FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT: Sheri Layral 312 Signers' Hall 474-7964 FYSENAT
A G E N D A UAF FACULTY SENATE MEETING #97 Monday, October 30, 2000 1:30 p.m. - 4:00 p.m. Wood Center Ballroom1:30 I Call to Order - Larry Duffy 5 Min. A. Roll Call B. Approval of Minutes to Meeting #96 C. Adoption of Agenda 1:35 II Status of Chancellor's Office Actions 5 Min. A. Motions Approved: 1. Motion to approve an Appeals Policy for Academic Decisions. 2. Motion to amend the UAF Faculty Appointment and Evaluation Policies & Regulations for the Evaluation of Faculty B. Motions Pending: none 1:40 III A. Remarks by Chancellor M. Lind 10 Min. B. Remarks by Provost P. Reichardt 10 Min. C. Accreditation Report - R. Gatterdam 15 Min. 2:15 IV Governance Reports A. ASUAF -S. Banks / GSO - 5 Min. B. Staff Council - S. Culbertson 5 Min. C. President's Report - L. Duffy (Attachment 97/1) 5 Min. D. President-Elect's Comments (Attachment 97/2) 2:30 V. Consent Agenda A. Motion to amend Section 3 (Article V: Committees, Permanent) of the Bylaws, submitted by Core Review (Attachment 97/3) 2:30 VI New Business A. Motion to approve the M.A. In Cross-Cultural 5 Min. Studies, submited by Graduate Academic & Advisory Committee (Attachment 97/4) B. Motion to delete the Ed.S. degree, submitted 5 Min. by Graduate Academic & Advisory Committee (Attachment 97/5) C. Motion to adopt the "Guidelines for the 5 Min. Evaluation Process for Administrators", submitted by the Faculty Appeals & Oversight Committee (Attachment 97/6) D. Resolution to support the use of a student 5 Min. satisfaction survey, submitted by Administrative Committee (Attachment 97/7) E. Motion to accept "The Bacccalaureate Experience: 5 Min. Core Curriculum Requirements" as updated by the Core Review Committee (Attachment 97/8) 2:55 ***BREAK*** 10 Min 3:05 VII Public Comments/Questions 5 Min. 3:10 VIII Committee Reports 15 Min. A. Faculty Affairs - P. McRoy (Attachment 97/9) B. Graduate Academic & Advisory Committee - J. Gardner (Attachment 97/10) C. Core Review - J. Brown (Attachment 97/11) D. Curriculum Review - S, Bandopadhyay E. Developmental Studies - J. Weber F. Faculty Appeals & Oversight - G. Chukwu (Attachment 97/12) G. Faculty Development, Assessment & Improvement - T. Robinson (Attachment 97/13) H. Curricular Affairs - R. Illingworth (Attachment 97/14) 3:25 IX Discussion Items 15 Min. A. Curricular Affairs Committee report on Prerequisites 3:40 X Members' Comments/Questions 5 Min. 3:45 XI Adjournment ******************** ATTACHMENT 97/1 UAF FACULTY SENATE #97 OCTOBER 30, 2000 President's Comments - Larry Duffy The UA Board of Regents passed a new mission statement which is "The University of Alaska inspires learning, and advances and disseminates knowledge through teaching, research, and public service, emphasizing the North and its diverse peoples." Preliminary budget and the Initiative Process was also discussed at the Regent's meetings. The November meeting is at UAF. If you have not been to a meeting, I encourage you to attend to see how the process works. I have enclosed several attachments to these comments which I will address in more detail at the meeting. Please pay special attention to Richard Hacker's, our Academic Liaison Faculty Fellow, comments about the FY03 Initiative Process. The Chancellor and Provost are working to increase faculty involvement in the planning and budget process. I have attached some of the almost 100 ideas that are coming forward. I commend those who are working on these ideas. Provost Reichardt will use these as UAF's plan for the near future. However, I am concerned by comments from some senior Professors about how much extra work this is. My reply is that we can't have it both ways. If we are to be involved we must take the time now so that UAF has a quality plan. I would also argue that "beside our RIGHT to be involved in the decision process, it is our DUTY to spend the time on this service activity." Remember the calendar is determined by the Alaska Legislature's Process. We will have an exciting meeting on October 30 with issues ranging from "Review of Administrators" to "Philosophy of the Core." ******************** ATTACHMENT 97/2 UAF FACULTY SENATE #97 OCTOBER 30, 2000 President-Elect Comments - Norm Swazo Please accept my apologies for being absent from my duties as Chair of the Senate Administrative Committee and the Faculty Senate meeting. I am unable to participate in the Senate's deliberations today given that I am out-of-state participating as a member of a Philosophy Delegation to the People's Republic of China, this delegation sponsored by the non-governmental organization People to People Ambassador Programs. However, I did want to share with you my thoughts on a couple of items of business before the Senate Faculty Affairs Committee and the Faculty Appeals & Oversight Committee. 