FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT:
Sheri Layral
312 Signers' Hall
474-7964 FYSENAT
A G E N D A
UAF FACULTY SENATE MEETING #69
Monday, February 10, 1996
1:30 p.m. - 4:25 p.m.
Wood Center Ballroom
1:30 I Call to Order - Don Lynch 5 Min.
A. Roll Call
B. Approval of Minutes to Meeting #68
C. Adoption of Agenda
1:35 II Status of Chancellor's Office Actions 5 Min.
A. Motions Approved:
1. Motion to approve new programs
in Health Technology.
2. Motion to approve new Certificate
in Applied Business.
3. Motion on changes to the policies
on "W", "I", and "NB".
B. Motions Pending: none
1:40 III Remarks by Chancellor J. Wadlow 15 Min.
& Provost J. Keating
Questions 5 Min.
2:00 IV Guest Speaker - Ann Tremarello, 10 Min.
University Registrar
2:10 V Governance Reports
A. ASUAF - C. Wheeler 5 Min.
B. Staff Council - R. Pierce 5 Min.
C. President's Report - D. Lynch 5 Min.
(Attachment 69/1)
D. President-Elect¹s Report - J. Craven 5 Min.
(Attachment 69/2)
E. Report on Chancellor's Workshop (Handout) 10 Min.
F. Report on the AAHE Conference 10 Min.
2:50 VI Public Comments/Questions 5 Min.
2:55 *** BREAK *** 10 Min.
3:05 VII New Business
A. Motion to amend the Transfer of Credit 5 Min.
Policy, submitted by Curricular Affairs
(Attachment 69/3)
B. Motion on courses considered for CORE 5 Min.
designation must include a plan for its
effectiveness evaluation, submitted by Core
Review (Attachment 69/4)
C. Motion to amend the Academic Review Cycle 10 Min.
to include a spring review, submitted by
Graduate Curricular Affairs/Curriculum
Review (Attachment 69/5)
D. Motion to amend the UAF Regulations for the 5 Min.
Evaluation of Faculty to add a new paragraph,
submitted by University-wide Promotion &
Tenure (Attachment 69/6)
E. Motion to amend Section 3 (ARTICLE V: 10 Min.
Committees) of the Bylaws, submitted by
Administrative Committee (Attachment 69/7)
F. Motion to approve the 1997-98 Faculty 5 Min.
Senate meeting calendar, submitted by
Administrative Committee (Attachment 69/8)
G. Motion to reaffirm position of salary/ 5 Min.
compensation locus of tenure, and post-
tenure review, submitted by Ad Hoc Committee
on Union/Governance Relations (Attachment 69/9)
3:45 VIII Committee Reports 30 Min.
A. Curricular Affairs - Maynard Perkins
(Attachment 69/10)
B. Faculty Affairs - Norm Swazo
C. Graduate Curricular Affairs - Mark Tumeo
D. Scholarly Activities - Ron Barry
E. CNCSHDR - Rudy Krejci
F. Developmental Studies - Ron Illingworth
G. Faculty Appeals & Oversight - Diane Bischak
H. Faculty Development, Assessment & Improvement -
Rich Seifert
I. Graduate School Advisory Committee - Susan Hendricks
(Attachment 69/11)
J. Legislative & Fiscal Affairs - Michael Jennings
K. Service Committee - Kara Nance
L. University-Wide Promotion/Tenure - John Keller
M. Core Review Committee - Jin Brown
(Attachment 69/12)
4:15 IX Discussion Items 5 Min.
4:20 X Members' Comments/Questions 5 Min.
4:25 XI Adjournment
********************
ATTACHMENT 69/1
UAF FACULTY SENATE #69
FEBRUARY 10, 1997
REPORT TO THE UAF FACULTY SENATE MEETING OF FEBRUARY 10TH,
1997 - Pres. Donald F. Lynch, Ph.D.
Welcome to our Rural Sites Representatives. We are grateful to see
you in person as we all recognize your audio conference voices.
First and foremost I wish to thank all the committee chairs and
members who have been working very hard on the Senate's business.
Particularly I wish to thank three really overloaded committees:
Curricular Affairs, Curriculum Review, and Core Review. Something
like 140 course changes have been processed, and Core Review is
struggling with a means to evaluate the "effectiveness" of the core
curriculum. In addition, a new grading system, after much
discussion, has been approved.
The Promotion and Tenure committee has done excellent work in
evaluating candidates for tenure and promotion. This is an arduous
task which this committee is performing.
Your agenda contains United Academics response to your Resolution
passed at the last meeting. You will notice that the Executive Board
of United Academics is very concerned about cooperating to the
maximum degree possible with the UAF and other Faculty Senates.
I have already alerted you to the Provost's "Targets" for measuring
improved effectiveness. The Administrative Committee has
requested that the Targets be widely distributed.
United Academics will be developing the first draft of the contract
proposal the week of February 16 through 23rd.
John Craven has proposed several bylaw changes which you will be
asked to consider. I have proposed bylaw changes attempting to
strength and more clearly define the roles and place of the
Curricular Affairs, Curriculum Review, and Core Review committees.
The Administrative Committee has requested that the chairs of
these committees consider the proposals and develop their own
ideas.
The Provost indicated at the Administrative Committee meeting that
courses not given in the past five years may be continued in the
catalogue at the request of the department affected. Such courses
should be submitted very quickly.
John Craven and I will be in Juneau February 12th through 14th
attending the Regents' meeting and joining the other governance
groups in supporting the University's budget request before the state
legislature. We hope this effort will be helpful.
I defer to the Registrar for accurate information, but my
understanding is that the Banner Program is to be completed and
running by the fall semester of 1997. This will include the faculty
workload module which will be based on the workload statements
each faculty member submits. I encourage everyone to take these
statements seriously particularly regarding research and public
service, elements not yet included in the module.
We have not yet received official explanation and justification from
Statewide for the new general harassment policy. I have sent an E
Mail message to the Regents protesting Statewide's action in failing
to consult governance on a major policy matter potentially affecting
all of us. My personal belief is that the proposed policy is "fatally
flawed", as the phrase goes and may lead to endless litigation.
There is another policy document which we recently obtained
developed by a committee chaired by Dean Carla Kirts which
contains a paragraph regarding faculty functions. We have not been
officially informed of this document's existence either, and so
governance here is also being ignored.
Kara Nance and I represented the Senate at the "Sour Grapes Ball,"
which was a very relaxing and entertaining evening. Those who
worked so hard to put this event on, including Brenda Wilcox, Janel
Thompson, Enid Cutler, "Issac" and the UAF "mascot" are to be
complimented.
