The sixth regular meeting of the 1994/1995 Faculty Senate will be
held on Tuesday, 21 February 1995, at 2:10 in the Mendenhall
Student Center Great Room.
FULL AGENDA
I. Call to Order
II. Approval of Minutes
24 January 1995
III. Special Order of the Day
A. Roll Call
B. Announcements
C. Richard Eakin, Chancellor
D. Tinsley Yarbrough, Interim Vice Chancellor for Academic
Affairs
E. James Hallock, Vice Chancellor for Health Sciences
F. Richard Brown, Vice Chancellor for Business Affairs
Information Resources Coordinating Council
G. Dawn Clark, Faculty Assembly Delegate
Meeting of 3 February 1995
H. Election of Nominating Committee for Faculty Officers
IV. Unfinished Business
V. Report of Committees
A. Committee on Committees, Bob Woodside
Second Reading of Revisions to the Course Drop Appeals
Committee Charge (Attachment 1).
B. Admissions and Recruitment Committee, John Cope
Revisions to the University Undergraduate Catalog
Concerning Admission Policies (attachment 2).
C. Credits Committee, JoAnn Jones
Revisions to ECU Faculty Manual and University
Undergraduate Catalog Concerning Grade Appeals (attachment 3).
D. Teaching Effectiveness Committee, Parm Hawk
1. Revised Student Opinion of Instruction Survey, for
information only (attachment 4).
2. Revised Seven Principles to Guide the Use of the
Student Opinion Data, for information only (attachment 5).
E. Unit Code Screening Committee, Bill Grossnickle
Revisions to the Department of Anthropology's Unit Code
of Operations. (A copy is available for review in the Faculty
Senate office.)
VI. New Business
_____________________________
Faculty Senate Agenda
21 February 1995
Attachment 1.
COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES REPORT
Second Reading of Revisions to the Course Drop Appeals Committee
Charge
1. Name: Course Drop Appeals Committee
2. Membership:
6 faculty members and 1 student member. Ex-officio member
(with vote): The Chair of the Faculty. Ex-officio member (without vote
but with all other parliamentary privileges): The Chancellor or an
appointed representative.
3. Quorum: 4 elected members exclusive of ex-officio.
4. A. Committee Responsibilities:
The committee serves as an appeals board for students whose
requests for course drops by exception have been denied by the
Office of Undergraduate Studies.
B. To Whom The Committee Reports:
The committee reports appellate decisions to the office of
Undergraduate Studies. The committee also notifies the Registrar if
the decision is made to grant a student a drop by exception.
C. How Often The Committee Reports:
The committee reports to the Faculty Senate at least once a
year and at other times as necessary.
D. Power Of The Committee To Act Without Faculty Senate
Approval:
The committee is empowered to make appellate decisions in
student course drop appeals, reporting to the office of
Undergraduate Studies and the Registrar, as appropriate.
5. Standard Meeting Time:
The committee meets when a suitable number of student
petitions has been received.
____________________________
Faculty Senate Agenda
21 February 1995
Attachment 2.
ADMISSIONS AND RECRUITMENT COMMITTEE REPORT
Revisions to University Undergraduate Catalog
Concerning Admission Policies
Replace pages 32 and 33, Section 3: Admission, beginning with the
paragraph entitled Nondegree and going through the end of the
paragraph entitled Visitors, with the following:
"NONTRADITIONAL STUDENT ADMISSION POLICY
Individuals whose high school class graduated three or more
years prior to the expected date of entry may be permitted to
enroll in the university under a performance-based admission
policy that specifies retention stipulations provided they
meet one of the following conditions:
1. have had no previous college experience or
2. have had previous college experience but have not been
matriculated within the past year and are eligible to return to
the previous institution but do not meet all stated university
admission requirements or
3. have had previous college experience, are ineligible to
return to the previous institution, and have not been matriculated
at the collegiate level for at least three years prior to the
expected date of entry.
In order to continue enrollment as degree-seeking students,
nontraditional students must satisfy all regular admission
requirements or achieve a minimum cumulative GPA of 2.2 and
meet all retention stipulations by the end of the semester in
which the twenty-eighth semester hour of degree creditable
work is attempted. Failure either to meet the GPA requirement
or to satisfy the retention stipulations will result in the
student's being ineligible to continue enrollment at ECU.
