The UAF Faculty Senate passed the following at its Meeting #70  on 
March 10, 1997:


MOTION PASSED (unanimous)
==============


The UAF Faculty Senate moves to amend the Evaluation of 
Educational Effectiveness policy as indicated below:


	EFFECTIVE:      Upon approval by the Chancellor


	RATIONALE:      The first paragraph of additions offers some
		protection to students and faculty from the misuse of
		the outcomes assessment process.  The second paragraph
		provides a means of recognition for involvement in this
		process.  The third and fourth additional paragraphs
		identify department heads and the core review
		committee as the responsible parties for preparing
		outcomes assessment reports, identifies the required
		committee as the responsible parties for preparing
		outcomes assessment reports, identifies the required
		content of those reports, identifies the timing of such
		required reports, and identifies the housing of these
		reports.

		If there is no practical reason for the chairs of each 
		department (or equivalent as identified by the Dean or 
		Director) to prepare a report every 3 years, there is no 
		reason to do it more often than every 4 years.


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

CAPS = Additions
[[    ]] = Deletions

UAF
EVALUATION OF EDUCATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
POLICY

In accordance with its mission, the University of Alaska Fairbanks 
has a continuing responsibility to review and improve performance 
of its students, faculty, and programs. The UAF therefore 
establishes the Educational Effectiveness Evaluation to describe the 
effects of curriculum, instruction, and other institutional programs. 
The process will be useful for curricular and institutional reform 
and will be consistent with UA Board of Regents Policy and 
institutional and specialized accreditation standards.

The university shall ensure the academic freedom of the academic 
community in the development and maintenance of this process.

THE DATA GATHERED AND SUMMARIZED AS PART OF THE EDUCATIONAL 
EFFECTIVENESS EVALUATION PROCESS SHALL NOT BE USED FOR 
EVALUATING INDIVIDUAL FACULTY. FURTHERMORE, NO STUDENT SHALL 
BE DENIED GRADUATION BASED SOLELY UPON INFORMATION GATHERED 
FOR THE EDUCATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS EVALUATION PROCESS.

EACH FACULTY MEMBER'S ACTIVITIES IN DEVELOPING AND/OR 
IMPLEMENTING PROGRAMMATIC AND INSTITUTIONAL EDUCATIONAL 
EFFECTIVENESS EFFORTS MAY BE SUMMARIZED IN THE INSTRUCTIONAL 
SECTION OF ANNUAL EVALUATIONS AND PROMOTION AND TENURE 
FILES.

Evaluations shall be conducted with regard to the following:

	1)  Student Information
		Students shall be assessed upon entry to the university
		for purposes of course advising and placement,
		especially in mathematics and English, and for describing
		the gender, age, ethnicity, and previous education of
		students recruited, retained, and graduated over time.


	2)  Evaluation of the CORE Curriculum
		Evaluation of the CORE curriculum shall include course
		assessment embedded within CORE courses as well as
		the assessment of students within upper division
		courses, especially oral and writing intensive courses.
		the assessment of students within upper division
		courses, especially oral and writing intensive courses.

	3)  Programmatic assessment
		Each degree and certificate program shall establish and
		maintain a student outcomes assessment process useful
		for curricular reform and consistent with institutional
		and specialized accreditation standards.

	4)  Evaluation of Out of Class Learning
		An important element of a student's overall education is
		learning that occurs outside of classes. Therefore, an
		evaluation of activities and student support services
		will be conducted.

The chair of each department (or equivalent as identified by the Dean 
or Director) shall prepare a report at least every FOUR [[three]] years 
summarizing the Educational Effectiveness program for each 
certificate and degree program offered by that department.  The 
report shall include a summary of the following:

	A.   STUDENT OUTCOME GOALS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE 
		PROGRAM,

	B.   THE METHODS AND CRITERIA USED TO EVALUATE  WHETHER 
		THE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES ARE BEING MET,

	C.   A DESCRIPTION OF WHAT INFORMATION IS COLLECTED 
		ANNUALLY, AND

	D.   HOW THE RESULTS OF SUCH INFORMATION ARE BEING USED 
		TO IMPROVE THE CURRICULUM.

THE REPORT SHALL BE PRESENTED TO THE DEAN OR DIRECTOR'S 
OFFICE DURING THE MONTH OF MAY.  AT LEAST SOME INFORMATION 
GATHERING FOR THIS PROCESS SHALL OCCUR ANNUALLY.

