a course for which she is
seeking Foundations credit in the Fine Arts. Dr. Brown suggested that the music
fundamentals be listed and covered specifically on the course outline as
the course should be more of an introduction to music (if it is to receive
Foundations credit in the Arts) rather than a course better organized for
individuals seeking entrance into the field of music therapy. Dr. Bailey suggested that this course is
better suited for a course in the field of Social Science rather than in
Music—especially with regard to courses at the Foundations course
level. He stated that Music should
be the core of the course—not an auxiliary element—if the course is to
receive Foundations credit in the Arts.
Here, he stated, it seems that music therapy is the aim of the
course. Several members of the
committee suggested that the course would need extensive
revision—especially to the core of the course itself to include the
necessary coverage of musical elements, its genres, culture, history, and
organization that lead to an appreciation of music as an art form—before
the course could be reconsidered for Foundations credit in the Arts. It would need to be a course designed in
Music Appreciation with some secondary emphasis in Music Therapy to
work. Dr. Wolfe stated that it
might not be worth Dr. Memory’s time to seek Foundations credit if the
revisions would so change the nature of the course that she
envisioned. The committee agreed
that the course could NOT be approved in its current state for Foundations
credit in the Arts. Dr. Memory said
that she would like to talk further to Dr. Brown and Dr. Bailey about ways
the course might be revised so that the committee might reconsider it in
the future.
- Discussion
with Dr. Sharon Ballard, Chair of the University Service Learning Advisory
Committee, regarding giving service learning courses that are approved by
the committee and meet the established criteria for a service learning
designation that would appear in the course catalog as well as the
student’s transcript. Dr. Sharon
Ballard explained that the Service Learning Committee was formed to review
courses that contain a service-learning component and do so in a way that
directly connects with the course content.
The committee wants to propose a voluntary “Service Learning”
designation for courses that include a service-learning component. The designation would be helpful not
only to students to identify courses that include such a component as part
of the course requirements, but also later on for potential employers who
are interested in seeing such community service when studying the
transcript of a student applying for employment. She clarified that the committee has emphasized
that the service activities are integrated into course work because
service learning is not just volunteer work or community service. Academic study is the primary focus of
all “SL” courses and the service component is designed to enhance the academic
focus. She distributed to the
members of the committee a handout outlining the Service Learning Course
submission process and the submission form. One committee member asked
that in making such a designation if this is leading to an eventual requirement
that more (or most) courses taught at ECU should carry such a designation
as a requirement. Dr. Ballard
explained that the committee just wanted to recognize those courses that
included a component and to recognize those instructors that took the time
to include such a component as well as those students who elected to
pursue such a course. Dr. Bailey
asked about those courses that do include service learning—do all need to
go through the process to get such a designation—is it a requirement. Dr. Ballard stated that the process is
purely voluntary; courses may include service learning and not request a
review for the special designation.
The committee has been actively trying to look at all the courses
that do contain service learning so that they can be recognized as
such. Dr. Griffin explained that
from her knowledge of being a member of the committee, that all 75
service-learning courses that were in existence at the time of the
committee’s formation were submitted and reviewed. The committee agreed that the process of
review and recognition by the “SL” designation seemed acceptable. A motion to approve the service learning
designation for courses so reviewed was brought forward and approved.
- Discussion
of INTL 2004 (Introduction to Japanese Culture), a revision of a previous
course, for Foundations Credit in the Area of Humanities. The instructor proposing the course from
the Department of Foreign Languages, Dr. Nobuaki Takahashi, introduced the
course to the committee, discussed its content, and outlined how the
course met each of the three goals for Foundations credit. Dr. Bailey asked Dr. Takahasi why he was
asking for Foundations credit in the area of Humanities rather than in the
Social Sciences. From the types of
textbooks used and the nature of the activities described, it seemed more
suitable for a course in the area of Social Science. The course as it now stands doesn’t
truly reflect a course in the Humanities—especially not a Foundations credit
course that should teach the research methodologies for courses in this
discipline. Dr. Takahasi explained that he wants to adapt the course so
that it meets our requirements, and that he is willing to change the
course to get Humanities credit.
