2007-2008 FACULTY SENATE
The eighth regular meeting of the
2007/2008
Tuesday, April 22, 2008, at 2:10 in the Mendenhall Student Center Great Room.
FULL AGENDA
REVISED 4-17-08 to include additional committee reports added
at the end.
I. Call to Order
II.
Approval of Minutes
March
18, 2008
III. Special Order of the Day
A. Roll
Call
B. Announcements
C. Steve
Ballard, Chancellor
D. Deirdre
Mageean, Vice Chancellor for Research and Graduate Studies
Carnegie Classification on the Engaged University and UNC
Tomorrow Commission
Link to the UNC
Tomorrow Commission Final Report (December 2007)
Link
to membership of ECU’s
Response Team
E. Mark
Taggart, Chair of the Faculty
F. John
Cope, Faculty Assembly Delegate
Written
report on the April
4, 2008, Faculty Assembly Meeting.
IV. Unfinished Business
V. Report of Committees
A. Academic
Awards Committee, Patricia Dragon
Response to the UNC Tomorrow Report
(attachment 1)
B. Academic Standards Committee, Linda Wolfe
1. Proposed Revisions to ECU Faculty Manual, Appendix C, Section III.
in
reference to the Student Opinion of Instruction Survey (attachment 2)
2. Proposal for Posting Student Opinion of Instruction
Survey Results on the
Web (attachment 3)
3.
Guidelines for Outcome Assessment of
Foundations Courses (attachment 4)
C. Admissions and Retention Policies Committee,
John Kerbs
Resolution
on Undergraduate Retention (attachment 5)
D. Continuing and
Career Education Committee, Jocelyn Nelson
Response to the
UNC Tomorrow Report (attachment 6)
E. Educational Policies and Planning
Committee, Dale Knickerbocker
(See additional committee reports added at the end
of this agenda.)
1. Request for a new
Concentration Area in Theatre for Youth,
of
Theatre and Dance,
2. Request
for a Name Change of the Minor being offered, from “Management of
Recreation and Facilities Services”
(MRFS) to “Recreation and Park Management” (RPM), Department of Recreation and
Leisure Studies,
3. Notification
of an Intent to Plan a Master of Science in Sustainable Tourism, North Carolina
Center for Sustainable Tourism, Division of Research and Graduate Studies
F. Faculty Governance
Committee, Puri
1. Response to the UNC Tomorrow Report
(attachment 7)
2. Proposed revisions to the ECU Faculty Manual, Part XII.B.2.a. (attachment
8)
G. Unit Code Screening Committee, Garris
Conner
(See additional committee reports added at the end
of this agenda.)
1. Approval of
the New Department
of Hospitality Management Unit Code of
Operation.
2. Approval
of the Revised School
of Communication Unit Code of Operation.
3. Approval
of the Revised School
of Medicine Unit Code of Operation.
H. University Budget Committee, Ralph
Scott
1. Response to the UNC Tomorrow Report
(attachment 9)
2. Resolution on the Transparency of
the so-called “BD-119” (attachment 10)
1. Curriculum matters contained in the minutes
of the March
27, 2008 and
April 10, 2008
committee meetings.
2. Response to the UNC Tomorrow Report (attachment 11)
J. University
Environment Committee, Charles Hodson
Response to the UNC Tomorrow Report
(attachment 12)
Summary
of reported energy conservation and efficiency efforts (for information
only).
VI.
New
Business
April 22, 2008
Attachment 1
ACADEMIC AWARDS COMMITTEE REPORT
Response to the UNC Tomorrow Report
As requested
by the Chair of the Faculty, the Academic Awards Committee at our meeting on
March 6, 2008, discussed the UNC Tomorrow Report and formulated this response
to the areas of the report that were related to our charge.
Our
discussion centered on recommendation 5.3:
“UNC should lead the campuses in a refinement and adjustment
of the tenure, promotion, and incentive system to place greater value on
faculty involvement and engagement in applied research and outreach that will
enhance the state’s competitiveness without decreasing support for teaching,
basic research and scholarship.”
Viewing our
committee as part of the incentive system for faculty, we had a discussion of
how the scholarship of teaching, learning, and engagement is evaluated in the existing
awards.
The
committee agreed that the creation of a new award(s) for scholarship of
engagement (in the sense of applied research and teaching) should be pursued in
order to give faculty incentive to be productive in this area. However, in order to preserve support for
basic research and scholarship, the committee felt that existing criteria for
research awards should remain as they are.
April 22, 2008
Attachment 2
ACADEMIC STANDARDS COMMITTEE REPORT
Proposed revisions to ECU Faculty Manual,
Appendix C. Section III. Evaluation
in reference to the Student Opinion of Instruction Survey
Revise Section III. Evaluation, 1. Teaching to read as follows:
(addition noted in bold print,
deletion noted in strikethrough):
“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.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 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 (more than 1 mean absolute deviation) from the unit’s median for
similar courses.
c.d. other procedures provided for in unit codes.”
April 22, 2008
Attachment 3
ACADEMIC STANDARDS COMMITTEE REPORT
Proposal for Posting Student Opinion of Instruction Survey Results on the Web
In an effort
toward conservation and to facilitate reporting the results of the SOIS, IPRE
would like to implement online access to SOIS data for faculty members. This
would allow a more secure way of handling this sensitive information and
provide easy access for faculty to review the results for all their courses in
one location and ultimately across numerous semesters. Providing online access
to the results would also allow for a quicker turn around time thus enabling
faculty to utilize the feedback in a more timely fashion.
The most
important issue is safeguarding access to the results. For Fall 2008, the instructor reports (and
comments) would be available for access online so that instructors can see
their own results and comments. The supervisor would be enabled to access the
instructor reports only (but not the comments). In the future summary reports
would also be accessible online to the appropriate administrator with
comparable security safeguards in place.
April 22, 2008
Attachment 4
ACADEMIC STANDARDS COMMITTEE REPORT
Guidelines for Outcome Assessment of Foundations Courses
Before
setting out the general procedures to be followed in doing Outcomes Assessment
on Foundations Courses, it is useful to review the purpose of the Foundations
Curriculum at ECU, as stated in the approved Foundations Goals document.