(See Section 5, Readmission)
Students enrolling under this policy must comply with all
university policies regarding the payment of tuition and fees
and must comply with NC state law concerning health and
immunization.
Nontraditional students are assigned for advisement and
registration to the University College. After satisfying
retention stipulations, they are reassigned to the General
College or to the school/department of their intended major.
An individual admitted under the nontraditional student
admission policy may not declare a major, compete in
intercollegiate athletics, or participate in student exchange
programs until all retention stipulations specified in his or
her admission letter have been satisfied.
NONDEGREE ENROLLMENTS
Individuals may be allowed to enroll in the university on a
space-available basis as either nondeqree or visiting
students if they qualify under one of the categories listed
below. For advisement and registration purposes, these
individuals are assigned to the University College.
Nondegree
Many individuals desire to take courses for valid reasons
such as certification, needs arising from the workplace, and
self-satisfaction. Often such plans do not require working
toward a baccalaureate degree. Individuals who have not
earned a baccalaureate degree and who desire to participate
in this program should contact the office of Undergraduate
Admissions for additional information. Individuals admitted
as nondegree, undergraduate students can apply
no more than 28 semester hours earned in this status toward
an undergraduate degree at East Carolina University.
Individuals who have earned a baccalaureate degree desiring
to enroll as nondegree students should contact the Graduate
School for a nondegree graduate application and additional
instructions.
Visitors
Students attending another accredited college or university
may desire to attend East Carolina University for a limited
period of time and then return to their original
institutions. Such applicants must complete a visitor's
application and have the dean or other appropriate official
at the parent institution verify that the applicant is in
good standing. This official should specify the courses to be
taken at East Carolina University. The student should enroll
in only specified courses and then only if the required
prerequisite courses or their equivalents have been
completed. Enrollment as a visitor will be limited to no more
than 28 semester hours earned at East Carolina University.
Credit earned as a visiting student cannot be used to
establish eligibility for admission to East Carolina
University."
Replace page 45, Section 5: Academic Regulations, Auditing
Courses, with the following:
"AUDITING COURSES
Auditing a course consists of attendance at classes and
listening but taking no part in the class. Auditors are not
required to take entrance examinations, nor are transcripts
required. An auditor is not responsible for any assignments,
nor is he or she allowed to take any tests or examinations.
However, in order to have the audited course recorded on the
official transcript, a student must attend classes regularly.
An auditor may not enroll in a participation course (art
classes, laboratories, etc.). Under no circumstances will a
grade be assigned, evaluations be made, or performance
reports be issued on a student auditing a course. Auditing a
course, or part of a course, is contingent upon the approval
of the instructor and the appropriate departmental
chairperson or school dean. Students may not register to
audit a course until the last day of the drop/add period.
Persons not currently enrolled who wish to attend university
classes without earning credit must be high school graduates
and must be admitted to the university before seeking
approval to audit any course. Individuals admitted as
nondeqree students will be assigned to the University College
for assistance with registration. The applicants shall then
complete the prescribed procedure for registering through the
office of the Registrar and pay the auditing fee to the
cashier's office before attendance in classes is permitted.
Students regularly enrolled in the university wishing to
audit course(s) must initiate the approval process with their
adviser."
Replace page 62, Section 6: Undergraduate Studies, University
College, with the following:
"UNIVERSITY COLLEGE
Individuals admitted under the nontraditional student
admission policy as well as nondegree students and visitors
are assigned to the University College. The University
College functions to advise students assigned to it until
such time as they have satisfied the retention stipulations
specified in their letters of admission, convert from
nondeqree to degree-seeking status, or return to their home
institutions. (See Section 3, Admission, University College).
The program of the University College is varied. Some
students are in a degree-seeking status and have specific
retention stipulations that must be satisfied while taking
courses that will apply toward the major. Other students are
engaged in study for enrichment or are completing courses to
be applied toward degree requirements at their home
institutions.
A University College student who is admitted in a degree-
seeking status is eligible to transfer either to the General
College or to a school or department upon submission of
appropriate documents and satisfaction of all retention
stipulations. The student's record will be reviewed, and upon
acceptance he or she will be assigned to the appropriate
unit."