ONCE AN EDUCATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS EVALUATION PROGRAM HAS 
BEEN IMPLEMENTED FOR THE CORE, THE CORE REVIEW COMMITTEE OF 
THE FACULTY SENATE SHALL PREPARE A REPORT, AT LEAST 
BIANNUALLY, SUMMARIZING THE EDUCATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS OF THE 
COMPONENTS OF THE CORE CURRICULUM.  THIS REPORT SHALL BE 
SIMILAR IN CONTENT TO THE REPORT DESCRIBED ABOVE FOR 
INDIVIDUAL PROGRAMS BUT SHALL PROVIDE A SUMMARY FOR THE 
COMPONENTS OF THE CORE CURRICULUM.  THE COMPONENTS OF THE 
CORE MAY BE SUMMARIZED IN THE REPORT ON A ROTATIONAL BASIS, 
BUT AT LEAST SOME INFORMATION SHOULD BE GATHERED ANNUALLY.


***************
The UAF Faculty Senate passed the following at its Meeting #70  on 
March 10, 1997:


MOTION PASSED (unanimous)
==============

The UAF Faculty Senate moves to amend Section 3 (ARTICLE V:  
Committees, Permanent) of the Bylaws as follows:

((   )) =  Deletion
CAPS 	=  Addition

	9.	THE CURRICULUM REVIEW COMMITTEE EVALUATES 
		PROPOSED SUBSTANTIVE UNDERGRADUATE COURSE AND 
		PROGRAM ADDITIONS, CHANGES, AND DELETIONS 
		SUBMITTED BY THE APPROPRIATE SCHOOL/COLLEGE 
		CURRICULUM COMMITTEES.  AMONG THE TOPICS OF ITS 
		REVIEW ARE NUMBER AND DUPLICATION OF COURSES, 
		CREDIT ASSIGNMENT, ESTABLISHMENT OF NEED FOR NEW 
		PROGRAMS, AND RESOURCE IMPACTS OF CURRICULAR 
		CHANGES.  DECISIONS OF THE CURRICULUM REVIEW 
		COMMITTEE MAY BE APPEALED TO CURRICULAR AFFAIRS 
		BY THE DEPARTMENT SUBMITTING THE PROPOSAL. THE 
		COMMITTEE SHALL BE COMPOSED OF THE CHAIRS OF THE 
		COLLEGE/SCHOOL CURRICULUM COUNCILS, THE CHAIR OF 
		THE DEVELOPMENTAL STUDIES COMMITTEE, THE 
		UNIVERSITY REGISTRAR OR THE REGISTRAR'S DESIGNEE, 
		AND SHALL BE CHAIRED BY A MEMBER OF CURRICULAR 
		AFFAIRS.

	EFFECTIVE: 	Immediately
			Upon Chancellorıs Approval

	RATIONALE:	The purpose of this proposed change is 
		to delineate the differences between the functions 
		of the college/school curriculum councils and that 
		of the Curriculum Review Committee.  The 
		college/school curriculum councils are the sole 
		judge of the substantive content of proposed new 
		courses, programs.  The Curriculum Review 
		Committee is responsible for coordinating the 
		proposals to insure against needless duplication, 
		proper assignment of course levels against 
		university-wide criteria, etc.

		The Core Review Committee is responsible for 
		reviewing and approving courses for inclusion in 
		the Core.

		There is no reason why a course should go to both 
		the Curriculum Review and Core Review 
		Committees if it is to be included in the Core.  
		The only exception to this might be Written and 
		Oral Intensive Courses. 


***************
The UAF Faculty Senate passed the following at its Meeting #70  on 
March 10, 1997:


MOTION PASSED (unanimous)
==============

The UAF Faculty Senate moves to amend Section 3 (ARTICLE V:  
Committees, Permanent) of the Bylaws as follows:

((   )) = Deletion
CAPS = Addition


	10.	THE CORE REVIEW COMMITTEE REVIEWS AND APPROVES 
		COURSES SUBMITTED BY THE APPROPRIATE SCHOOL/ 
		COLLEGE CURRICULUM COUNCILS FOR THEIR INCLUSION IN 
		THE CORE CURRICULUM AT UAF.  THE CORE REVIEW 
		COMMITTEE COORDINATES AND RECOMMENDS CHANGES TO 
		THE CORE CURRICULUM, DEVELOPS THE PROCESS FOR 
		ASSESSMENT OF THE CORE CURRICULUM, REGULARLY 
		REPORTS ON ASSESSMENT OF THE CORE CURRICULUM, 
		MONITORS TRANSFER GUIDELINES FOR CORE COURSES, 
		ACTS ON PETITIONS FOR CORE CREDIT, AND EVALUATES 
		GUIDELINES IN LIGHT OF THE TOTAL CORE EXPERIENCE.  
		THIS COMMITTEE WILL ALSO REVIEW COURSES FOR ORAL, 
		WRITTEN, AND NATURAL SCIENCE CORE CLASSIFICATION.