It should be noted, however, that as UNC Tomorrow is implemented, there could
be added required assessment goals. Because of the pending Southern
Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS) reaffirmation, it is necessary that
we begin to assess Foundation Curriculum courses now so that there is a body of
assessment data to present to the SACS investigation team.
Once
approved by the
The overarching
goal of the Liberal Arts Foundations Curriculum is to provide students with the
fundamental knowledge and abilities essential to their living worthwhile lives
both private and public. The Foundations curriculum reflects the faculty’s
belief that the best way to prepare students for living worthwhile lives is to
provide them with a solid foundation in the core disciplines (the Humanities,
Arts, Basic Sciences, and Basic Social-Sciences), in conjunction with a
multi-disciplinary education in the specific areas of health promotion and
physical activity and mastery of writing and mathematics competencies.
Together, these disciplines provide the core knowledge base in which all other
scholarship is grounded, including applied disciplinary, multi-disciplinary and
interdisciplinary scholarship. The foundations curriculum thus exists to
provide a common, unified body of knowledge and skills to students who will
major in widely different subjects and who come from diverse cultural
backgrounds.
Foundations
courses have the following learning objectives:
1. Students shall master the subject matter of
one or more of the disciplines in each of the four core areas (Humanities,
Arts, Basic Sciences, basic Social Sciences).
2. Students shall master the research methods
utilized in one or more of the disciplines in each core area.
3. Students shall master the relevance of
scholarship in the discipline to the matters outside the discipline
4. In the required multi-disciplinary areas
(Health Promotion and Physical Activity) and competency areas (writing and
mathematics), students must meet the knowledge and performance Foundations
goals specific to each of these areas.
Outcomes
Assessment of Foundations Courses
1. What is Outcomes Assessment?
The purpose of outcomes assessment is enhancing quality. Assessment shall improve student learning by
improving the quality of Foundations courses.
Outcomes
Assessment for quality enhancement is an ongoing, standard operating procedure.
Outcomes assessment for quality enhancement requires (1) assessing learning
outcomes to identify where improvements in quality are needed or possible, (2)
implementing steps to enhance quality, (3) assessing learning outcomes to
determine if quality was enhanced and (4) repeating this cycle for new areas
and/or for the same areas as appropriate.
ECU is required to document its Outcomes Assessment
activities. Hence assessment activities must at each stage yield results that
can be documented. Standard approaches to this utilize course-embedded assessment,
pre-and-post testing, assessment of student portfolios, assessment of student
theses and assessment via direct observations of performance.
2. Who
conducts Outcomes Assessment of courses earning Foundations credit?
Every department or school responsible for offering one or more courses for
Foundations credit.
3. Which courses are assessed?
At least one section of each course whether face-to-face or by distance
education at the 1000 and 2000 level offered for foundation credit or 20% of
the sections of courses with multiple sections, whichever is greater.
4. How often?
We will resume outcomes assessment on Foundations courses in Fall 2008. (We
last did learning outcomes assessment on
5. What must be assessed?
Assessment activities determine if improvements can be made in student learning
outcomes that address course information content or behavioral tasks.
Outcomes Assessment must evaluate student knowledge and skills with respect to
information or tasks that fall under each of the three general goals for the
each category.
6. How many learning outcomes per course must be
assessed?
At least one assessment is needed for each Foundations goal. (See appendices at the end of this document
for examples.) While none of the
assessment examples in the appendices includes a portfolio as an assessment
tool, it would be acceptable as long as it assesses foundation curriculum
goals. A variety of approaches to learning outcomes assessment are acceptable.
Some of these will be emphasized by the SACS committee on Foundations
assessment in the Fall of 2008 and later.
7. Who determines the assessment methods used,
who determines what constitutes a need for improvement, who conducts
assessments, who identifies learning outcomes that need improvement, who
determines how to make improvements, who implements attempts to improve and
assesses attempts to improve?
Faculty in units offering Foundation Curriculum courses will, in consultation
with the unit administrator or his appointee, determine the assessments
method(s) (see the appendices for examples). The goals to be assessed are the
appropriate Foundation Curriculum goals.
The faculty member(s) or an appointee are responsible for conducting the
assessment of the unit’s Foundation Curriculum courses based on the agreed up
method(s). Once the assessment results are tabulated, the unit’s faculty,
in consultation with the unit administrator or his appointee, will identify the
learning outcomes and determine needed improvements. It is the
responsibility of the faculty to improve the Foundation Curriculum courses
based on the outcomes assessment.
8. What must be made available to the
administration in the form of a published report?
Initially, a statement, by goal area, of each learning outcome that will be
assessed, for each learning outcome to be assessed, a description of how that
outcome will be assessed and a specification of how the difference between
“needs improvement” and “does not need improvement” will be determined.
By the
end of the semester following the first assessment, a statement of the results
of the initial assessment and a statement of what will be done to improve
outcomes identified as needing enhancement, along with an enhancement plan to
be implemented in the next semester.
By the
end of the second semester following the identification of outcomes needing
improvement, a statement of the success or failure of the attempts to improve
outcomes identified as needing improvement (the success of the enhancement
plan). Outcomes still needing improvement are carried over to the next
assessment period. New learning outcomes are introduced.
9. What is to be done with the report given to
the administration?
The procedure for reporting the outcomes assessment is under consideration by
the university administration.
10. What record keeping will be required by each
program conducting Outcomes Assessment of Foundations courses?
A copy of all reports generated by the program for the previous six academic
years and a copy of all materials used to conduct assessment in the future will
be on file in the department carrying out the assessment.
Appendix
A: Humanities Example
Outcomes
Assessment in the Humanities, for example, must evaluate student knowledge and
skills with respect to information or tasks that fall under each of the three
general goals for the Humanities. Philosophy is presented here as an
example.
Here are
three examples of specific learning outcomes that a philosophy might assesses
in order to see if improvements in student learning are needed.
Goal
1. Students will learn the subject
matter of at least one discipline in the humanities.
What is the student’s knowledge of a Mill’s theory of morality.
Goal
2. Students will learn the research
methodology applied by disciplines in the humanities.
What is the student’s ability to write a coherent justification for a moral
judgment.