1. Faculty Affairs Issue: As you are aware from the Agenda Attachment 96/1 for the September Senate meeting, Dr. Ted DeLaca, Director of the UAF Office of Arctic Research, shared his proposal concerning establishment of an Office of Sponsored Programs and two committees. One of the proposed committees - the "UAF Research Ethics Committee" - is to be a "standing committee" chaired by the UAF Research Integrity Officer. As Dr. DeLaca says in his proposal, "The Committee will be prepared to deal rapidly and effectively with any allegations of misconduct related to UAF faculty, staff, or students." It is Dr. DeLaca's view that these committees are "necessary, if not required, by existing and pending Federal regulations". I have asked the Faculty Affairs Committee to meet with Dr. DeLaca for discussion of this proposal. The Committee met on Friday, October 13, the substance of which discussion will be reported by Dr. Peter McRoy, Committee Chair. Dr. DeLaca's proposal concerning organizational details of an Office of Sponsored Programs and the proposed Research Integrity Committee is, in my view, unproblematic and reasonably to be supported. I have attended two meetings of the Research Integrity Committee and agree with Dr. DeLaca that the committee is useful in assuring communication between the various sector representatives. However, this is not the case at the moment with the proposal for a Research Ethics Committee. I have expressed my concerns to the Faculty Affairs Committee as follows. a.) UAF currently operates subject to University Policy P10.07.06 and the correlative university regulation R10.07.06 on "Misconduct in Research, Scholarly Work, and Creative Activity in the University". As Section E of the regulation states, "This regulation constitutes the exclusive review process for matters of alleged misconduct in university research...". Dr. DeLaca's proposal, as currently outlined, seemingly sets up a parallel review process. b.) The extant regulation distinguishes between "inquiries" and "investigations" of alleged misconduct. Each stage has its corresponding "inquiry panel" and "investigations panel". The language in section B.2 and C.2 makes it clear that these are Ad Hoc panels, with individuals serving on them having the requisite subject-matter expertise. Dr. DeLaca's proposal, as currently outlined, would put in place a standing committee to deal with allegations of misconduct. This seems to me inconsistent with the extant regulation. c.) The extant regulation at B.1.b assigns to the Provost the function of "designated university official" to whom allegations of misconduct are to be directed. Dr. DeLaca's proposal places the Research Integrity Officer in that position to the extent that the RIO would chair the proposed standing Research Ethics Committee. In short, Dr. DeLaca's proposal innovates upon an existing regulation and may contravene its exclusivity in process, depending on how this is to be implemented. Since this is a matter centrally of import to faculty, this cannot be a matter of unilateral administrative decision only. I wish to assure that there is the appropriate faculty review of Dr. DeLaca's proposal consistent with our operative process of shared governance. If we wish to proceed with Dr. DeLaca's proposal, then there needs to be the requisite revision to the University Regulation, with appropriate review and recommendation by the UAF Faculty Senate, and subsequent promulgation of the revised regulation by the University President. I have asked the Faculty Affairs Committee to review the relevant DHHS/PHS regulations/policy (42 C.F.R., Part 50, Subpart A) with a view to assessing the adequacy of the current UA regulation governing scientific misconduct. Alternatively, the PHS Office of Research Integrity provides "model policy" and "model procedures" documents that may minimize time here in our review, a copy of each of which documents I am making available to the Faculty Affairs Committee. I suggest that we proceed at this point by organizing an Ad Hoc Committee on Research Integrity for the purpose of reviewing and revising the UA regulation. I propose the Committee be chaired by Dr. Peter McRoy, with members of the Committee being -- a member of the Faculty Affairs Committee (in addition to Dr. McRoy), Dr. DeLaca, Mr. Mark Neumayr from the University Counsel's Office, Dr. Duffy and myself. This will be a useful opportunity for the Faculty Senate to be involved in policy/regulation drafting from the beginning rather than waiting for Statewide to do that work and thereafter solicit our comments. Accordingly, I recommend your careful attention to this matter with the appropriate deliberation and recommendation to follow from review of the issue by the Faculty Affairs Committee, and if there is agreement, from the Ad Hoc Committee. 