EAST CAROLINA UNIVERSITY

2007-2008 FACULTY SENATE

 

The eighth regular meeting of the 2007/2008 Faculty Senate will be held on

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.

 

G.    Question Period

 

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, School

      of Theatre and Dance, College of Fine Arts and Communication

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, College of Health and Human Performance

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 Martinez

       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)

 
I.   University Curriculum Committee, Janice Neil

      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


Faculty Senate Agenda

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.

 


Faculty Senate Agenda

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.”

Faculty Senate Agenda

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.

 

 

Faculty Senate Agenda

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 Faculty Senate and Chancellor, these guidelines for outcome assessment of foundations courses will be made available on the Academic Standards Committee’s website. The Interim Provost, as the Chief Academic officer, will be asked to publicize the plan for assessing foundations courses.

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 General College courses four years ago.) Assessment should be done at the end of the Fall term. Outcomes should be evaluated in the Spring 2009 term and enhancement targets for Fall 2009 should be set based on outcomes. Methods for achieving enhancement targets should be put agreed on in Spring 2009 and implemented in Fall 2009. Learning outcomes based on enhancement targets and expected learning specific to Foundations goals not assessed previously should be assessed at the end of the Fall 2009 term. This cycle then repeats itself.

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:  I.          The ability to do work.

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 United States during the last 100 years?

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.

 

 

Faculty Senate Agenda

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 Faculty Senate to “consider matters related to undergraduate retention…and  recommend to the Faculty Senate policies and procedures governing undergraduate . . . retention,” and

 

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 Faculty Senate urge ECU to provide enhanced financial support to the Center for Faculty Excellence to provide faculty members with new services and resources that promote the use of best practices to advance student retention via effective teaching and learning environments.

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Admissions and Retention Policies Committee and the Faculty Senate urge ECU to provide additional staffing to the Center for Faculty Excellence for the provision of training at the departmental level to promote the use of best practices to advance student retention.

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Admissions and Retention Policies Committee and the Faculty Senate seriously suggest that ECU provide enhanced financial support for the First Year Center and all other Academic Advising Centers at the university, college, and departmental levels. Such enhanced funding should aim to expand ECU’s resources for early-intervention programs and services for at-risk students (e.g., first generation in college students, transfer students, and underrepresented students to include African American, Hispanic, and Native American students).

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Admissions and Retention Policies Committee and the Faculty Senate urge ECU to provide mandatory study skills workshops for all entering undergraduate students during the Weeks of Welcome and during the Freshman Orientation. 

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Admissions and Retention Policies Committee and the Faculty Senate recommend that class attendance be promoted through the use of written policies in course syllabi that strongly encourage attendance for all face-to-face courses at ECU. The point of such policies is to encourage a consistent culture of class attendance across the entire campus from the first day of class.


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., Davis, D., Lauver, K., Le, H., & Robbins, S. B. (2004). Do psychosocial and study skill factors predict college outcomes? A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 130(2), 261-288.

Colton, G.M., Connor, U.J., Schultz, E.J., & Easter, L.M (1999/2000). Fighting attrition: One freshman year program that targets academic progress and retention for at-risk students. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory and Practice, 1(2), 147- 162.

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., Fagley, N.S., & Miller, P.M. (1998). Correlates of college retention and GPA: Learning and study strategies, testwiseness, attitudes, and ACT.

Lee, W.Y. (1999). Striving toward effective retention: The effect of race on mentoring African American Students.  Peabody Journal of Education, 74(2), 27-43. 

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). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

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., Davis, D., & Langley, R. (2004). Do psychosocial and study skill factors predict college outcomes? A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 130(2), 261–288.

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. Cambridge, MA: Brookline.

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 United States. Journal of Reading, 36, 10-20.

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.


______________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

Faculty Senate Agenda

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 East Carolina University’s standing as the largest provider of distance education in the UNC system. ECU is committed to continuing as the model for comprehensive Continuing and Career Education delivery. We will continue to maintain and expand online distance learning in Eastern North Carolina regions. ECU dedicates significant resources to outreach to the military community in NC. We must continue to advocate for firm legislative support for comprehensive broadband availability to all persons.