Goal
3. Students will learn about the
discipline’s contribution to general knowledge.
What is the student’s knowledge of how discoveries in moral theory impact on
the recommendations made by hospital ethics committees.
Appendix
B: Social Science Example
Outcomes
Assessment in the Social Sciences, for example, must evaluate student knowledge
and skills with respect to information or tasks that fall under each of the
three general goals for the Social Sciences. Anthropology is used as an
example of outcomes assessment for the social sciences (biological anthropology
is excluded from social science outcome assessment).
Anthropology
will use embedded multiple choice question administered the first day of class
and embedded in the final but will not count toward the final grade on the
final. It is expected that 70% of the
students will answer 70% of the embedded multiple choice questions on the final
correctly. The same questions will be
asked the beginning of the class and embedded on the final.
Goal
1. Students will learn the subject
matter of at least one discipline in the basic social sciences.
Sample questions
1. Which of the following is NOT one of
the characteristics of culture?
a. culture is learned, b. culture is shared, c. culture is inherited, d.
culture is constantly changing.
2. One of the key features that makes
anthropology unique from other social sciences is that:
a. Anthropology
studies human behavior, b. Anthropology
takes a holistic perspective, c.
Anthropology has lots of subfields, d.
None of the above.
Goal
2. Students will learn the research
methodology, principles and concepts required to understand and conduct undergraduate-level
research in the social sciences.
Sample questions
1. The main research
method used by cultural anthropologists or ethnologists is:
a. statistical
comparisons, b. controlled excavations,
c. participant observation, d. skeletal analysis.
2. Statistical tests
of significance can help us to:
a. measure variables, b. prove theories, c. determine the
level of importance we should attach to
a theoretical construct, d. determine whether our results are attributable to
chance.
Goal 3. Students
will about the discipline’s contribution to general knowledge.
Sample questions
1. The study of
anthropology may be useful for all of the following EXCEPT:
a. helping us avoid misunderstandings between people, b.
giving us a better understanding of humankind, c. helping us determine which
culture traits are the best, d. giving us a sense of humility about our own
culture’s failings.
2 Now that you have
completed this course, what would you say is the relevance of anthropology in
today's world? a. the discipline helps us understand what human behaviors are
shared as a result of our common biological nature and what variations are
produced by culture, b. the discipline helps us avoid misunderstandings between
peoples that arise from cultural differences, c. the discipline combats racism
by demonstrating that physical differences between groups are the results of
adaptations to the environment and are not markers of intellectual inferiority,
d. exposure to anthropology helps individuals identify their ethnocentric
assumptions and therefore promotes tolerance, e. all of the above.
Appendix C:
Basic Sciences Example
Outcomes Assessment in the Basic Sciences, for example, must
evaluate student knowledge and skills with respect to information or tasks that
fall under each of the three general goals for the Basic Sciences. Physics is used as an example of outcomes
assessment for the Basic Sciences.
Physics will administer a multiple-choice pretest on the
first day of class, and the questions from the pretest will be embedded in the
final examination. It is expected that
the average scores on the outcomes assessment questions in the final
examination will be greater than the average scores of the same questions on
the pretest. Furthermore, it is expected
that the students will answer 70% of the outcomes assessment questions on the
final examination correctly.
Goal 1. Students will learn the subject matter of at least
one core discipline in the Basic Sciences.
Sample questions
1. What are the four
fundamental forces?
a. Gravitational, Electric, Magnetic, and Nuclear, b. Centripetal, Frictional,
Contact, and Gravitational, c. Strong
Nuclear, Weak Nuclear, Frictional, and Chemical, d.Gravitational,
Electromagnetic, Strong Nuclear, and Weak Nuclear.
2. Energy is:
II. An
abstract quantity with many different forms.
III. Always
conserved for an isolated system.
a. I only, b. II only, c.
III only, d. I and III, e. I,
II, and III.
Goal 2. Students will
learn the research methodology, principles and concepts required to understand
and conduct undergraduate-level research in a basic science.
Sample questions
1. What could
we do if an experimental result violates our scientific hypothesis?
I. Reject the hypothesis.
II. Modify the
hypothesis to correctly explain the result.
III. Accept the
hypothesis by treating the result as an isolated occurrence.
a. I only, b. II
only, c.
III only, d. I or II,
e. I, II, or III.
2. What distinguishes
science from other areas of learning?
a. The use of
mathematics, b. Experimentation as the ultimate test of truth, c. No prior assumptions, d. The use of
technology.
Goal 3. Students will
learn about the discipline’s contribution to general knowledge.
Sample questions:
1. A scientific
theory is
a. A well-tested and
verified hypothesis, b. An unproven
hypothesis, c. An educated guess,
d. The result of a single experiment.
2. How can you
describe energy use in the
a. We have used
energy at a constant rate, b. Our energy
use has increased at a constant rate, c.
Our energy use has increased exponentially, d. Our energy use increased every year until
2001, when it began to decrease, e. Our
energy use has increased in some years and decreased in others, with the net
result being a slight increase.
April 22, 2008
Attachment 5
ADMISSIONS AND RETENTION POLICIES COMMITTEE REPORT
Resolution on Undergraduate Retention
WHEREAS, East
Carolina University’s Admissions and Retention Policies Committee is charged
by the
WHEREAS, East Carolina University (ECU)
currently has a retention rate of 77% for first-year students, and
WHEREAS, ECU is committed to increasing
first-year retention rates to over 82% by the fall of 2011, and
WHEREAS, ECU has a four-year graduation rate
of 30% and a six-year graduation rate of 54%, and
WHEREAS, ECU is committed to increasing both
the four-year and six-year graduation rates, and
WHEREAS, ECU is committed to implementing a plan
to address the ten points in the UNC-GA Template for improved retention and
graduation rates, and
WHEREAS, ECU recognizes that there is sound
scientific evidence to suggest that study skills training1 and class attendance2 improve student performance by raising grades,
increasing student retention, and raising graduation rates.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY
RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS:
BE IT RESOLVED that the Admissions and Retention
Policies Committee and the
BE IT RESOLVED that the Admissions and Retention
Policies Committee and the
BE IT RESOLVED that the Admissions and Retention
Policies Committee and the
BE IT RESOLVED that the Admissions and Retention
Policies Committee and the
BE IT RESOLVED that the Admissions and Retention
Policies Committee and the
Notes
1
The references below cover literature reviews and studies with general evidence
of positive academic outcomes for undergraduate with good study skills and/or
exposure to study-skill training and workshops.