2. Faculty Appeals & Oversight Issue: The Committee met on Monday, October 16, to conclude review of the process of evaluation of administrators. Having attended the meeting and participated in the deliberations, I think we have a version that responds adequately to the various interests involved. Accordingly, I recommend we move this forward as a motion to be passed at the October 30 meeting. Dr. Godwin Chukwu, Chair of the Faculty Appeals and Oversight Committee, will present his report, among which is the question of the list of deans/directors slated for evaluation. ******************** ATTACHMENT 97/3 UAF FACULTY SENATE #97 OCTOBER 30, 2000 SUBMITTED BY CORE REVIEW MOTION: ====== The UAF Faculty Senate moves to amend Section 3 (Article V: Committees, Permanent) of the Bylaws, as follows: CAPS - Addition [[ ]] - Deletion PERMANENT 7. 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 member from each of the core component areas: (Social Sciences, English, Humanities, Mathematics, Natural Sciences, [[and]] Communication, AND LIBRARY SCIENCE) and one faculty member from a non-core component area. Membership on the committee will include an undergraduate student. EFFECTIVE: Immediately RATIONALE: Library Science is a Core component area and should have full voting membership. ******************** ATTACHMENT 97/4 UAF FACULTY SENATE #97 OCTOBER 30, 2000 SUBMITTED BY GRADUATE ACADEMIC & ADVISORY COMMITTEE MOTION ======= The UAF Faculty Senate moves to approve the M.A. degree program in Cross-Cultural Studies. EFFECTIVE: Fall 2001 or Upon Board of Regents' Approval RATIONALE: See full program proposal on file in the Governance Office, 312 Signers' Hall. *************** Executive Summary MA, Cross-Cultural Studies The intent of this request is to convert the current Ed.S. in Cross- Cultural Education to an M.A. In Cross-Cultural Studies, to be administered through the Department of Alaska Native Studies and the Center for Cross-Cultural Studies, College of Liberal Arts, University of Alaska Fairbanks. This will serve to broaden the applicability and appeal of the degree/coursework currently available for graduate students under the Education Specialist degree to fields beyond education that also involve cross-cultural issues and utilize indigenous knowledge systems (e.g., ecological studies, natural resources, health care, community development, social services, justice, Native studies, etc.). The M.A. degree is also designed to incorporate and contribute to newly emerging bodies of scholarship that have much to offer in addressing critical needs of the state, and it will continue to be available to students by distance education, in combination with intensive seminars and summer courses on campus. These program changes will help to improve the quality and availability of services and provide for more efficient utilization of existing resources as current faculty contribute to the instructional and research functions associate with the reconstituted program. No additional faculty resources are required, since instructional/advising responsibilities previously associate with the Ed.S. program will be shifted to the M.A. program. In addition, the revised program draws on several existing courses and will continue to utilize the established distance education course delivery system. Graduate students in education who have already completed an M.Ed. degree but wish to pursue advanced work in "cross-cultural studies" will still be able to do so, but as a second master's degree, rather than at the post-masters level. Objective 1 - To extend graduate opportunities in cross-cultural studies to students outside Fairbanks and beyond the field of education, including people working in ecological sciences, natural resources management, health care, community development, social services, justice and Native Studies. Objective 2 - To provide research and advanced study opportunities in comparative knowledge systems, world views and ways of knowing. Objective 3 - To increase cross-cultural understanding through the dissemination of student/faculty research and cultural documentation. ******************** ATTACHMENT 97/5 UAF FACULTY SENATE #97 OCTOBER 30, 2000 SUBMITTED BY GRADUATE ACADEMIC & ADVISORY COMMITTEE MOTION ======= The UAF Faculty Senate moves to delete the Ed.S. EFFECTIVE: Fall 2001 or Upon Board of Regents' Approval RATIONALE: See full program proposal on file in the Governance Office, 312 Signers' Hall. *************** Executive Summary Education Specialist, Cross-Cultural Studies This request for the deletion of the Ed.S. degree reflects the reconstruction of the current Ed.S. in Cross-Cultural Education into an M.A. in Cross-Cultural Studies to broaden it applicability and appeal for graduate students in a greater variety of fields involving cross-cultural issues and indigenous knowledge systems, and