Add to Page 51, Section 5: Academic Regulations, following the
paragraphs entitled Special Readmission (Forgiveness) Policy and
before the paragraphs entitled Class Attendance Regulations, the
following:
"NONTRADITIONAL STUDENT READMISSION
Individuals admitted under the Nontraditional Student
Admission Policy who fail either to meet the GPA requirement
or to satisfy the retention stipulations may not continue
enrollment at East Carolina University except under the
following conditions:
1. Students may attend summer school at East Carolina
University to satisfy retention stipulations;
2. Students may be readmitted under the provisions of
the Special Readmission (Forgiveness) policy to resume
progress toward satisfying retention stipulations;
3. Students may be readmitted after completing at an
accredited college or university 30 semester
hours or 45 quarter hours of transferable work with a
minimum grade of "C" on all transferable work.
Duplicate credit would not be granted under any
circumstances. In all cases the stipulations specified at the
time of initial admission must be satisfied.
Note #1: In the case of readmission after completing 30 sh or
45 gh of transferable work that also satisfies all subject matter
deficiencies, the student would return as a traditional student with
the pre-existing grade point average.
Note #2: Individuals who were originally admitted as
nontraditional students who are returning under the Special
Readmission (Forgiveness) Policy will have no more than 19
semester hours to satisfy the retention stipulations
specified at the time of admission to East Carolina
University."
_______________________________
Faculty Senate Agenda
21 February 1995
Attachment 3.
CREDITS COMMITTEE REPORT
Revisions to ECU Faculty Manual and University Undergraduate
Catalog Concerning Grade Appeals
Revise the ECU Faculty Manual, Page 29, Part III. Academic
Information, Posting Grades by adding the following paragraph at
the end of the section:
"A student wishing to contest a course grade should first
attempt to resolve the matter with the instructor who
determined the grade. The student may appeal the
instructor's decision by submitting a written appeal to the
instructor's chairperson or dean not later than the last
day for undergraduate students to drop semester-length
courses during the next regular semester. The chairperson
or dean shall review the student's request with the faculty
member and either concur with the grade or request that the
faculty member reassess the grade. The final decision
shall rest with the faculty member responsible for the
course grade."
Revise the University Undergraduate Catalog, Page 52, Section 5:
Academic Regulations by adding the following paragraph as a new section
after Policy on Posting Grades:
"GRADE APPEALS
A student wishing to contest a course grade should first
attempt to resolve the matter with the instructor who
determined the grade. The student may appeal the
instructor's decision by submitting a written appeal to the
instructor's chairperson or dean not later than the last
day for undergraduate students to drop semester-length
courses during the next regular semester. The chairperson
or dean shall review the student's request with the faculty
member and either concur with the grade or request that the
faculty member reassess the grade. The final decision
shall rest with the faculty member responsible for the
course grade."
_________________________________
Faculty Senate Agenda
21 February 1995
Attachment 4.
TEACHING EFFECTIVENESS COMMITTEE REPORT
Revised Student Opinion of Instruction Survey
(No Action Necessary At This Time)
The following proposed revisions to the Student Opinion of
Instruction Survey are being presented to the Faculty Senate at
this time for information only. Comments are to be directed to
members of the subcommittee formulated by the Teaching
Effectiveness Committee (SOIS Subcommittee listed at the end of
this report) no later than 13 March 1995. The Subcommittee will
then present a report to the Teaching Effectiveness Committee.
Following discussion, the Teaching Effectiveness Committee will
formulate a final report to the Faculty Senate for approval.
Faculty are encouraged to discuss this report with their
colleagues.
INTRODUCTION
The Student Opinion of Instruction Survey (SOIS), in its present
form, was first administered in Fall semester, 1985, with a
commitment to ongoing validation. Fall semester, 1990, the
Teaching Effectiveness Committee (TEC) formed a subcommittee to
assess the validity and reliability of the instrument, and to
consider alternative instruments.
In Spring semester, 1991, the Faculty Senate approved co-
administration of the Educational Testing Service's Student
Instructional Report (SIR) (Resolution #91-12):
"If ECU's current form does not discriminate as well as the
SIR form, can ECU's form be modified or can the data from the
form be processed in such a way as to make ECU's form more
discriminatory?"
In Fall semester, 1991, the SIR and the SOIS were co-administered
to students and in Spring and Fall semesters, 1992, the Teaching
Effectiveness Committee completed a comparative analysis and
prepared a report to the Faculty Senate. In Spring semester,
1993, the committee submitted a report on the relationship
between the SOIS and the SIR to the Faculty Senate and included
in their report:
"The SOIS and SIR have a high correlation indicating that
the two instruments are measuring similar constructs. The
present form of the SOIS should be reviewed and
modified to eliminate some questions and to develop new
items that offer more useful
information to the faculty member for developmental
purposes."