Generally, such training is found to increase GPAs and student retention.
Abrams, H.G., and Jernigan, L.P. (1984). Academic support services and the success of
high-risk college students. American
Educational Research Journal, 21(2), 261-274.
Carlstrom,
A.,
Gettinger, M., & Seibert J.K. (2002).
Contributions of study skills to academic Competence. School Psychology Review, 31 (3), 350
– 365.
Hollister, J.W. (1993). General
chemistry workshop attendance and improved student performance. Journal
of Chemical Education, 70, 1013 – 1015.
Kern, C.W.,
Lee, W.Y. (1999). Striving toward effective
retention: The effect of race on mentoring African American Students.
McKeachie,
W. J., Pintrich, P. R., & Lin, Y.G. (1985). Learning to learn. In G.
D’Ydwelle (Ed.), Cognition, information processing and motivation (pp.
601–618).
Metzner, B. and Bean, J.P. (1987) The estimation of
a conceptual model of nontraditional undergraduate student attrition. Research
in Higher Education, 27(1), 15-38.
Naveh-Benjamin,
M. (1991) A comparison of training programs intended for different types of
test-anxious students: Further support for an information-processing model. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 134-139.
Polansky,
J., Horan, J.J., & Hanish C. (1993) Experimental construct validity of the
outcomes of study skills training and career counseling as treatments for the
retention of at-risk students. Journal of
Counseling and Development, 71(5), 488 – 492.
Rickinson, B., & Rutherford, D., (1995).
Increasing undergraduate student retention rates. British Journal of
Guidance & Counselling, 23(2), 161-172.
Robbins, S.B., Lauver, K., Le, H.,
Rowser, J.F. (1997) Do African American students' perceptions of their
needs have implications for retention. Journal of Black Studies, 27(5),
718 - 726.
Saenz, T. Marcoulides, E.J., & Young, R.
(1999). The
relationship between college experience and academic performance among minority
students, International Journal of
Educational Management, 13(4), 199-208.
Scheid, K. (1993). Helping
students become strategic learners: Guidelines for teaching.
Sherman, T. M, Giles, M. B., &
Williams-Green, J. (1994). Assessment and retention of black students in
higher education. The Journal of Negro Education, 63(2), 164.
Van
Overwalle, F., & Metsenaere, M. de (1990).
The effects of attribution-based intervention and study strategy
training on academic achievement in college freshman. British
Journal of Educational Psychology, 60,
299-311.
Wyatt, M. (1992). The past, present, and future
need for college reading courses in the
Zinatelli,
M, Dube, M. A., & Jovanovic, R. (2003).
Computer-based study skills training: The role of technology in
improving performance and retention. Journal of College Student Retention, 4(1), 67-78.
2
The references below cover literature reviews and studies concerning
undergraduate class attendance. These
studies generally find positive academic outcomes associated with undergraduate
class attendance; generally, negative outcomes are associated with absenteeism.
Clump, M. A., Bauer, H., &
Whiteleather, A. (2003). To attend or not to attend: Is that a good question? Journal
of Instructional Psychology, 30, 220-224.
Cohn, E., & Johnson E. (2006) Class attendance
and performance in principles of economics.
Education Economics, 14(2),
211-233.
Conard,
M. A. (2006). Aptitude is not enough: How personality and behavior predict
academic performance. Journal of Research in Personality, 40,
339–346.
Day,
S. (1994) Learning in large sociology classes: Journals and attendance, Teaching
Sociology, 22, 151–165.
Devadoss,
S., & Foltz. J. (1996) Evaluation of factors influencing student class
attendance and performance. American
Journal of Agricultural Economics, 78, 499–507.
Durden,
G. C., & Ellis, L. V. (1995) The effects of attendance on student learning
in principles of economics. American
Economic Review (Papers and Proceedings), 85(2), 343–346.
Durden, G., & Larry E. (2003). Is class
attendance a proxy for student motivation in economic classes? An empirical
analysis. International Social Science Review, 78, 42 – 46.
Friedman,
P., Rodriguez, F., & McComb, J. (2001). Why students do and do not attend
classes: Myths and realities. College Teaching, 49, 124-133.
Gump, S. E. (2004b) The truth behind
truancy: student rationales for cutting class, Educational Research
Quarterly, 28(2), 50–58.
Gump,
S. E. (2005). The cost of cutting class: Attendance as a predictor of student
success. College Teaching, 53,
21-26.
Gunn,
K. P. (1993). A correlation between attendance and grades in a first-year
psychology course. Canadian Psychology, 34, 201-202.
Hancock,
T. M. (1994). Effects of mandatory attendance on student performance. College
Student Journal, 28, 326–329.
Jones,
C. H. (1984) Interaction of absences and grades in a college course, The
Journal of Psychology, 116,
133–136.
Launius,
M. H. (1997). College student attendance: Attitudes and academic performance. College
Student Journal, 31, 86-92.
Martin , J. S., & Hanrahan K. (2004) Criminology
freshmen: Preparation, expectations and college performance. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 15(2),
287-309.
Park,
K. H., & Kerr, P. M. (1990). Determinants
of academic performance: A multinomial logit approach. The Journal of
Economic Education, 21(2),
101-111.
Petress,
K. C. (1996). The dilemma of university undergraduate student attendance
policies: To require class attendance or not. College Student Journal
30, 387–389.
Rodgers,
J. R. (2001) A panel-data study of the effect of student attendance on
university performance. Australian
Journal of Education, 45(3), 284
- 295.
Rodgers,
J. R. (2002) Encouraging tutorial attendance at university did not improve
performance. Australian Economic Papers, 41(3), 255–266.
Romer,
D. (1993). Do students go to class? Should they? Journal of Economic
Perspectives, 7(3), 167-174.
Rose,
R. J., Hall, C. W., Bolen, L. M., & Webster, R. E. (1996). Locus of control
and college student’s approaches to learning. Psychological. Reports, 79, 163-171.