		THE COMMITTEE SHALL BE COMPOSED OF ONE FACULTY 
		FROM THE FOLLOWING CORE COMPONENT AREAS:  
		BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES, BUSINESS/ENGINEERING, 
		ENGLISH, HUMANITIES, MATHEMATICS, NATURAL 
		SCIENCES, AND COMMUNICATION.  MEMBERSHIP ON THE 
		COMMITTEE WILL INCLUDE AN UNDERGRADUATE STUDENT.  

		EFFECTIVE:  	Immediately
				Upon Chancellor's Approval

		RATIONALE: 	The status of the Core Review 
			Committee should be raised to that of a Permanent 
			Committee.  The nature and amount of work 
			accomplished regularly by this committee 
			indicates the need for its recognition in the 
			bylaws.


***************
The UAF Faculty Senate passed the following at its Meeting #70  on 
March 10, 1997:


MOTION PASSED (1 nay)
==============

The UAF Faculty Senate moves to include the following statement in 
the new class schedule and in the Catalog.


Course Prerequisites

	Course prerequisites indicate the previous preparation that a 
student must have in order to enter a course. An instructor has the 
right to drop from the course any student not meeting the course 
prerequisites. Permission of the instructor to enter a class may be 
granted to a student not meeting prerequisites under special 
circumstances.

	EFFECTIVE:  	Immediately

	RATIONALE:  	Prerequisites will become an even more 
		important issue now because of the new option that 
		allows faculty to drop students from their classes.  
		The issue of prerequisites will become even more 
		important for distance delivered courses.


***************
The UAF Faculty Senate passed the following at its Meeting #70  on 
March 10, 1997:


MOTION PASSED (unanimous)
==============

The UAF Faculty Senate moves to approve the M.S. & Ph.D. in 
Environmental Chemistry.  

	EFFECTIVE: 	Upon Board of Regentsı Approval

	RATIONALE: 	See full program proposal #44 on file in the 
		Governance Office, 312 Signersı Hall.


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

				EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

	For more than a decade UAF has provided graduate training in 
environmental chemistry through the Chemistry and Biochemistry 
Department MS Program and the Interdisciplinary Ph.D. Program.  In 
recent years this activity has expanded substantially because of 
increasing student demand and the recruitment of new chemistry 
faculty with environmental research interests.  The UAF Chemistry 
and Biochemistry Department believes that further development of 
this effort can now be accomplished without commitment of 
additional resources by providing increased visibility through 
establishment of a Graduate Program in Environmental Chemistry 
leading to Ph.D. and MS degrees.

	The goal of the Graduate Program in Environmental Chemistry 
will be to train scientists for research, teaching and other 
professional positions in atmospheric chemistry, environmental 
chemical measurement, marine chemistry, chemical aspects of 
global change and related fields with emphasis on northern 
environments.  These skills are in high demand in Alaska and around 
the world as societies turn away from preoccupations of the cold 
war era and focus on issues of sustainable development and 
environmental quality.

	The Graduate Program in Environmental Chemistry will 
enhance the educational opportunities at UAF, not only at the 
graduate level, but also for undergraduates by attracting high 
quality graduate students, some of whom will become teaching 
assistants in undergraduate classes.  This program will also 
contribute to UAFıs research focus on the northern environment.  In 
addition, it will expand links between the university and private 
sector and governmental organizations in Alaska and throughout the 
north by means of internships and exchanges.