Approximately forty faculty are retiring this year. Departments
need, therefore, to take recommendations on Emeritus Status and
Affiliate Professorships quite seriously.
Tara Maginnis and John Craven represented the Senate at the
Chancellor's workshops. The bad news is a potential multi-million
dollar deficit. The good news is that our administrative procedures
are becoming more and more "student friendly."
Through usually reliable sources, I understand that the benefits
package we all enjoy is to be significantly modified by the
University. We have received no accurate information on this
subject, but the unofficial information is quite disconcerting. The
rumour mill, active as always, also reports that the President has
sequestered all early retirement positions. As usual, more open
communication from Statewide would make the governance task
much easier.
As a final piece of advice from an Old Timer, two days after the
state Legislature meets, the University administration panics, and
that panic permeates downward and makes faculty and staff
depressed. Don't let it get to you: remember March 17th instead!
********************
ATTACHMENT 69/2
UAF FACULTY SENATE #69
FEBRUARY 10, 1997
Report by John Craven, President Elect and Chair of the
Administrative Committee
1. Faculty Alliance proposal for a Faculty Development Institute. A
subcommittee of the Faculty Alliance has written and submitted to
the President Komisar a proposal for the creation of a UA Faculty
Development Institute to be initially funded from the Natural
Resources Fund. The proposal was discussed at the joint meeting of
the Alliance and the Systemwide Academic Council on January 24,
1997, where certain changes were requested by members of the SAC.
Most important was the requirement for an immediate effort to
secure external funds on a cost-sharing basis to support the
institute, where it is expected that yearly operating costs after the
first year will be of the order of $250,000. It is expected that
$16,000 will be provided quickly from the NRF for initial planning
purposes, but not for a summer 1997 session. Quoting directly from
the original proposal,
"The objective of this proposal is to establish and fund a multi-year
Faculty Development Program as an integral part of the university's
academic endeavors in accordance with Board of Regents' priorities.
These priorities include enhancing access to programs and services
of high quality, maintaining currency in the technological
infrastructure for delivery of instruction, providing opportunities
for faculty development in appropriate pedagogies, and developing
and implementing successful applications for external funding.
The purpose of the Faculty Development Program is to plan and
implement faculty development that addresses pedagogy, teaching
methods and educational technologies. In order to accomplish this,
the Faculty Alliance recommends the establishment of a Faculty
Development Steering Committee to:
A. design, coordinate, conduct and evaluate a Systemwide faculty
development institute, identify faculty to conduct courses, and
prepare funding proposals for future years;
B. identify policies and/or procedures for preparing and delivering
courses using new and emerging technologies;
C. develop elements to be included in guidelines for meeting faculty
development needs that are not being met within the University of
Alaska; and
D. explore partnerships with K-12 for faculty development in
accordance with Board of Regents/Department of Education joint
resolutions."
Complete copies of the revised proposal can be obtained from the
UAF Governance office or from Pat Ivey in the Systemwide
Governance office.
********************
ATTACHMENT 69/3
UAF FACULTY SENATE #69
FEBRUARY 10, 1997
SUBMITTED BY CURRICULAR AFFAIRS
MOTION
=======
The UAF Faculty Senate moves to amend the Transfer of Credit
Policy as listed in the UAF 1996-97 catalog, page 11 as follows:
(( )) = Deletions
CAPS = Additions
Transfer of Credit
3. COLLEGE LEVEL ACADEMIC CREDITS EARNED BY A STUDENT
AT ANY MAU WITHIN THE UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA WILL BE
TRANSFERRED TO UAF, SUBJECT TO APPLICABILITY TOWARD DEGREE
REQUIREMENTS AND MEASURES OF ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE AS
DELINEATED BY THE APPROPRIATE COLLEGE AND DEPARTMENT.
Undergraduate credits earned at the 100-level or above with a grade
of "C" or higher at institutions outside of the UA system, and
accredited by one of the six regional accrediting agencies, will be
considered for transfer. Transfer credit normally isn't granted for
courses with doctrinal religious content or for graduate courses (for
undergraduate programs). ((Credit is not transferred for advanced
placement credit or credit by examination awarded by another
institution.))
EFFECTIVE: FALL 1997
RATIONALE: This means that a UA transfer student would
be able to transfer to UAF any UA course having a grade
of "D" or better; and that course would transfer to a
College or Department as long as there was not
conflicting College or Department criteria.
This change brings UAF in accord with Regents' Policy
and University Regulation:
********************
P10.04.06 A.3.
3. A student who has completed some of the general education
requirements at one University of Alaska university or community
college will have those credits count toward fulfillment of the same
categories of general education requirements outlined in the
common core at all University of Alaska universities and community
colleges. This applies even if there is no directly matching
coursework at the institution to which the student transfers. This
statement will be published in each university and community
college catalog.
R10.04.06
Transfer of Credit
In accepting credits from accredited colleges and universities,
maximum recognition of courses satisfactorily completed will be
granted to transfer students toward satisfying requirements at the
receiving institution. Coursework must be at the 100 level or above
to transfer and, from institutions outside the University of Alaska,
must be completed with a grade of C or better. A student's entire
transcript from any MAU within the University of Alaska will be
transferred to another MAU, subject to applicability toward degree
requirements and measures of academic performance as established
elsewhere in Regents' Policy, University regulation, and the rules
and procedures of the MAU from which the student is to receive a
degree or certificate.
********************
ATTACHMENT 69/4
UAF FACULTY SENATE #69
FEBRUARY 10, 1997
SUBMITTED BY CORE REVIEW
MOTION
=======
The UAF Faculty Senate moves to approve the Core Review
Committee recommendation that any course proffered for
consideration of CORE designation must include, in it description, a
careful and complete plan for its effectiveness evaluation. Plans
for effectiveness evaluation should be consonant with effectiveness
evaluation plans for other courses which fulfill the same CORE
requirement.
Departments offering courses for CORE designation during the period
in which effectiveness evaluation plans are being initiated, and
which are accepted for CORE designation by the Core Review
Committee, will join with the other departments offering that CORE
option in planning effectiveness evaluation.
This motion does not include courses submitted for "W" or "O"
designation.
EFFECTIVE: Fall 1997
RATIONALE: The Core Review Committee is charged with
determining which courses shall be included in the CORE
curriculum, and has been appointed oversight of the
Educational Effectiveness Evaluation of the CORE
Curriculum
The Core Review Committee believes that the
Effectiveness Evaluation process will become a
permanent aspect of the committee¹s responsibility and
in regard to the future, do not want subsequent Core
Review Committees to have to reinvent the wheel. The
committee feels that the faculty SHOULD begin to
perceive both the CORE and their participation in the
CORE in regard to the Effectiveness Evaluation process;
to share, if you will, the commitment to Evaluation to
which the University is committed.