Schimoff,
E., & Catania.A.C. (2001). Effects of recording attendance on grades in
Introductory Psychology. Teaching of
Psychology, 28, 192-195.
Schuman, H., Walsh, E., Olson,
C., & Etheridge, B. (1985). Effort and reward: The assumption that college
grades are affected by quantity of study. Social Forces, 63,
945-966.
Silvestri, L. (2003). The effect of attendance on
undergraduate methods course grades, Education,
123(3), 483-486.
St
Clair, K. L. (1999). A case against compulsory class attendance policies in
higher education. Innovative Higher
Education, 23, 171–180.
Thatcher,
A., Fridjhon, P., & Cockcroft, K. (2007).
The relationship between lecture attendance and
academic performance in an undergraduate psychology class. South
African Journal of Psychology, 37(3), 656 – 660.
Van
Blerkom, M. L. (1992). Class attendance in an undergraduate course. The
Journal of Psychology, 126, 487-494.
Wyatt,
G. (1992). Skipping class: An analysis of absenteeism among first-year college
students. Teaching Sociology, 20, 201-207.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________
April 22, 2008
Attachment 6
CONTINUING AND CAREER EDUCATION
COMMITTEE REPORT
Response to the UNC Tomorrow Report
According
to its charge, the Continuing and Career Education Committee addresses issues
relating to 4.1 (Global readiness), 4.2 (Citizen access to higher education),
and 4.3 (Improving public education) of the UNC Tomorrow document.
This
statement specifically addresses the following points:
4.2.1
(Citizen access to higher education)
The
Continuing and Career Education Committee takes pride in
4.2.3 (UNC
as a model for accommodating persons with disabilities)
4.3
(Improving public education)
ECU’s
Office of Teacher Education has established the Walter and Daisy Carson Latham
Clinical Schools Network. This is a
partnership between
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
April 22, 2008
Attachment 7
FACULTY GOVERNANCE
COMMITTEE REPORT
Response to the UNC
Tomorrow Report
UNC
Tomorrow Response Phase Planning Timeline
We have determined
the extent of our involvement in response to the UNC Tomorrow Report according to the timeline that we received when
asked to write the present document. It should be noted that according to that
timeline, Faculty Governance should be/have been involved in the following:
Phase I
Phase II
Impact
on Faculty Governance Committee Charge
The UNC Tomorrow Report does not affect our
charge. However, it will have an impact on the management of the committee’s
responsibilities and workload.
The tight
timelines established for Phases I and II for responses to the report clearly
indicate that there will be short reaction/action times. In order for Faculty
Governance to respond adequately to the request from General Administration and
our own campus, the following will be necessary:
Faculty
Governance Committee and Phase I
Faculty
Governance Committee and Phase II
Recruitment and Retention of Faculty
Faculty Governance has actively participated in the past in workshops and
information sessions regarding recruitment and retention of faculty, and we
will continue to do so. We, together with the Chief Diversity Officer, are in
the early stages of planning a workshop(s) for hiring diverse faculty. While
participation in these workshops is not part of our charge, we view it as
essential in maintaining one of the basics tenets of shared governance: hiring
of faculty is a faculty responsibility.
Joint Appointments
Potentially, revisions to the ECU Faculty
Manual regarding joint appointments could have an impact on faculty
recruitment and retention. Faculty Governance has been working on this since
Spring of 2006. In Fall of 2007 we formed a sub-committee to study the matter.
Due to our heavy agenda, the sub-committee has not been able to report This academic year, but joint appointments
remain in our agenda for next academic year.
Conclusion
The UNC
Report will have no effect on our charge, but underlines the need to speed our
work regarding the Tenure and Reward Systems, especially regarding Outreach and
Engagement. The committee accepts this responsibility and looks forward to
active participation.
April 22, 2008
Attachment 8
FACULTY GOVERNANCE
COMMITTEE REPORT
Proposed Revisions to
the ECU Faculty Manual, Part
XII.B.2.a.
Revise Part XII.B.2.a. to read as follows:
(addition noted in bold print,
deletion noted in strikethrough):
The
Personnel Action Dossier shall include the following items:
A.
….
B.
Recommendations
(Note: The documents listed here will be
added by the appropriate official as the Personnel Action progresses.)
1. For reappointment:
a. Unit Tenure Committee’s recommendation,
signature of the chair of the unit Personnel Committee, and date
b. Unit administrator’s recommendation,
signature, and date
c. Dean's recommendation, signature, and date
d. Provost/Vice Chancellor’s recommendation,
signature, date
2. For tenure:
a. One cumulative
evaluation in narrative form of the candidate's teaching, research, service,
and any other relevant duties, prepared by the unit Tenure Committee. A draft
of this cumulative evaluation, to be completed after the candidate turns in the PAD,
should be available for discussion by the entire Tenure committee before the
vote.
A cumulative evaluation in narrative form of the
candidate’s teaching, research, service, and any other relevant duties,
prepared by the unit Tenure Committee.
b. A
cumulative evaluation in narrative form of the candidate’s teaching, research,
service, and any other relevant duties, prepared by the unit administrator.
c.
Unit
Tenure Committee's recommendation, signature of the chair of the unit Personnel
Committee, and date
d.
Unit
administrator’s recommendation, signature, and date
e.
Dean's
recommendation, signature, and date
f.
Provost/Vice
Chancellor’s recommendation, signature, date
April 22, 2008
Attachment 9
UNIVERSITY BUDGET COMMITTEE REPORT
Response to the UNC Tomorrow Report
WHEREAS, the
Scholarship of Engagement is a key component of the
WHEREAS,
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Chancellor and the Board of Trustees allocate an
initial funding of $300,000 annually for Seed Grants for Engagement ($30K@ to
10 faculty).
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Chancellor and the Board of Trustees direct $50
million dollars of the Centennial Campaign toward funding the enabling of
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Chancellor and the Board of Trustees develop a
reward model for those who participate in the Scholarship of Engagement (with
emphasis on tenure, promotion and merit as the primary reward mechanism).