***************
The UAF Faculty Senate passed the following at its Meeting #70  on 
March 10, 1997:


MOTION PASSED (unanimous)
==============

The UAF Faculty Senate moves to amend the UAF Regulations for the 
Evaluation of Faculty:  Initial Appointment, Annual Review, 
Reappointment, Promotion, Tenure, and Sabbatical Leave, IV.B.3.d. as 
follows:

[[   ]]  = Deletions
CAPS 	= Additions

IV.	CONSIDERATION OF FACULTY FOR PROMOTION AND TENURE

B. 	Faculty with Academic Rank

3. d.	Constitution and Operation of University-wide Promotion and 
	Tenure Committee.  The University-wide Promotion and Tenure 
	committee will be composed of [[one representative from each 
	college or school in existence at the beginning of each 
	academic year.]] TWELVE REPRESENTATIVES: THREE FROM THE 
	COLLEGE OF LIBERAL ARTS (ONE EACH FROM EDUCATION, 
	HUMANITIES, AND SOCIAL SCIENCES); THREE FROM THE COLLEGE 
	OF SCIENCE, ENGINEERING, AND MATHEMATICS (ONE FROM EACH 
	AREA); THREE FROM THE COLLEGE OF RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT 
	AND MANAGEMENT (ONE EACH FROM THE SCHOOLS OF 
	MANAGEMENT, AGRICULTURE AND LAND RESOURCES 
	MANAGEMENT, AND MINERAL ENGINEERING); AND ONE EACH FROM 
	THE SCHOOL OF FISHERIES AND OCEAN SCIENCES, ALASKA 
	COOPERATIVE EXTENSION, AND COLLEGE OF RURAL ALASKA.

	EFFECTIVE: 	Immediately
			Upon Chancellor's Approval

	RATIONALE:
	1. 	The current definition of the committee makeup is not 
		consistent with the new "mega-colleges" planned or in 
		existence.  The motion essentially maintains the status 
		quo, but adds one representative each in CLA and CSEM.

	2. 	A new definition of the committee makeup must be in 
		place so that timely elections may be held this Spring 
		for next year.

	3. 	Five committee members (CLA-Education, SOM, SFOS, 
		ACE, and SALRM) and five alternates [CLA (2), SOM, SFOS, 
		and SALRM] will return next year.  Thus elections would 
		be necessary in CSEM (3 rep and 3 alternates), CLA 
		(2 reps and 1 alternate), SME (rep and alternate), ACE 
		(alternate) and CRA (rep and alternate).

	4. 	During the past several years the overall composition and 
		size of the P/T committee has been satisfactory.  The 
		P/T committee traditionally has included 
		representatives from a variety of academic disciplines 
		in order to provide expertise and understanding of the 
		mores and standards within the vastly different 
		disciplines present on this campus.

	5. 	Some consideration, however, should be made for the 
		number of tenure track faculty (assistant, associate, and 
		full professors, or research versions thereof) within the 
		different units and disciplines.  We have counted these in 
		two sources: the 95-96 faculty senate reapportionment 
		census and the 96-97 telephone book.  They agree 
		closely, with the former source yielding 428 faculty, the 
		latter 442.  The difference was essentially due to the 
		(apparent) exclusion of Geophysical Institute research 
		faculty in the former compilation.  Two promotion files 
		from that unit were considered by the P/T committee 
		this year, suggesting that these faculty should be 
		counted in any P/T committee representation list.

	6. 	The numbers show that basically CLA and CSEM have been 
		underrepresented on the committee, and that this could 
		be redressed by adding a rep from each college.  Logical 
		divisions exist in both colleges:  mathematics is a large 
		department that has noticeably different standards and 
		working conditions compared to scientists and engineers, 
		and in CLA there are approximately equal numbers of 
		faculty in humanities and social sciences, again with 
		these two groups having noticeably different scholarly 
		standards and working conditions.

	7. 	Increasing the size of the committee by two members 
		actually would be a good thing.  Even with alternates, 
		there is usually one member and sometimes two out for 
		sickness or conflict of interest.  This has decreased the 
		actual voting members to 8 in the past, which may be too 
		small.  A larger committee will make organizing slightly 
		more difficult, but on the other hand will ease the task 
		of drafting letters.  Two more members can easily be 
		accommodated in any of common meeting rooms.


***************
The UAF Faculty Senate passed the following at its Meeting #70  on 
March 10, 1997:


RESOLUTION
===========

WHEREAS, Provost Jack Keating has supported the idea of a Faculty 
	Seminar Series from its inception early this year; and 

WHEREAS, Dr. Keating responded quickly and appropriately to a 
	request for financial support to provide for a reception 
	following the inaugural and two other faculty seminars, to 
	help start the seminar series on its way;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED That the Faculty Senate recognizes, 
	applauds, and thanks the Provost for his support of the Faculty 
	Seminar Series in keeping with the intent of the series to 
	reach a wide audience and demonstrate to the University and 
	Fairbanks communities, the contribution that faculty make to 
	our community life.