********************
ATTACHMENT 69/5
UAF FACULTY SENATE #69
FEBRUARY 10, 1997
SUBMITTED BY GRADUATE CURRICULAR AFFAIRS/CURRICULUM REVIEW
MOTION
=======
The UAF Faculty Senate moves to amend the Policy on Approval of
Academic Changes to include a spring review cycle deadline in
March. The spring review cycle will include academic and course
changes that do not require UAF Faculty Senate and Board of Regents
approval. Changes in the spring review cycle will be approved
effective the following Fall, however, they may not be included in
the course catalog.
EFFECTIVE: Immediately
Upon Approval of the Chancellor
RATIONALE: Once a year in the fall the Graduate
Curricular Affairs Committee and the Curriculum Review
Committees review numerous requests for course
changes. Currently, this is the only opportunity for
programs to enact changes in their degree program, add,
drop or modify courses. The current deadline requires all
suggestions to be drawn up and submitted relatively
early in the academic year. This may not be sufficient
time for faculty to complete the required paperwork and
to sufficiently consider all the potential ramifications
of a change. In addition, new faculty are often at a
severe disadvantage if they wish to introduce a new
course. Currently, if the fall deadline is missed, the
action must wait an entire academic year before being
considered, thereby delaying any changes for almost two
years from the time the idea originated.
By adding an additional review cycle in the spring,
programs will be able to react more efficiently to
changes, address administrative concerns more
completely, and have an opportunity to optimize their
program in a less hectic manner.
********************
ATTACHMENT 69/6
UAF FACULTY SENATE #69
FEBRUARY 10, 1997
SUBMITTED BY UNIVERSITY-WIDE PROMOTION & TENURE
MOTION
=======
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, Article
IV.B.2. with the additional of a fifth paragraph.
IV. CONSIDERATION OF FACULTY FOR PROMOTION AND TENURE
B. Faculty with Academic Rank
2. (add paragraph 5)
ACCESS TO THE CANDIDATES¹ FILE WILL BE LIMITED TO THE
CANDIDATE, AND, DURING THE OFFICIAL REVIEW PERIODS
ESTABLISHED BY THE PROVOST, THE APPROPRIATE PERSONNEL AT
EACH REVIEW LEVEL (DEPARTMENT HEAD, PEER COMMITTEE, DEAN
AND/OR DIRECTOR, UNIVERSITY-WIDE PROMOTION AND TENURE
COMMITTEE, PROVOST, AND CHANCELLOR).
EFFECTIVE: Immediately
Upon Chancellor Approval
RATIONALE: This paragraph makes explicit current policy
in most of the University. Currently there is no
statement of this policy in UAF Regulations, which has
led to some confusion regarding this issue. On the other
hand, if the file is not a confidential dossier, then
perhaps is it a public document? In any case, access
to these files should be well defined in University
Regulations. The large majority of the University-wide
Promotion and Tenure Committee (by a 9 to 1 vote)
agreed with the above confidentiality policy.
********************
ATTACHMENT 69/7
UAF FACULTY SENATE #69
FEBRUARY 10, 1997
SUBMITTED BY ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE
MOTION
=======
The UAF Faculty Senate moves to amend Section 3 (ARTICLE V:
Committees) of the Bylaws as follows:
(( )) = Deletion
CAPS = Addition
A. An Administrative Committee will be composed of the
chairpersons of all standing SENATE COMMITTEES and OF ALL
permanent Senate Committees EXCEPT THE UNIVERSITY-WIDE
PROMOTION AND TENURE COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE TO
NOMINATE COMMENCEMENT SPEAKER AND HONORARY DEGREE
RECIPIENTS.
B. Membership on standing and permanent committees will be for
two years EXCEPT AS NOTED BELOW with the possibility of RE-
APPOINTMENT ((reelection and will be appointed by the
Administrative Committee)). THE INITIAL APPOINTMENT OR RE-
APPOINTMENT IS MADE BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE OR AS
SPECIFIED IN THE DEFINITION OF A PERMANENT COMMITTEE and
((endorsed)) CONFIRMED by the full Senate. Senators are limited to
serving on a maximum of one standing committee at any one time.
TO PROVIDE CONTINUITY, TERMS WILL BE STAGGERED AND AN INITIAL
APPOINTMENT MAY BE MADE FOR ONE OR TWO YEARS AS DETERMINED
BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE BASED ON NEED.
C. Standing committees will be constituted entirely of Senate
members. Permanent committees can be constituted without Senate
members.
D. All permanent and standing committee chairs will be elected
from and by the members of their respective committee and must be
full-time faculty at UAF.
E. The standing and permanent committees of the Senate are:
STANDING
1. The Curricular Affairs Committee will deal with
curricular and academic policy changes on all levels
except the graduate level.
2. ((The Scholarly Activities Committee will deal with
policies concerning research and creative activity.))
((3.)) The Faculty AND SCHOLARLY Affairs Committee will deal
with policies related to workload, appointment,
termination, promotion, tenure, sabbatical leave, ((and))
academic freedom, RESEARCH AND CREATIVE ACTIVITY.
3((4)). The Graduate Curricular Affairs Committee will
include five members and will be responsible for the
review and approval of graduate courses, curriculum and
graduate degree requirements, and other academic
matters related to instruction and mentoring of graduate
students. The Dean of the Graduate school, and the
Directors of the Library, and Admissions and Records and
one graduate student, are non-voting ex-officio members.
PERMANENT
1. The University-Wide Promotion and Tenure Committee
will be one member from each school and college.
TERMS OF SERVICE ON THE COMMITTEE WILL BE THREE
YEARS, WITH THE TERMS BEING STAGGERED SO THAT
CONTINUITY BETWEEN COMMITTEES IS MAINTAINED.
Members of this committee must hold tenured senior
level appointment at UAF. This committee will review
candidate files for promotion and/or tenure and will
recommend for or against the promotion and/or tenure of
each candidate who presents a file for consideration by
the committee.
2. The Service Committee will be 7 members who represent
the academic community and the general public, with not
less than two members being non-university employees.
The chair must be a faculty member. ((Members' terms
will be staggered to provide continuity.)) This committee
will deal with policies relating to the service mission of
the university and its faculty.