 

 

4.2.3 (UNC as a model for accommodating persons with disabilities)

East Carolina University has much to offer children and adults with disabilities in Eastern North Carolina. The University has policies and practices that ensure that websites, online programs, and content where appropriate are ADA compliant.

 

 

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 East Carolina University and 31 public school systems in eastern North Carolina which provides access to quality clinical settings for teacher education as well as opportunities for professional development. ECU continues to work through bureaucratic impediments to increase the effectiveness of collaborative programs and to develop additional partnerships.


________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

Faculty Senate Agenda

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

  • Preliminary Information for Development of a 10-Year Enrollment Plan—Due February 2008
  • Final Draft on 10-Year Enrollment Plan—Due March 2008
  • Report on Plans to Respond to Outreach and Engagement Recommendations—Due May 2008
  • Report on Proposed Changes to Internal Policies and Processes—Due May 2008

Phase II

  • Report on Faculty and Staff Recruitment and Retention—Due December 2008
  • Report on Review of Tenure and Rewards Systems—Due December 2008

 

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:

  1. Involvement of Faculty Governance in all the stages of the creation of the different reports. However, as indicated below, Faculty Governance has not been involved in any of the activities that ECU has conducted to regarding Stage I.  If this is not resolved, then it will not be possible to fulfill step number 2.

  2. Timely response from Faculty Governance in the drafting of policies. If Faculty Governance does not respond in a timely manner policies could be developed or implemented without Faculty Governance, or even without seeking Faculty Senate approval.

 

Faculty Governance Committee and Phase I

  • 10-Year enrollment plan
    While the Faculty Governance Committee, per se has not been involved in the Strategic Enrollment Management Task Force, the Chair of the Faculty and multiple other faculty members have been involved and are expected to provide the appropriate linkage and communication with the Faculty Governance Committee. As this Task Force proceeds, matters related to faculty workload; retention and recruitment of faculty; promotion and tenure; and balance of fixed term and tenure-track faculty will be of concern to the Faculty Governance Committee.

  • UNC Tomorrow Report on Outreach and Engagement Recommendations
    Vice Chancellor Mageean informed Faculty Governance of the need for our committee to work on this during the Fall of 2007. While this happened regarding the “Engaged University” Carnegie classification, the work will be the same. We need to study what changes, if any, may be necessary to Appendices C and D of the ECU Faculty Manual to assure that the outreach and engagement activities of faculty are appropriately rewarded in annual evaluations, in advancement in title for fixed-term faculty, and in tenure and promotion of tenured and tenure-track faculty.  ECU’s Academic Council is aware that this is the top priority issue for Faculty Governance next academic year.

  • Proposed changes to Internal Policies and Processes
    We anticipate that the Faculty Governance Committee will be contacted very soon and will be involved in any aspects of this report. The Chair of the Faculty and multiple other faculty members have been involved and are expected to provide the appropriate linkage and communication with the Faculty Governance Committee.  We are aware of the existence of a Task Force on University Policies and Procedures, but we have not been asked to cooperate with it. The future involvement of Faculty Governance in this issue was detailed in the February 18 Joint statement by Chancellor Ballard and Chair of the Faculty Taggart. Point 3.a. reads: “We share a commitment that faculty leaders, the Governance Committee, and top administrators will work together expeditiously to develop a University Policies and Procedures manual that will provide clear guidance on areas in which policies are needed to ensure that the ECU operates effectively and transparently.” Point 3.b reads: “The Governance committee will participate in development of campus policies that are pertinent to faculty responsibilities.” Our involvement was further reaffirmed in the Faculty Senate meeting of March 19, 2008 when Chair Taggart, with the consent of Chancellor Ballard, clarified that all policies pertinent to faculty responsibilities would go to Faculty Governance and then to Faculty Senate for approval. We expect that Chancellor Ballard (or his representative) will provide us with a timeline and a list of duties in the near future.

 

Faculty Governance Committee and Phase II

  • Faculty and staff recruitment and retention
    The Faculty Governance Committee will be involved in generating this report. Faculty Governance has already addressed the following areas:

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.