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Chancellor and the Board of Trustees develop a
better tracking model so that
______________________________________________________________________________________________________
April 22, 2008
Attachment 10
UNIVERSITY BUDGET COMMITTEE REPORT
Resolution on the Transparency of the so-called “BD-119”
WHEREAS, the so-called “BD-119” has
provided EPA employees of
WHEREAS, this information is a public
record; and
WHEREAS, this was made available in the
past to EPA employees; and
WHEREAS, this information has not yet been
provided on a stable platform for the academic year 2007-2008; and
WHEREAS, this information for 2007-2008 was
made briefly available to some staff and not other the week of March 17th,
2008; and
WHEREAS, a key component of confidence in
an administration is transparency of information.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
April 22, 2008
Attachment 11
UNIVERSITY CURRICULUM COMMITTEE REPORT
Response to the UNC Tomorrow Report
There are a
number of items in the UNC Tomorrow Report which relate to the structure and
development of curricula in the programs of
Our review of
the items designated as curriculum committee matters finds them worthy of the
efforts of our faculties and administration, including the University
Curriculum Committee as colleagues and agents of both, but finds that these
items regard the structure and development of ECU curricula from a perspective
rather different from those viewpoints from which we have been accustomed to
considering curricular change.
The
University Curriculum Committee of East Carolina University, as constituted and
charged, has been accustomed to seeing proposed changes in ECU curricula
originating from the ‘bottom’ up. That is, from faculty members by way of their
departments, colleges or schools. Our oversight of, and input to,
the process has been related to ensuring consistency and coherence of new
curricular proposals with that of existing curricular structures and the
representation thereof in University course catalogs. We seek to
avoid unnecessary duplication, to reward collaborative interactions, to facilitate
modernization with student futures foremost in mind, and to maximize the
teaching and learning experience in our course offerings for both students and
faculty. We ask faculty to frame requested
changes in terms of motivation and anticipated outcome(s) so that we are in the
best position to respond to and support their proposed curricular offerings.
A group
might be created with the responsibility for catalyzing by suggestion and
practical support the kinds of curricular changes suggested in the UNC Tomorrow report. However, it will
remain the responsibility for faculties to know how best to advance the
teaching of their respective disciplines, and to evaluate any related
suggestions that might come from such a group. Those are the duties in
performance of which we claim academic freedom.
We would
consider it worthy and consistent with our best purposes to include in our
considerations, i.e. to ask faculty to include in their justifications, some
information about how their various proposals address these stated objectives
of the UNC Tomorrow Initiative (when
in their final form they may be elevated to the level of University
policy).
In recent
years, an important feature of the University Curriculum Committee’s operations
has been the establishment of our Liaison Program, whereby each academic unit
has a Liaison trained to optimize proposals for curriculum changes and to
facilitate their passage through the Committee. It occurs to
us that, in support of these objectives, we could inculcate an appreciation for
these long-term objectives in the training of the liaisons, and incorporate an
opportunity for a statement of having considered those objectives in the
justification requested of the faculty.
In
addition, the UCC has been working alongside the GCC and the Office of Academic
Programs to provide regular curriculum development workshops for interested
faculty. These workshops might also be a place where additional training and
focus could be given to the UNC Tomorrow
Initiative.
By working
with the liaisons and continuing in the development of the workshops, the
development of curriculum at ECU can continue in a “bottom up” manner while
reinforcing the goals of the UNC Tomorrow
Initiative.
April 22, 2008
Attachment 12
UNIVERSITY ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE REPORT
Response to the UNC Tomorrow Report
The Environment Committee recommends that ECU pursue the
following initiatives, which accord with the recommendations of the UNC Tomorrow Report, pp. 32-34, § 4.6 to
4.6.3 "Our Environment":
1. Approve and
distribute to students, faculty, and staff the sustainability and conservation
survey created by Dr. Shereif Sheta and Dr. Robert Chin.
2. Develop a
website detailing sustainability practices and initiatives at ECU and feature
this site prominently on the ECU homepage.
3. Create an Office
of Campus Sustainability under the direction of Facilities Services and hire a
full-time sustainability coordinator with administrative staff to publicize
existing practices and coordinate new initiatives. This Office should perform
the following:
· promote energy and natural resource
conservation, as well as energy efficiency projects
· promote public awareness of
conservation issues, along with campus conservation initiatives
· serve as a liaison with the City of
· help plan and design
energy-efficient buildings and transportation links
· promote recycling across campus
· educate the university community
about how to reduce energy and resource consumption
· relay student staff and faculty
suggestions to university departments that can implement changes
· periodically report on conservation,
energy efficiency improvement efforts, recycling efforts, and other
sustainability efforts to the university and the public
· maintain a sustainability website to
educate the university community about sustainability
4. Establish a
Sustainability Committee to focus on education and research. This committee
should promote the inclusion of sustainability issues in the curriculum, as
well as faculty research in areas related to sustainability. The committee
should monitor efforts in both areas and report progress to the university.
5. Continue to
replace old windows, doors, etc. and to insulate campus buildings to decrease
campus energy consumption.
6. Construct all
new buildings to at least LEED-silver standards.
7. Purchase more
hybrid buses and hybrid or electric maintenance/parking vehicles.
8. Work with
Greenville Utilities to install wind and solar power generation on campus in
order to supply the relatively small amounts of electricity needed to heat
water and operate lights.
9. Preserve
existing mature trees by designating a list of significant trees across the ECU
Campus, thereby ensuring that they will not be removed or destroyed in future
construction projects.
10. Encourage Aramark
and ECU Dining Services to purchase local,
11. Include plans for
expansion of sidewalks, bike lanes, and greenways in the upcoming ECU Campus
Master Plan. ECU planners should maintain contact with the City of
12. Set up more
recycling bins around campus to encourage recycling.
13. Explore the
possibility of recycling water from sinks into toilets to conserve water, at
least in new buildings that will be constructed.
14. Launch a
campus-wide initiative to reduce use and waste of plastic bottles.
additional committee reports
Item 1
EDUCATIONAL POLICIES AND PLANNING COMMITTEE REPORT
Response to the UNC Tomorrow Report
The Educational Policies and
Planning Committee (EPPC) considers relevant to our charge part 5.2 of the UNC Tomorrow
Report, which states the need to “streamline the academic planning process”,
“eliminate unnecessary duplication”, and create seamless UNC articulation or
"integration" of course credit.