3. The Graduate School Advisory Committee will include
three full-time faculty members appointed by the Senate
President, three full-time faculty members appointed by
the Provost, and one graduate student selected by the
Provost from nominations submitted by the graduate
faculty and student senate. The graduate student must
have completed a minimum of one full year of
attendance at UAF. Each department with a graduate
program is limited to no more than one member. The
Dean of the Graduate School and the President of the
Faculty Senate are ex-officio non-voting members. The
Dean of the Graduate School will convene regular
meetings, and must convene additional meetings if
requested by two members of the committee. The
committee will advise the Dean of the Graduate School
and the Provost on administrative matters pertinent to
the operation and growth of graduate studies at UAF,
including financial and tax-related issues and dealings
with other universities. All recommendations regarding
curricular matters will go to the Graduate Curricular
Affairs Committee and the Faculty Senate for approval.
4. The Developmental Studies Committee will include one
representative from each of the following units:
Northwest Campus, Chukchi Campus, Kuskokwim Campus,
Bristol Bay Campus, Interior-Aleutians Campus; the
((College of Natural Sciences)) SCIENCES, MATHEMATICS,
((the)) English, ((Mathematical Sciences)), STUDENT
SUPPORT SERVICES PROGRAM, and Cross Cultural
Communications ((Departments)), the Developmental
Studies Division of the College of Rural Alaska, Rural
Student Services, and the Advising Center; and two
representatives from the Tanana Valley Campus.
The Developmental Studies Committee shall consider
policies concerning developmental education: programs,
courses, instructional development, evaluation, and
assessment. This committee will function as a
curriculum council review committee for all
developmental studies courses. Discipline based
developmental courses will be reviewed by the
appropriate college curriculum council before submission
to this committee for review and coordination.
5. The Faculty Development, Assessment and Improvement
Committee will be composed of faculty members and the
Director of Faculty Development. This committee will
deal with faculty and instructional development and
evaluation.
6. The Committee to Nominate Commencement Speaker and
Honorary Degree Recipients will nominate
commencement speakers and candidates for honorary
degrees.
7. The Legislative and Fiscal Affairs Committee will follow
legislative and fiscal issues which may impact faculty
concerns at the university and will act as a faculty
advocate with legislators and candidates.
8. The Faculty Appeals and Oversight Committee shall be
composed of two tenured faculty members, elected from
each college/school and confirmed by the Faculty Senate.
((who shall serve for a two year term. Members' terms
will be staggered to provide continuity.)) This committee
will function as an appeal body for issues of faculty
prerogative, oversee evaluation of academic
administrators, and make recommendations to the
Provost or Chancellor.
Committee members shall constitute a hearing panel pool
to serve as needed on grievance hearing panels.
A promotion/tenure appeals subcommittee composed of
five tenured faculty will hear all promotion and/or
tenure reconsideration requests and report its findings
to the Chancellor according to University of Alaska
Fairbanks Regulations, Section IV,B,4.
F. Any standing or permanent committee may create
subcommittees to assist the committee.
G. The Senate President may create and appoint the members of
any ad hoc committee necessary for conducting Senate business. Ad
hoc committees are subject to later ratification by the Senate.
H. Committees must forward any legislation which involves the
setting or altering of policy to the full Senate for approval.
Committees which are specifically charged with applying policy to
make decisions may do so without having the Senate approve those
decisions. A review by the full Senate may be requested by the
reviewing Senate committee. A request to the Senate Administrative
Committee for a further Senate review may also be submitted by
individual Senators if the question has policy implications. THE
COMMITTEE CHAIR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PRESENTATION OF THE
COMMITTEE¹S MOTION TO THE SENATE AT THE MEETING IN WHICH IT
WILL BE CONSIDERED.
EFFECTIVE: Immediately
Upon Chancellor¹s Approval
RATIONALE:
A. The work of the University-wide Promotion and
Tenure Committee and the Committee to Nominate
Commencement Speakers and Honorary Degree Recipients
is more seasonal than routine and the work is done
largely in executive session for which there can be no
public report. Hence the chairs are much less involved in
the routine work of the Senate.
B. These changes apply the length and staggering of
appointments uniformly to all committees and provide
the mechanism for creating staggered committee
appointments.
E. STANDING, 2 & 3 Scholarly Affairs has done nothing
for three years, yet its reason for being may have some
importance. By combining the two committees, such
matters as may perhaps come up in the future which
would normally be considered by Scholarly Affairs could
be handled by the combined Faculty and Scholarly
Affairs.
E. PERMANENT, 4. Changes in the college structure
and realignment of departments delivering developmental
courses require the name changes and the inclusion of
another program.
H. It is difficult to proceed with a proper discussion
of a motion submitted to the Senate if the committee
chair is not there to provide information on the
committee¹s deliberation.
********************
ATTACHMENT 69/8
UAF FACULTY SENATE #69
FEBRUARY 10, 1997
SUBMITTED BY ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE
UAF FACULTY SENATE
1997-98
Calendar of Meetings
Mtg. # Date Day Time Type Location
73 9/15/97 Monday 1:30 p.m audioconference WC Ballroom
74 10/13/97Monday 1:30 p.m face-to-face WC Ballroom
75 11/10/97Monday 1:30 p.m audioconference WC Ballroom
76 12/8/97 Monday 1:30 p.m face-to-face WC Ballroom
77 2/9/98 Monday 1:30 p.m face-to-face WC Ballroom
78 3/9/98 Monday 1:30 p.m audioconference WC Ballroom
79 4/6/98 Monday 1:30 p.m face-to-face WC Ballroom
80 5/4/98 Monday 1:30 p.m audioconference WC Ballroom
FALL:
Orientation for New Students - Sunday-Wednesday, August 30-
September 3, 1997
Labor Day - Monday, September 1, 1997
Registration/Course Selection - Tuesday-Wednesday, September 2-
3, 1997
First Day of Instruction - Thursday, September 4, 1997
Thanksgiving Holiday- Thursday-Friday, November 27-28, 1997
Last Day of Instruction - Friday, December 12, 1997
Final Examinations - Monday-Thursday, December 15-18, 1997
Winter Closure - December 25, 1997-January 4, 1998
SPRING:
Orientation for New Students - Monday-Tuesday, January 12-13,
1998
Registration/Course Selection - Tuesday-Wednesday, January 13-14,
1998
First Day of Class - Thursday, January 15, 1998
Alaska Civil Rights Day (no classes) - Monday, January 19, 1998
Spring Break - Monday-Sunday, March 16-22, 1998
Last Day of Instruction - Friday, May 1, 1998
Final Examinations - Monday-Thursday, May 4-7, 1998
********************
ATTACHMENT 69/9
UAF FACULTY SENATE #69
FEBRUARY 10, 1997
SUBMITTED BY AD HOC COMMITTEE ON UNION/GOVERNANCE RELATIONS
MOTION
=======
The UAF Faculty Senate moves to RE-AFFIRM its position on salary/
compensation, locus of tenure, and post-tenure review as expressed
in the following motions passed at UAF Senate meetings #56 and
#63 with the further understanding that the position on post-tenure
review articulates the preliminaries of a formative, rather than a
summative, policy which is to be linked to faculty development.