  • Report on Review of Tenure and Reward Systems
    Please see Outreach and Engagement Recommendations in Phase I regarding this issue and Faculty Governance. This semester we added to our agenda for the Fall 2008 revisions to the ECU Faculty Manual regarding post-tenure review.

 

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.

 

 

Faculty Senate Agenda

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

 


Faculty Senate Agenda

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 University of North Carolina Tomorrow; and

 

WHEREAS, East Carolina University has always been historically engaged with its local, regional, state, a nation and international constituents.

 

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Faculty Senate request that the Chancellor and the Board of Trustees develop an adequate funding and reward model for the Scholarship of Engagement.

 

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 East Carolina University becoming a world leader in the Scholarship of Engagement.

 

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 East Carolina University can showcase current and future examples of the Scholarship of Engagement.


______________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

Faculty Senate Agenda

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 East Carolina University with important salary information; and 

 

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 Faculty Senate, through its delegates to the University of North Carolina Faculty Assembly, urge the President of the University of North Carolina to request the Chancellors of the 17 constituent institutions of the University of North Carolina make available to their EPA employees the salary information that was formerly released in the so-called “BD-119” in a timely and transparent manner. It is requested that the President should also note that such timely and transparent release is a key component of staff confidence in the administration.

 


________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Faculty Senate Agenda

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 East Carolina University, in accord with the stated objectives of the UNC Tomorrow program.

 

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.

 

 

Faculty Senate Agenda

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 Greenville and other government agencies regarding conservation and the environment

·    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, Eastern North Carolina produce and meat in order to ensure the freshest food possible for students and to support the regional economy.  Mandate this practice in the next food service contract.

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 Greenville to ensure that ECU Campus sidewalks and bike lanes conform to the 2004 Greenville Greenway Master Plan. Funding of such facilities should be negotiated in partnership with the City, so that costs can be shared.

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, College of Allied Health Sciences.

2.         Request to add new certificates in Global Understanding and Global Understanding with Distinction within International Studies’, College of Arts and Sciences.

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, College of Health and Human Performance.

4.         Request to add a Graduate Certificate in Deaf-Blindness within the Department of Curriculum and Instruction, College of Education.

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, College of Technology and Computer Science.

7.         Request to establish a minor in Recreational Therapy within the Department of Recreation and Leisure Studies, College of Health and Human Performance.

 

 

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 Faculty Senate Unit Code Screening Committee in isolation.

3.   Comprehensive Code Review. Every seven (7) years, the Faculty Senate Unit Code Screening Committee will review a unit’s entire code according to the following cycle: (latest current code in force approval date in parenthesis.):

 

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 Faculty Senate Unit Code Screening committee to discuss the current code and any amendments approved by the tenured faculty.  All unit codes must comply with applicable portions of the Code of the University of North Carolina, the Code of East Carolina University, as well as relevant North Carolina and Federal Statutes.

4.   Submit fourteen (14) copies of the code and amended code, if appropriate, to the Faculty Senate office with Attention to the Unit Code Screening Committee Chair. The new/amended code will be placed on the web at the Faculty Senate Unit Code Screening Committee site.

5.   Codes should be submitted with a cover letter (see I. below)

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, East Carolina University, and the signatures of the appropriate university officials and chairs with the effective date of the unit’s code.  See “Cover Page Example”.  Refer to Appendix L, Sect C 6.

 

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.

___M. State where recommendations are directed, to what person or body.

___N. State, “Unit administrators should ensure that code procedures are followed”.

 

****************************************************************************************************

 

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 EAST CAROLINA

UNIVERSITY FACULTY MANUAL.

 

Section I.           Objectives/Mission

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 Faculty Senate and the Chancellor. Refer to Appendix L, Sect D 1.

 

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 _____________________

EAST CAROLINA UNIVERSITY

 

 

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 Faculty Senate Unit Code Screening Committee:

 

          Chair:                                                    ________________ Date: __________

 

      5. Approved by the East Carolina University Faculty Senate:

 

          Chair of the Faculty:                            ________________ Date: __________

 

      6. Approved by East Carolina University Chancellor/or designee:

 

          Chancellor:                                           ________________ Date: __________

                                                                                                            (Effective Date)

 

      Revision of Code: ____             Complete; or ____                Part(s) Effective ____