The EPPC believes that curriculum
and program development is a faculty responsibility. Any system-wide changes to
the planning process must reflect that principle. In addition, if programs are
to be reviewed for elimination on g
rounds of productivity or duplication, the EPPC will need to draft
formal guidelines on what criteria other than productivity statistics will be
used to draft our recommendation to the chancellor on such matters.
Furthermore, any articulation of course credit or degree requirements must be
achieved through faculty committees, respecting each institution's mission and
the strengths and goals of individual academic units.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Item 2
EDUCATIONAL POLICIES AND PLANNING COMMITTEE REPORT
1. Request
to add Graduate Certificate programs in Health Care Administration and Health
Informatics within the Department of Health Services & Information
Management’s,
2. Request
to add new certificates in Global Understanding and Global Understanding with
Distinction within International Studies’,
3. Request to change the title of the Ph.D. in Bioenergetics to Bioenergetics and
Exercise Science within the Department of Exercise and Sports Science,
4. Request to add a Graduate Certificate
in Deaf-Blindness within the Department of Curriculum and Instruction,
5. Request to establish new M.A.
concentrations in English Studies, Creative Writing, Linguistics, Literature,
Multicultural and Transnational Literatures, Rhetoric and composition, Teaching English to
Speakers of Other Languages [TESOL], and Technical and Professional
Communication within the Department of
English, College of Arts and Sciences.
6. Request
to establish new minors in Architectural Design Technology and Mechanical Design
Technology within the Department of Technology Systems,
7. Request to establish a minor in
Recreational Therapy within the Department of Recreation and Leisure Studies,
Item 3
UNIT CODE SCREENING COMMITTEE REPORT
Proposed revisions to the Health Sciences Library Unit Code of Operation
“C.
Unit Administrator Evaluations
The
director of the Laupus Library shall be evaluated in accordance with
established University policies as specified in Appendix L of the
Faculty Manual.
D.
University Administrator Evaluations
Faculty
shall participate in the annual evaluation of administrators in accordance
with established University policies as specified in Appendix L of the
Faculty Manual.”
Link to full unit code:
http://www.ecu.edu/cs-acad/fsonline/customcf/unitcodes/healthsciencelibrary.htm
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Item 4
UNIT CODE SCREENING COMMITTEE REPORT
Proposed revisions to the General
Guidelines for Writing
and Revising A Unit Code of Operation
Proposed additions are noted in bold print
and deletions are noted in strikethrough.
GENERAL GUIDELINES FOR
WRITING AND REVISING A UNIT CODE OF OPERATION
Unit codes should be developed according to ECU Faculty Manual, Appendix L. East
Carolina University Code. Units should
include descriptions of procedures followed in the unit that are not covered in
Appendix L and other Appendices of the ECU
Faculty Manual. In addition:
1. Codes should be submitted on line numbered
paper. All pages should include page
number and date: e.g., new codes:
1:10/05/94; revised codes: 1: 10/10/94 rev.
2. Amendments must be made by following the
amendment procedure of the current unit code. When submitting amendments, Unit
Code Committees should briefly describe the reason for the change and indicate
the line numbers affected, as well as provide copies of the affected pages in
the current code with proposed changes underlined. They should also submit the
revised amendments along with the original text. Amendments will be treated by
the
3. Comprehensive Code Review. Every seven (7)
years, the
2008/09 Anthropology (97), English (97), Sociology
(97), History (98), Philosophy (99), Political Science (99), Foreign Languages
(99), Music (99), Biology (00), Theatre and Dance (00),
2009/10 Medicine (01), Geography (01)
2010/11 Physics (03), Chemistry (03), Academic
Library Services (03)
2011/12 Social Work (04), Child Development and Family
Relations (04), Interior Design (04), Economics (04), Criminal Justice (04)
2012/13 Technology and Computer
Science (05) Education (05), Art and Design (06), Allied Health Sciences (06),
Business (06),
Math (05)
2013/14 Geology (07), Nutrition and Dietetics (07),
Health and Human Performance (07)
2014/15 Nursing (08), Psychology (08), Communication
(08), Hospitality Management (08), Health Sciences Library (08)
One year prior to this date, code units
will be asked by the Chair of the Faculty, to form a unit code committee to
determine whether the current code still reflects current practice and is in
compliance with university regulations, to propose changes (if any), to the
tenured faculty of the unit. In the
following year, representatives will be asked to meet with the
4. Submit fourteen (14) copies of the code and
amended code, if appropriate, to the
5. Codes should be
submitted with a cover letter (
6. Codes should be
submitted with a cover page (see II. below)
I. Cover letter
The cover letter should state that the code was approved by
majority of permanently tenured faculty members of the unit. See Appendix L, Sect C 1.
A. First Codes: Cover letter should state that it
is the first code from the unit. Explain
how the unit was established, for example by dividing one unit into two. See Appendix L, Sect D 2b “dividing a code
into two or more code units.” OR
B. Amended Codes: Clearly indicate the changes
that are being proposed and why. Amended
codes should include copies of the current code and the proposed code with
amended sections underlined. Units may
ask to amend only sections of the code.
II. Cover page
The cover page should include the name of the unit, Unit’s school
or college,
Note: The Unit Code Screening Committee should be notified when a code
status is changed, for example when a Department from the College of Arts and
Sciences is transferred to the School of Education, the smaller unit’s code is
no longer in use. Refer to Appendix L,
Sect D Code Unit Changes.
III. Checklist
This checklist will be used by the Unit Code Screening
Committee to insure that codes comply with the appropriate ECU Faculty Manual Appendices.
Refer to Appendix L, Sect C 3.
New or amended unit codes being submitted to the Unit Code Screening
Committee should:
___A. Include a cover letter and cover page.
___B. Include the unit’s preamble
___C. Define the
unit’s faculty, graduate faculty, voting faculty, and who votes on a given
issue.
___D. Define the unit’s administrative organization.
___E. Define the
membership, terms and duties of standing committees, and state to whom
committees report or make recommendations.