In Fall semester, 1993, the Teaching Effectiveness Committee
established a sub-committee to implement the recommendation to
revise the SOIS. The sub-committee assessed the SOIS, comparing
each question to the SIR and to categories reported by Herbert W.
Marsh in "Students' Evaluations of University Teaching:
Dimensionality, Reliability, Validity, Potential Biases, and
Utility." The group revised questions and the scaling for
responses on ECU's SOIS. One objective of the revised survey is
to assess effectiveness of instructors based on criteria assessed
by the SIR, Marsh, and the ECU SOIS. Questions which did not
specifically assess the instructors' effectiveness, and questions
which students would not be able to accurately observe and assess
were eliminated. In addition to the questions which assess
instructors' effectiveness, questions were developed to assess
course difficulty, course workload, and students' characteristics
such as the amount of time they spend on the course outside of
class, their class levels, their reasons for taking courses, and
their expected grades.
At the end of Fall semester the revised survey was co-
administered with the SOIS in a convenience sample of classes. A
factor analysis of these surveys' results revealed that the
instrument provided reliable measures of two factors: instructor
effectiveness and course workload/difficulty. Several
questions on the first revision were not strong indicators of
these factors and those questions were deleted. At the end of
the second summer session, 1994, the revised survey was piloted
by faculty, on a voluntary basis, to all classes with an
enrollment between 6 and 35 students. In Fall semester, 1994, a
second factor analysis of the revised SOIS was completed for the
results of the summer session surveys. Final revisions were made
based on this analysis and the revised SOIS with recommendations
for administration of the survey were presented to the Teaching
Effectiveness Committee.
The Teaching Effectiveness Committee is submitting the revised
survey and implementation proposal report to the Faculty Senate
in Spring 1995 with recommendations that the form be used Fall
semester 1996.
PROPOSAL FOR ADOPTION
1. Adopt the instrument as developed and tested by the committee.
2. Develop a set of results for each course surveyed which
contains the following:
a. A frequency distribution of the responses to each of
the 28 items.
b. A mean, median, and standard deviation for items 1
through 24.
c. A summed score for items 1 through 22, a measure of
teaching effectiveness. Include unit and university norms.
d. A summed score for items 23 and 24, a measure of course
difficulty. Include unit and university norms.
3. Under the existing criteria all courses are evaluated each
semester except courses with
enrollments less than six, student teaching courses, team
taught courses, and courses in the
School of Medicine. A proposed change to the existing
criteria is to allow evaluation of
courses taught by two instructors as a team. For each of
these courses the office of Planning
and Institutional Research (PIR) will send two sets of SOIS
forms. PIR will not distribute SOIS
forms to evaluate courses with more than two instructors,
however, units may independently
evaluate these courses, for example, using copies of SOIS
forms or other student evaluation
forms. Faculty members may ask PIR to make exceptions.
4. Continue to have the office of Planning and Institutional
Research coordinate the administration
of the survey in terms of its distribution to the units, the
collection of completed surveys, and
the distribution of its results as described in 2. The
management of the-open ended comments
section of the survey will be the responsibility of the unit
within the following guidelines. All
comments will be kept confidential; it will be up to the
discretion of the faculty member to
share these. After the students complete the SOIS forms the
designated SOIS classroom
administrator will separate the comment sheets from the
responses to questions 1 through 28
and place each in two separate envelopes which will then be
sealed and returned to the
designated unit administrator. The unit administrator will
send the envelope with responses to
questions 1 through 28 to PIR and will retain the envelope
containing written comments. After
PIR completes and returns the analysis of questions 1 through
28 (See 5. below), the unit
administrators simultaneously will distribute the comments,
still in sealed envelopes, to the
instructor.
5. Send sets of results, as described in 2, to instructors,
through their units, after grades have
been posted. Copies of the results will also be sent to the
unit heads.
6. Require each unit head receiving results to attend a training
seminar. The training will be the
joint responsibility of PIR, the Teaching Effectiveness
Committee, and the office of Faculty
Development. Additional training seminars will be held as
needed for new unit heads. The
following issues will be covered in the training:
a. Unit head examination of the results on a course by
course basis for each instructor.