In so moving, the UAF Faculty Senate directs that these policy
statements be transmitted to the appropriate committees of United
Academics currently working on the contract proposal to be
negotiated with the University of Alaska administration, the intent
of this transmittal being that these Senate policy statements be
incorporated in the contract proposal.
EFFECTIVE: Immediately
RATIONALE: The motion is presented in the spirit of
solidarity and cooperation with United Academics
concerning mandatory items of collective bargaining.
United Academics committees are currently working on
contract language and stand to benefit from the work of
the UAF Faculty Senate insofar as it has spoken to these
specific mandatory items of collective bargaining. The
motion, furthermore, directly responds to Lawrence
Weiss¹ memo to D. Lynch and P. Slattery of 2/2/97
inviting ³substantial contribution to the contract
proposal.² Moreover, the UAF Faculty Senate reserves
it right to pronounce on policy recommendations
pertinent to faculty affairs, this consistent with AAUP's
"Statement on Academic Government for Institutions
Engaged in Collective Bargaining", in particular that
"Collective bargaining should not replace, but rather
should ensure, effective traditional forms of shared
governance...Collective bargaining should ensure
institutional policies and procedures that provide
access for all faculty to participation in shared
governance. Employed in this way, collective bargaining
complements and supports structures of shared
governance consistent with the "Statement on
Government."
********************
United Academics-AAUP/AFT
Lawrence D. Weiss, President
c/o UAA Department of Sociology
3211 Providence Dr.
Anchorage, AK 99508
office: (907)789-4671 E-mall: AFLDW@UAA.Alaska.edu
MEMO
2/2/97
TO: Donald F. Lynch, President, UAF Faculty Senate
Phil Slattery, President, Faculty Alliance
FROM: Lawrence D. Weiss, President, united Academics
SUBJECT: Faculty Governance
I am pleased to report to you that at the recent December 19th
meeting of the United Academics Executive Board the commitment to
"sustain and enhance governance at the University of Alaska," as
stated in the United Academics Constitution, was reaffirmed. The
Executive Board charged the three Organizational Vice Presidents to
coordinate with the faculty governance bodies (although there is
some concern about the present status of faculty governance at
UAS).
Prof. Norm Swazo, Chair, UAF Faculty Senate Standing Committee on
Faculty Affairs, has been appointed as a member of the negotiating
pool from which the negotiating team will be selected. In this
capacity Prof. Swazo enjoys maximum communication with the
Executive Board. In addition the Board invites the UAF Faculty
Affairs committee to make a substantial contribution to the
contract proposal.
Our intention as members of the Executive Board is to keep faculty
governance as fully informed as possible regarding the development
of a contract proposal. The current schedule Is to have a draft of the
full contract proposal widely disseminated the week of February 24
along with public forums for maximum faculty input before we go to
the table early March. Meanwhile, seven state-wide committees are
hard at work putting together a first draft. For more information
about the committees contact John French, Executive Vice President;
Don Lynch, your Organizational Vice President; or me.
I look forward to seeing you at our next Executive Board meeting
Sunday February 16, 9-4, at the APEA offices, 825 College Road
(452-2106). In addition I will be on your campus all day Monday the
17th. I would be most pleased to meet with any interested group or
individual from early In the morning until mid-evening. Please call
or E-mail me (contact information on letterhead) so we can make
arrangements.
********************
The UAF Faculty Senate passed the following at its meeting #56 on
March 20, 1995.
The UAF Faculty Senate endorses the following Pay Raise Proposal
and formula.
PAY RAISE PROPOSAL
STEPS IN RANK 1 2 3 4 5 6
YRS IN RANK 1,2 3,4 5,6 7,8 9,10 11,12
FORMULA
ASSISTANT 1.00 1.04 1.08 1.12
ASSOCIATE 1.20 1.24 1.30 1,35 1.38 1.40
FULL 1.40 1.46 1.51 1.57 1.64 1.70
1. These step increases are to reflect increased faculty
experience and are in addition to regular cost-of-living
increases as provided by the Board of Regents.
2. Assistant Professors shall receive a 4% longevity increase for
each step corresponding to every two years of university
service (assuming a satisfactory or better evaluation.)
3. Upon promotion to Associate Professor, the faculty members
will receive a salary of 20% higher than the base starting
Assistant Professor salary.
4. Upon promotion to full professor, the faculty member will
receive a base salary of 40% higher than the base starting
Assistant Professor salary.
5 Associate Professors must be promoted to full Professor by
their 12th year as Associate Professors or forego additional
step increases.
6. Full Professors receive a 2% step increase after their 12th
year at rank as full Professors.
7. All steps refer to appropriate, discipline based starting
salaries.
********************
The UAF Faculty Senate passed the following at its Meeting #63
on April 22, 1996:
MOTION PASSED (1 nay)
==============
The UAF Faculty Senate moves to recommend that the proposed
language in Regents' Policy on locus of tenure (OX-01.05.2c) be
amended as follows:
CAPS = Additions
[[ ]] = Deletions
Faculty will be tenured [[within an academic unit of a community
college, extended college or campus, or school or college of an MAU
within the University of Alaska]] AT THE LEVEL OF THE UNIVERSITY
OF ALASKA FAIRBANKS, THE UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA ANCHORAGE, OR
THE UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA SOUTHEAST. Faculty may transfer with
tenure to another academic unit (E.G., DEPARTMENT, PROGRAM) in the
same or another [[MAU]] UNIVERSITY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA
SYSTEM only upon the approval of the faculty and the Chancellor of
the receiving academic unit.