F. Include in the process of faculty
evaluation:
___ 1. procedures
and criteria in the evaluation of faculty members annually and otherwise for
all personnel actions, including recommendations for merit awards,
reappointment, promotion, and the award of permanent tenure (see Appendices C
and D,)
___ 2. a
statement regarding relative weights for teaching, creative
activity/research, service, patient
care/clinical and reassigned time to be used in the unit administrator’s annual
performance evaluation of faculty members.
___G. Include procedures for holding meetings within the unit.
___H. Define
procedures for unit faculty members to indicate in a timely fashion and by vote
their approval or disapproval of the unit’s major planning documents,
assessment documents and other major reports
of unit operation prior to their submission in final form to person(s)
outside the unit.
___I. Include
procedures for discussing with its unit administrator the unit’s annual budget
request and annual report.
___J. Include procedures for developing criteria for salary
increases.
___K. Include
amendment procedure.
___L. Be as specific as possible when explaining
procedures, for example if “input” is received explain the process used.
****************************************************************************************************
CODE FORMAT
Name of Unit
PREAMBLE
THIS CODE ALLOWS FOR FACULTY PARTICIPATION
IN AND ESTABLISHES
PROCEDURE FOR THE UNIT’S INTERNAL
AFFAIRS AND IS CONSISTENT
WITH ALL APPLICABLE APPENDICES OF
THE
UNIVERSITY FACULTY MANUAL.
Objectives/Mission may be stated
here or reference made to another document.
Section II. Organization/Composition
A.
Definitions
of voting faculty members.
1. Pertains to the unit’s nominating committee
for appointment of administrative officials, for making recommendations on code
content to the permanently tenured unit faculty members, and for evaluations of
the effectiveness of unit administrators. Refer to Appendix L, Sect A and
Appendix D, Sect IV.
2.
Pertains to making recommendations for
appointments, reappointments, promotion, and the conferral of permanent tenure
to faculty. Refer to Appendix D, Sect IV.
B.
Administrative
organization of the unit and its subdivisions.
Give the titles and responsibilities of administrative officials,
including coordinators and directors.
Also, for administrative officers, include appointment procedures, terms
of office and evaluation procedures. Refer to current University policies. Appendix
L, Sect B.
C.
Unit
administrator will discuss with faculty the unit’s annual budget request and
annual report. Refer to Appendix L, Sect C 3h.
Section III. Standing
Committees
Include titles of committees,
membership, method of selection, term of office
duties/responsibilities/functions, where recommendations are forwarded. Committee membership should be included with
each committee. Refer to Appendix L, Sect C 3d.
Section IV. Faculty
Personnel Actions
(Do not repeat the procedures outlined in Appendices C or D)
A. Selection and Appointment of New Faculty.
Refer to Appendix C, Sect I.
B. Teaching Assignments and Reassigned Time.
Refer to Appendix C,
Sect
II.
C. Faculty Evaluation
1. Establish criteria for conducting
procedures outlined in Appendix L, Sects C 5, E, F, and G.
2.
Include
a statement regarding relative weights and how they are used to evaluate
faculty. Refer to Appendix C, Sect III and Appendix L, Sect 3e.
D.
Reappointment
and Professional Advancement. Establish
criteria for each faculty rank. Refer to Appendix C, Sect III an Appendix L,
Sect C 3e.
E.
Merit
Award/Salary. Establish criteria for the evaluation of faculty for merit salary
raises. Refer to Appendix C, Sect V and Appendix L, Sect C 3e.
F. Personnel/Evaluation Files. Refer to
Appendix C, Sect VI.
G. Tenure and Promotion. Refer to Appendix D
and Appendix L, Sect C 3e.
Section V. Meetings
Include
requirements and procedures for calling meetings, and by whom, agenda
requirements and reference to
conduct by Robert’s Rules of Order, Newly
Revised. Refer to Appendix L, Sect C 1.
Section VI. Evaluation of Unit, Unit Administrator(s)
and University Administrators
Develop procedures for:
A. Faculty
to indicate in a timely fashion and by vote their approval or disapproval of
the unit’s major planning documents, assessment documents, and other major
reports of unit operations, such as evaluations of administrative officials prior
to their submission in final form to person(s) outside the unit. Refer to
Appendix L, Sect C. 3g. and University
policies.
B. Program evaluation. Refer to Appendix L,
Sect C 3e.
C. Unit administrators evaluations. Unit administrators shall be evaluated in accordance
with established University policies. Refer to Appendix L, Sect C 3f.
D. University administrators evaluations. University administrators shall be
evaluated in accordance with established University policies. Refer to Appendix L, Sect C 3g.
Section VII. Unit’s
Annual Budget and Report
Develop
procedures for discussion with unit administrator the unit’s
A.
Annual
budget request
B.
Annual
report
Section VIII.
Criteria for Salary Increases
Develop
procedures for developing criteria for salary increases
Section IX. Other
Policies and Documents
Include a list or summary of content
and location of other governing policy documents used in the unit, if
appropriate.
Section X. Enabling
Upon the approval by a majority of
the permanently tenured faculty members of the unit by secret ballot and after
approval by the
Section XI. Amendment
of Code
Include procedures for amending
code, how much prior notice is required, and what kind of vote is required
(majority, 3/5, etc.). Refer to Robert’s
Rules of Order, Newly Revised “Bylaws,” #55, Article IX. “This Code MUST be approved by a majority of
the permanently tenured faculty members of the unit.” (Appendix L. C. 1.)
****************************************************************************************************
COVER PAGE EXAMPLE
Effective
date: ___ Latest Rev. date
___
UNIT CODE OF OPERATIONS
DEPARTMENT OF/UNIT NAME
_________________
SCHOOL/COLLEGE OF _____________________
Initial Code Approval
1. Approved by
the tenured faculty of the Unit:
Chair, Unit Code Committee: ________________ Date:
__________
2. If changed,
reapproved by tenured faculty:
Chair, Unit Code Committee: ________________ Date:
__________
3. Submitted to
Dean for advice: ________________
Date: __________
4.
Reviewed/recommended by
Chair: ________________
Date: __________
5. Approved by
the
Chair of the Faculty: ________________
Date: __________
6. Approved by
Chancellor: ________________
Date: __________
(Effective
Date)
Revision of Code:
____ Complete; or ____ Part(s) Effective ____