to incorporate newly emerging bodies of scholarship that have much to contribute in addressing critical needs of the state. The Ed.S. has been a stand-alone degree within the UAF School of Education since the mid-1960s. It was initially created to provide a post- masters degree program for the preparation of school superintendents and was later expanded to include advanced study in the areas of cross- cultural education. Due to staffing reductions in the School of Education, the superintendents program was suspended in 1985, and then discontinued altogether at UAF when the responsibility for preparing school administrators was shifted to UAA in 1998. In the meantime, the Center for Cross-Cultural Studies (which had responsibility for the Ed.S. program in cross-cultural studies under SOE) was retained in the College of Liberal Arts when the School of Education was administratively shifted to the Graduate School in 1998, so this proposal is, in part, intended to bring the degree program in line with the academic unit under which it is to be administered. The impact of the proposed revision on student enrollment will be relatively minor, as only five students have completed the Ed.S. since 1990, and there are no active students enrolled in the program at the present time. Graduate students in education who have already completed an M.Ed. degree but wish to pursue advance work in "cross- cultural studies" will still be able to do so, but as a second master's degree or an interdisciplinary Ph.D., rather than at the post-masters level. ******************** ATTACHMENT 97/6 UAF FACULTY SENATE #97 OCTOBER 30, 2000 SUBMITTED BY FACULTY APPEALS & OVERSIGHT MOTION ====== The UAF Faculty Senate recommends that the "Guidelines for the Evaluation Process for Administrators" formulated by the Faculty Appeals and Oversight Committee be adopted for use by committees assigned the task of reviewing administrators. EFFECTIVE: Immediately RATIONALE: Each time an administrator is evaluated the committee assigned the task spends half their time developing a process for evaluation. This would save the committee time and also inform the administrators of the process prior to their evaluation. ************** GUIDELINES FOR THE EVALUATION PROCESS FOR ADMINISTRATORS 1. Within the first three weeks of the Fall Semester the Supervisor of the Administrator to be reviewed will appoint an Ad Hoc Administrator Review Committee consisting of three tenured faculty members and two staff members from the Administrator's unit. In the case of evaluation of the Dean of the Graduate School, the Provost will appoint an Ad Hoc Committee consisting of one faculty drawn from the UAF Faculty Senate's Graduate Academic & Advisory Committee, two graduate program department chairs, two Deans/Directors, and a student representative from the Graduate Student Organization. In the case of evaluation of the Dean of Students, the Provost will appoint an Ad Hoc Committee consisting of one faculty member from the UAF Faculty Senate's Curricular Affairs Committee and one faculty member from the Graduate Academic & Advisory Committee, two Deans/Directors, and one student representative from ASUAF and one student from the Graduate Student Organization. Additionally, two members of the UAF Faculty Appeals and Oversight Committee shall serve in an ex officio capacity as representatives of the Faculty Senate. The Ad Hoc Committee will solicit input from all relevant constituencies on- and off-campus, including faculty, staff, and students. This may be accomplished through various instruments, e.g., a standard questionnaire completed anonymously and returned to the Committee Chair. 2. The Administrator to be evaluated will prepare a narrative self-evaluation of activities performed during the three year period (academic years) prior to the year of evaluation or since the last evaluation. This narrative should include reflections about how adequately s/he has fulfilled responsibilities of leadership consistent with his/her own performance expectations and those of faculty, staff, and students in the unit. Major or otherwise significant accomplishments should be highlighted. Any issues raised in the last evaluation should be referenced with a view to what progress has been made on those items. Finally, the self-evaluation should identify a limited set of reasonable goals for the unit over the next three years, with some discussion about specific strategies that may be undertaken through his/her administrative leadership. 3. The Ad Hoc Committee will interview a select sample of faculty, staff, students and others as relevant for further evaluative comments about the Administrator's performance. 4. The Ad Hoc Committee will interview the Administrator either in person or by conference call. The interview shall proceed on the basis of a selected set of questions which reference the Administrator's self-evaluation, the results of returned questionnaires, and the interviews of faculty, staff, and students. 