EFFECTIVE: Immediately
RATIONALE: Having been presented to the UAF Faculty
Senate for formal review and recommendation, the most
recent revisions to Regents' Policy ("Collection III:
Faculty Policies," 04.04.04-07 and 10.09.01, 4th Draft)
are found unsatisfactory in locating tenure "within an
academic unit of a community college, extended college
or campus, or school or college of an MAU within the
University of Alaska." Revised language in 0X-01.05.2c,
specifically the words "academic unit" and MAU," remain
ambiguous and subject to interpretation which may
undermine the award of tenure as a continuous
appointment. "Academic unit" is, for the most part, an
artificial administrative entity, all too readily subject
to the contingencies of changing educational objectives
and mission and corresponding reorganization of the
academy. The UAF Faculty Senate's amendment to the
proposed language, "at the level of the University of
Alaska Fairbanks, The University of Alaska Anchorage,
or the University of Alaska Southeast," seeks to assure
that there will be no termination of an appointment
with continuous tenure except as a bona fide formal
discontinuance of a program or department of
instruction, which discontinuance must "be based
essentially upon educational considerations, as
determined primarily by the faculty as a whole or an
appropriate committee thereof" (cf. AAUP Recommended
Institutional Regulations on Academic Freedom and
Tenure).
********************
The UAF Faculty Senate passed the following at its Meeting #63 on
April 22, 1996:
MOTION PASSED (unanimous)
==============
The UAF Faculty Senate moves to recommend that the proposed
language in Regents' Policy on Post-Tenure Evaluation (P OX-01.06)
be amended as follows:
CAPS = Additions
[[ ]] = Deletions
Tenured faculty members, INCLUDING ADMINISTRATORS HOLDING
TENURED FACULTY STATUS, will be evaluated intensively [[at least]]
every five years by peer faculty and administrators HAVING LINE
AUTHORITY AND RESPONSIBILITY OF SUPERVISION (E.G., DEPARTMENT
HEAD/CHAIR, SCHOOL/CAMPUS DIRECTOR, COLLEGE DEAN) OF THE
TENURED FACULTY MEMBER. INASMUCH AS DETERMINATION OF
FACULTY STATUS IS PRIMARILY A FACULTY RESPONSIBILITY,
ADMINISTRATORS PARTICIPATING IN THE POST-TENURE EVALUATION
PROCESS SHOULD CONCUR WITH THE PEER FACULTY JUDGMENT EXCEPT
IN RARE INSTANCES AND THEN ONLY BY PROVIDING COMPELLING
REASONS IN WRITING AND IN DETAIL. These evaluations will be
conducted in accordance with the criteria and process for evaluation
in Regents' Policy, University Regulation, and MAU rules and
procedures on evaluation of faculty. NEITHER THE CRITERIA NOR THE
PROCESS OF POST-TENURE EVALUATION WILL BE CONSTRUED AS
EQUIVALENT TO THE PROBATIONARY EVALUATION OF TENURE-TRACK
FACULTY, THE AWARD OF TENURE ITSELF SERVING AS PRIMA FACIE
EVIDENCE OF A FACULTY MEMBER'S DEMONSTRATED COMPETENCE AS
TEACHER, SCHOLAR, AND CITIZEN OF THE ACADEMY AT LARGE.
THEREFORE, POST-TENURE EVALUATION MUST BE ESPECIALLY
CAREFUL TO BE COMPLIANT WITH STANDARDS OF DUE PROCESS AND
ACADEMIC FREEDOM, I.E., TEACHING, RESEARCH, PUBLIC SERVICE, AND
EXTRAMURAL ACTIVITIES FREE OF CAPRICIOUS INSTITUTIONAL
CENSORSHIP OR DISCIPLINE. MAU rules and procedures will include a
process for remediation to address situations in which the
competence and/or performance of a faculty member is deemed to be
unsatisfactory. At any time prior to the scheduled evaluation, the
TENURED faculty member's Dean or Director may, as a result of
[[other]] PEER FACULTY evaluations, initiate processes to improve
faculty performance [[which could include the post-tenure review
process]].
Once a TENURED faculty member receives an unsatisfactory
evaluation as a result of the intensive post-tenure review process,
annual evaluations will take place until the TENURED faculty member
receives a satisfactory POST-TENURE evaluation. THE YEAR IN
WHICH A SATISFACTORY EVALUATION IS GIVEN WILL BE THE BASE
YEAR FOR THE NEXT SCHEDULED INTENSIVE POST-TENURE REVIEW.
Unsatisfactory evaluations REFLECTING [[AN]] THE TENURED FACULTY
MEMBER'S unwillingness or inability to fulfill [[the]] A REASONABLE
performance assignment for three consecutive years constitute
grounds for termination for cause. 'CAUSE' SHALL BE UNDERSTOOD
TO BE A DECLARATION OF INCOMPETENCE DIRECTLY AND
SUBSTANTIALLY (1) IN THE FACULTY MEMBER'S RESPONSIBILITIES IN
TEACHING, RESEARCH, AND SERVICE, AND/OR (2) FOR MORAL
TURPITUDE.
EFFECTIVE: Immediately
RATIONALE: Regents' Policy revisions have been
presented to the UAF Faculty Senate for formal review
and recommendation on content. The section on Post-
Tenure Evaluation is an entirely new addition to Regents'
Policy concerning faculty status. The proposed
amendment to policy seeks to highlight the UAF faculty
perspective on the issue of post-tenure evaluation, and
to do so in such a way as to safeguard the enduring
attitude and standards endorsed by the American
Association of University Professors and associated
institutions of higher education.
********************
ATTACHMENT 69/10
UAF FACULTY SENATE #69
FEBRUARY 10, 1997
SUBMITTED BY CURRICULAR AFFAIRS
Minutes of Curricular Affairs Meeting, January 20, 1997
Meeting Chaired by Maynard Perkins
Minutes by Carol Barnhardt
Submitted by Maynard Perkins, Chair of Curricular Affairs
Attending: Sukumar Bandopadhyay, Carol Barnhardt, Gayle Gregory,
Jerry McBeath, Terry McFadden, Maynard Perkins, Paul Reichardt,
Madeline Schatz, Ann Tremarello, Jane Weber (Don Lynch for last
part of meeting)
AGENDA ITEMS
1. MEETING TIMES
The meeting time for Spring Semester will continue to be 2:00 to
3:15 on Mondays. The next meeting will be on the 17th of February.
2. BYLAW CHANGE REGARDING CURRICULUM REVIEW COMMITTEE AND
CORE REVIEW COMMITTEE
DISCUSSION: A recommendation to add the Curriculum Review
Committee and the Core Review Committee as subcommittees of
Curricular Affairs is being discussed by several of the committees
involved. Jerry McBeath indicated that a memo had been sent from
Curriculum Review to Don Lynch stating no objections to being a
subcommittee.
ACTION: Maynard Perkins will report to the Administrative
Committee that there is no direction on this recommendation from
Curricular Affairs.