Linda Wolfe recommends that Dr. Takahasi think more about the
revision of the course, seek help in reformatting the course into a
Humanities or Social Science course by work closely with Dr. Michael Brown
and Dr. George Bailey who offer their assistance, and return in the fall
with a revised course for new consideration. The committee agreed with Dr. Wolfe’s
recommendation and the revised course would be reconsidered in the fall
for Foundations credit.
- Discussion
of the use of the SOIS for an instrument in evaluating teaching quality,
the on-line version of the SOIS, and the ability for faculty and
administrators to securely access the SOIS survey results on the
internet. The committee discussed
the posting of the SOIS results on One-Stop for access to specified
faculty and administrators. It was
decided that this could be acceptable only if this could be made
secure—that faculty members could only look at their own individual SOIS
results through a secure gateway.
It was agreed that this should be our suggestion to be taken to the
Faculty Senate for approval.
Additionally, the statement that the committee drafted concerning
the role of the SOIS in faculty evaluation of teaching had been further
refined—particularly with regard to how the data from the SOIS was to be
evaluated. Dr. Poteat brought several
handouts to share showing different statistical models and how they
demonstrated that the ratings from the SOIS instrument is not the best
indicator for teaching effectiveness.
The committee agreed to the following revision of the statement
that the ASC would take to the faculty senate for their approval. It represents our substitute proposal
for the Appendix C. Section III statement of the Student Opinion of
Instruction survey. The statement
that the ASC would like the faculty senate to consider is as follows:
“The quality of teaching must be
evaluated by means of:
a. formal methods of peer review,
including direct observation of the classroom teaching of new and tenure-track
faculty
b. other methods of evaluation including
materials such as syllabi, reading lists, outlines, examinations, audiovisual
materials, student manuals, samples of student's work on assignments, projects,
papers, examples of student achievement, and other materials prepared for or
relevant to instruction.
c. data from surveys of student
opinion when an individual faculty member’s data is consistently (more than 2
semesters) and significantly different (in the top 10 percent or the bottom 10
percent of the distribution) when compared to similar courses in the unit.
d. other procedures provided for
in unit codes.”
A motion was offered and seconded to
approve the revised statement. The
committee approved the motion.
5. Reports to the Faculty Senate (include
dates and resolution numbers).
12/4/07
Linda Wolfe (Anthropology), Chair of the Committee and George Bailey
(Philosophy) a member of the Committee, both presented information on the
proposed new student email system and how it will affect teaching.
Faculty Senate
Resolution #08-08:
Because
of a series of transitional problems, the Faculty Senate believes that the
Student
Opinion of Instruction Survey (SOIS) results for Fall 2007 may show
greater
variability than data from other semesters and should be used with
caution
taking into account factors such as response rates for individual sections
and
a careful comparison with other indicators of teaching performance.
Disposition:
Chancellor
3/18/08
Professor Linda Wolfe (Anthropology),
Chair of the Committee, presented for approval two courses (ENTH 3501 and ENTH
3502) for Foundation Curriculum Credit. There were no questions and the two
courses ENTH 3501 and ENTH 3502 were approved for Foundation Curriculum Credit
as requested.
Faculty Senate
Resolution #08-10:
Foundation
Curriculum Credit for ENTH 3501: Selected Topics in Ethnic Studies,
Social
Science and ENTH 3502: Selected Topics in Ethnic Studies, Humanities.
Disposition: Chancellor
6. Business carried over to next year
(list in priority order).
The submitted proposal for changes in
teaching evaluations that were to be
included in Appendix C were sent back
to the Academic Standards
committee by the Faculty Senate
(during their April 22 Senate meeting) for
further revisions. These revisions will be addressed in during
the next
academic year.
7. Evaluation of the committee (include
anything that hindered or assisted the
committee's work during the year).
A. Charge:
Okay
B. Personnel: very good
C. Attendance: Good—particularly with chair, vice chair,
secretary and ex-officio members
D. Responsibilities: Okay
E. Activities: Very good
8. Suggestion(s) to the Chair of the Faculty
and/or Faculty Senate for improving the effectiveness of the committee. None
9. Does the Committee’s organizational
meeting next year need to be earlier than the date set this year? No
Signed: Chairperson, Linda Wolfe
Secretary,
Mark Richardson