Professors will be rated as individuals against standards
appropriate for the courses they
teach. For example, standards may differ for graduate vs.
undergraduate classes, extremely
difficult vs. less difficult courses, classes with large vs.
small enrollments etc. Instructor to
instructor comparisons will not be made.
b. The correct interpretation of the summed scores.
c. The consideration of items 25 through 28 in relation to
other items.
d. Justification for discontinuing cross-course summary
statistics for individual questions and
substituting unit and institutional norms of the summary
scores of effectiveness and
difficulty. Justification for discontinuing instructor
summaries.
e. The importance of looking at data over a number of
semesters to determine instruction
trends. Space permitting, the report will include summary
statistics from prior semesters in
which the instructor taught the same course(s).
f. The incorporation of revised principles to guide the
use of the student opinion data.
7. Files containing student opinion of instruction form data,
without instructor identifications,
for the first four semesters of implementation (as a minimum),
will be available for research.
For example, the data may be analyzed to determine whether
relationships exist between
effectiveness and difficulty or whether course level effects
evaluation.
A copy of the proposed Student Opinion of Instruction Survey is
available in the Faculty Senate office, #140 Rawl Annex.
Members of the SOIS Subcommittee:
Judith Hunt Business GCB
Paul Knoke English GCB
Bonnie Mani Pol. Science Brewster
Claudia McCann PIR Spilman
Havva Meric Business GCB
Ken Wilson Sociology Brewster
___________________________________
Faculty Senate Agenda
21 February 1995
Attachment 5.
TEACHING EFFECTIVENESS COMMITTEE REPORT
Revised Seven Principles to Guide the Use of the Student Opinion Data
(No Action Necessary At This Time)
The following proposed revisions to the Seven Principles to Guide
the Use of the Student Opinion Data are being presented to the
Faculty Senate at this time for information only. Comments are
to be directed to members of the subcommittee formulated by the
Teaching Effectiveness Committee (SOIS Subcommittee listed at the
end of this report) no later than 13 March 1995. The
Subcommittee will then present a report to the Teaching
Effectiveness Committee. Following discussion, the Teaching
Effectiveness Committee will formulate a final report to the
Faculty Senate for approval. Faculty are encouraged to discuss
this report with their colleagues.
The Faculty Senate, when it approved the use of the Student
Opinion of Instruction Survey in 1985, adopted seven principles
to guide its use. The revised principles are given below.
Principle 1: That student opinion of instruction be only one of
the ways to evaluate teaching. Unit heads ,and others who evaluate
teaching, should seek additional ways such as peer reviews, reviews of
course syllabi, and other methods depending upon their particular
needs and interests.
Principle 2: That the new form be administered in all courses
at the University. This is necessary in order to ensure completeness
and reliability of data. Units would be free, of course, to develop
other instruments for use in addition to the TEC form and, in accord with
Appendix C, to use only data from those other instruments.
Principle 3: That the new form be administered every semester.
Principle 4: That data from the new form be processed in such a
way that both individual faculty and unit heads know the
following:
a. the mean, median, and standard deviation for
items 1 through 24 for each course.
b. A frequency distribution of the responses to each
of the 28 items.
c. A summed score for items 1 through 22, a measure
of teaching effectiveness. In addition, unit and
institutional means, medians and
standard deviations of the effectiveness score
will be included for all
courses of the same level taught at the
university that semester. For
example, statistics will be provided for all 1000
level courses if the
course evaluated is a 1000 level course, for all
2000 level
courses if the course evaluated is a 2000
thousand level course, and
so on up to all 6000 level courses if the course
evaluated is a 6000
level course.
d. A summed score for items 23 and 24, a measure of
course difficulty. In addition, unit and institutional
means, medians and
standard deviations of the difficulty score will
be included for all
courses of the same level taught at the
university that semester. For
example, statistics will be provided for all 1000
level courses if the
course evaluated is a 1000 level course, for all
2000 level
courses if the course evaluated is a 2000
thousand level course, and
so on up to all 6000 level courses if the course
evaluated is a 6000 level course.
Principle 6: That administrative analyses of student opinion pay
attention only to data that indicate a statistically high or
statistically low performance when compared to the standards
(see 6. a. and f. of the proposal for adoption of a new Student
Opinion of Instruction Survey)
Principle 7: That, except in the case of new faculty,
administrative evaluations be based not on course-by-course or
semester-by semester data but on patterns established over the past
several semesters in all courses taught by a faculty member.