3. RESIDENCY CREDITS AS EFFECTED BY DISTANCE DELIVERY COURSES
DISCUSSION: On December 6, 1996, Curricular Affairs began a
discussion about issues involved in using distance delivered
courses/credits as residency credits. The discussion was initiated
in an effort to gather information to allow Curricular Affairs to
eventually develop an appropriate motion regarding this issue.
Discussion on January 20th provided additional background
information on the multiple questions that will need to be answered
before Curricular Affairs can develop an informed motion. Curricular
Affairs will send a memo to all deans and departments with a
request for feedback on this issue. Discussion of the draft memo and
of the policy issues involved with "counting" distance delivered
courses focused on the following:
-- The memo to deans and departments will need to include
information about the current offerings through UALC (i.e. printed
info, web page info, E-Mail, people to contact);
--It is important that UALC maintain a current Web page regarding
course options;
--Decisions about how to display UALC courses on BANNER need to be
discussed (e.g. which MAU will receive credit? which department
will receive credit? do credits "follow" the instructor of the
course? should BANNER have more indicators that "U" for UALC
courses-ones that would also designate the MAU? do individual
departments currently know which of their courses are available
through UALC?).
ACTION: Maynard will provide Sheri with a memo to distribute to all
deans and departments on all UAF campuses (copy of draft memo
attached). In addition to requesting feedback through the memo, all
Curricular Affairs members are asked to gather information from
their own units. Maynard will query colleagues from UAA and UAS at
the UALC meeting in February.
4. TRANSFER OF CREDIT WITHIN THE UA SYSTEM AS APPLIED TO
GRADE OF D.
DISCUSSION: Following discussion of issue at December 6th
meeting, a motion to bring UAF into compliance with Regents Policy
was reviewed.
ACTION: The motion, as amended, was passed unanimously. (See
agenda attachment 69/3.)
5. MOTIONS CONCERNING THE TRANSFER OF CORE
DISCUSSION: Several questions-in regard to the draft motions as
described below-were discussed:
a. Any transfer, or former UAF, student who has completed a
bachelor's degree from an accredited institution will be considered
to have completed the equivalent of the baccalaureate core when
officially accepted to another undergraduate degree program at UAF.
b. Any transfer student who has completed the transfer Associate
in Arts and Sciences, or Associate of Arts degree from one of the
Washington community colleges listed on the attached pages, will
be considered to have completed the lower division requirements of
the baccalaureate core. Ann Tremarello has additional information
on this.
Questions/concerns from Committee members:
--What are the implications of accepting students who do not have
math, science, communication and library skills requirements
comparable to those in the UAF CORE?
--Rationale for accepting as core, credits from AA degree students
from Washington institutions, but not AA credits from students who
completed AA degrees previously in UA institutions?
--Need to get complete copies of information on this issue
(particularly Part B) to more people and especially to math and
science departments
ACTION: Ann will prepare a motion on this issue and send it to Jin
Brown (with a copy to Maynard). She will bring Jin's concerns back
to Curricular Affairs by February 17th.
6. DISCUSSION OF PETITION PROCESS
This request evolved from the December Faculty Senate meeting
following the discussion of the request to implement a special
petition process for student with disabilities.
DISCUSSION: The issues, and recommendations for solutions, need to
focus on the petition process for all students, not just those with
disabilities. Issues discussed included:
--Memo from Cliff Lando
--Questions about who is considered to have the "expertise" to
review petitions - and at what point in the petition process does the
department/discipline representative become involved in the
decision (especially in CORE course petitions)
--Big questions in the whole petition process: who see what and
when?
ACTION: Maynard will set up an ad hoc committee and it will report
back to Curricular Affairs. Names suggested so far include Pat
Lambert (Math) and Diane Preston (Students with Disabilities).
7. SECOND REVIEW CYCLE FOR COURSE SUBMITTALS
DISCUSSION: The following information regarding a possible 2nd
review cycle for course submittals was discussed.
Currently UAF has a deadline of January 17, 1997 for New Trial
Courses for Fall 1997. These are put out for the 10-day review and
approval usually completed by mid-February. Another idea would be
the end of January or first of February so that all approvals can be
completed six week prior to the Priority Registration (usually the
first week of April). The Provost is asking for action on this. Last
year's figures on the number of course requests was reviewed but
Ann indicated that these were not completely representative.
Undergraduate Requests
2/20/96 5
4/12/96 6
Graduate Requests
2/20/96 2
3/11/96 1
4/22/96 2
7/19/96 1
Core Requests
2/20/96 2
4/12/96 4
All other requests came in between September and the Nov. 5
deadline. Currently there is 1 New course, 1 changed course, 1 drop
course, and 1 Oral Intensive Designator request which will be
reviewed with any trial requests at the end of January.
Concerns expressed by Committee members:
--Does this matter need to come to this committee or is it an
administrative decision?
--Jerry indicated that Curriculum Review will be meeting to take
care of all Spring Semester business
--Ann said that all changes need to be put in a publication
somewhere and her concern is that the changes be made early enough
to get into the catalog and/or the fall course schedule before pre-
registration (there might be only one schedule published this year in
April--not a second one published in August as has been done
previously).
--The Provost wants a second period of course changes and
submissions and even though these might not be done in time to
place in the catalog, the work would at least be done.
--Concern with too much confusion already for students and we don't
want to end up with a big supplement to the catalog.
--Second semester changes could be for "house cleaning items" only.
--Second semester changes for course changes only, not for program
changes.
ACTION: Maynard will put together a committee and he asked Jerry
McBeath to coordinate it because of the work Jerry is currently
doing with the Curriculum Review Committee. The committee with
put together a recommended time line. Jerry will get this back to
Curricular Affairs.
8. CORE COURSES AND EFFECTIVENESS EVALUATION AND CORE
COURSES AND PETITION PROCESS
DISCUSSION: Curricular Affairs needs more information on the two
motions.
ACTION: Maynard will try to get addition information on the first
motion and the second motion will be sent to the newly-established
Ad Hoc Committee that will review the whole petition process.
9. CATALOG DELETIONS
DISCUSSION: Discussion of the Catalog deletions is on the agenda
for the next Administrative Committee meeting. Curricular Affairs
can choose to respond or act on this if appropriate (see memos from
Jerry McBeath and Jack Keating for additional information on the
issues involved). Concerns expressed by Committee members:
--This is definitely a curricular issue.
--Questions about the reasons for dropping courses from the Catalog
if they are still valid-what are the differences between listing a
course and dropping a course?
--We need a better process for reviewing courses on a regular
basis-one in which departments would be involved (and we need to
develop policies on deleting courses if they are not offered for a
certain number of years).
--The catalog should more accurately reflect the courses that are
offered.
--The reasons for dropping may be valid but they should have been
brought to the Senate since it is an academic action.
--There are two issues involved here: the action itself and the
process.
ACTION: There was no motion from Curricular Affairs at this time.
The meeting was adjourned at 3:15.
********************
ATTACHMENT 69/11
UAF FACULTY SENATE #69
FEBRUARY 10, 1997
SUBMITTED BY GRADUATE SCHOOL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Graduate School Advisory Committee - S. Hendricks, Chair
January 29, 1997 Minutes
The Graduate School Advisory Committee met Wed., Jan 29, 1997,
from 1:00-2:15 in the Kayak Room. Present: David Smith, John
Craven, Joe Kan, Susan Henrichs, Steve Sparrow, Curt Szuberla, Mark
Oswood, Peggy Shumaker
Excused: John Zarling
l. GSAC set meeting times of 1:00-2:00 on Fridays for spring
semester. GSAC elected Susan Henrichs chair for spring semester.
Susan will contact committee members by e-mail regarding the next
meeting.
2. The Faculty Senate is working on establishing staggered terms
for members of GSAC. Procedures are already in place for selecting
a new student representative. Any current members of GSAC willing
to stay on for another year should contact the governance office.
3. Concerning clarification of time limits for earning degrees--This
issue has been discussed in the GCAC. We concur with that
committee's assertion that the clock should begin running when the
student is admitted to a program. GCAC will resolve this issue, and
draft clear wording for the catalog.
4. Concerning paperwork required by the graduate school, everyone
agreed that the Graduate Study Plan should guide the student until
the Advancement to Candidacy is filed. The Advancement to
Candidacy will be the official document.
5. In response to students' concerns, GSAC is drafting a statement
intended to generate discussion of graduate students¹ intellectual
property rights. This draft will circulate via department and faculty
senate channels.
6. The graduate school is NOT requiring departments or advisors to
review within one week of registration all courses taken by
students on tuition waivers or grant support. The memo stating this
(sent out by Admissions and Records) was in error.
7. At the next GSAC meeting, we will discuss whether to continue
the university requirement of GRE scores. Departments and/or
programs may of course continue to require the scores if they wish.
Dr. Kan will put out a memo to all graduate programs, asking for
ideas and reactions to the issues discussed in items 3, 4, and 5.
GSAC will appreciate responses from any concerned faculty or
students.
********************
ATTACHMENT 69/12
UAF FACULTY SENATE #69
FEBRUARY 10, 1997
SUBMITTED BY CORE REVIEW COMMITTEE
CORE Review Committee Report- Jin Brown, Chair
Progress in Assessment of the CORE Curriculum
The CORE Review Committee was given the responsibility of
educational effectiveness evaluation of the CORE Curriculum in Fall
of 1996. At that time we took the suggestion of Professor Dana
Thomas and the University's Educational Effectiveness Evaluation
Team and chose to initiate a pilot project this school year. The
"Communications'' area of the CORE curriculum was chosen after the
Communication Department volunteered to participate in the pilot
group. Library Science was added in order that our first year's
progress be in more than one area, but be manageable with our other
responsibilities.
While the three Departments involved in the pilot work
(Communication, English, and Library Science) have initiated
planning for assessment, two of those Departments have experienced
personnel changes that have interrupted the ongoing planning. Alane
Wilson has left Library Science and Dennis Stephens has assumed her
regular duties along with maintaining his own. Joan Worley has
recently stepped down from the EEE Team and from her Evaluation
role in the English Department. Cynthia Walker has not yet named a
replacement for Professor Worley in the evaluation planning.
***
After working with Jim Ratcliff, the Assessment consultant who the
UAF administration invited to campus for a seminar and workshops,
we understand that the English Department has plans to incorporate
a portfolio process into their evaluation procedures.
***
Library Science was in the planning stages of assessing their own
program when the Regent's plans were announced and will extend
their self-assessment to provide information to the CORE Review.
***
The UAF Communication Department has implemented an extensive
assessment of its CORE service courses. Building on the
restructuring of those courses that has been in process over the last
three years, Communication has embedded student learning
evaluation in a way that will not only provide quantitative and
qualitative evaluation data on students passing through their
courses, but done so in a way that will use the evaluation process to
enact an innovative reflexive learning loop in each student's course
experience. A detailed discussion of the Communication Department
evaluation of CORE courses can be arranged for those interested. At
this time, numerical data on student learning in the Fall semester
(1996) is being loaded into a computer program (SPSS 7.0 for
windows) for analysis. Six sections of the CORE service courses
have video taped every student presentation of the first, third, and
final speaking assignments. These procedures are in place as an
ongoing aspect of evaluation in the courses. Also, in Fall, 1996,
Graduate students working with Communication faculty began a
process of surveying professors who teach "O" (upper division Oral)
courses, seeking interest in a workshop that would assist in the
assessment of oral performance in those courses. The workshop
will introduce faculty to broad criteria by which oral presentations
are evaluated by the Speech Communication Association and help
adjust such criteria to the needs of specific disciplinary
presentations.
***
The CORE Review Committee has contacted each Department that
presents courses in Perspectives on the Human Condition (letters on
10 November, 1996) and asked that department faculty who present
the courses begin intra departmental discussions of how CORE
courses will be evaluated. Further, each department has been asked
to anticipate working with other departments which share CORE
course presentations so that interdepartmental decisions can be
made on those courses. Departments have been asked to have a plan
for evaluation that could be implemented in Fall of 1997. It may be
optimistic to anticipate that all Perspectives courses will be
evaluated in the Fall semester, however the three year window that
the Regents have given us suggests that we need interdepartmental
cooperation and planning to begin immediately.
***
The CORE Review Committee has sent forward a motion in regard to
assessment. We believe that we must begin now to anticipate our
responsibility for continuous reporting on evaluation, therefore we
have made a motion that any future courses submitted for
consideration of CORE inclusion must have an assessment plan as a
part of the proposal and that such plans be commensurate to the
assessment plans for other courses with which the suggested course
will share credit fulfillment (e. g. Comm 300X with Phil 322X and PS
300X). We are attempting to only invent such wheels once for each
requirement. While we must remain flexible with the evaluation of
the CORE, just as we are with the CORE, there must be some
guidelines in place. The CORE Review Committee believes
anticipation is a better strategy than retrofitting.