5. The Ad Hoc Committee will prepare an evaluative summary, and submit its report to the Provost (in the case of evaluation of Deans and Directors) or to the Chancellor (in the case of evaluation of the Provost). The Ad Hoc Committee shall work as expeditiously as possible in completing its report and submit it to the Provost or Chancellor by March 15 of the Spring Semester. The report shall be submitted also to the UAF Faculty Senate's Faculty Appeals & Oversight Committee for review. (a) At a date to be set by the Provost, the Provost shall meet in joint conference with the Ad Hoc Committee and the Faculty Appeals & Oversight Committee for final review, recommendations, and disposition of the Administrator's evaluation. An evaluative summary of the Ad Hoc Committee's report will be made available to the faculty and staff of the Administrator's unit upon written request to the appropriate supervisor. The supervisor of the administrator will then provide his/her formal evaluation taking into account the Ad Hoc Committee's report. (b) At a date to be set by the Chancellor, the Provost and the Chancellor shall meet to discuss the Ad Hoc Committee's evaluation of the Provost. During this meeting the Chancellor and Provost shall identify performance priorities for the next review period. The Chancellor shall meet in joint conference with the Ad Hoc Committee and the UAF Faculty Senate's Faculty Appeals & Oversight Committee to summarize his evaluation. The Chancellor shall prepare an executive summary of the Provost's evaluation to be made available to the University community upon written request to the Office of the Chancellor. ******************** ATTACHMENT 97/7 UAF FACULTY SENATE #97 OCTOBER 30, 2000 SUBMITTED BY ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION UAF has been conducting student satisfaction surveys on a regular basis since 1993. Results have been used to refine our enrollment management program and to improve selected services and programs students identified as weak. This research will provide additional information for improving recruitment, retention and self-evaluation of general institutional effectiveness. Additionally, the comparison of the employee survey with the student survey will aid in aligning employees with student expectations. This effort will help create a better relationship between students, faculty, staff and administration, thereby achieving a more ideal learning environment. DRAFT RESOLUTION =============== Whereas, in recent years there has been a movement nationwide as well as within the Alaska legislature to evaluate higher education using the market driven approach of consumer satisfaction. Whereas, a relationship has been shown to exist between a student's persistence and his or her expectations being met. Whereas, unmet expectations and low satisfaction appear to be the key factor in the attrition of students in good standing from institutions of higher learning. Whereas, it is a priority to attract and retain Alaskan students in the University of Alaska Fairbanks and keeping students satisfied while meeting their expectations, now, Therefore, Be it Resolved, That the UAF Faculty Senate supports the use of the Noel-Levitz Student Satisfaction Inventory which will examine the student expectations at the University of Alaska Fairbanks. Specifically, it will examine what is satisfying and important to UAF students, compare student ratings to national benchmark data and check student perceptions against those of faculty and staff, and Be It Further Resolved, That the UAF Faculty Senate encourages faculty whose classes are randomly selected to allow time to hand out the survey and to encourage students to return it at the next class period. --------------------------------------------- University of Alaska Statewide System 202 BUTROVICH BLDG P.O. BOX 755000 FAIRBANKS, ALASKA 99775-5000 PHONE: (907) 474-7311 FAX: (907) 474-6342 EMAIL: email@example.com October 11, 2000 Dear University Faculty and Staff: The University of Alaska needs your assistance in its enrollment management effort. As you know growing enrollment is a primary indicator of UA's success. During the second week of November, the Anchorage, Fairbanks, Juneau, Sitka, Mat-Su, Tanana Valley, and Kuskokwim campuses, will be administering a student satisfaction survey of their students. A total of 240 faculty will be asked to participate in this effort to survey 17 percent of the students on these campuses. The survey sample will cover all segments of campus students from non-traditional community campus students to traditional, full-time undergraduate students. In addition to the student survey, there is a complementary staff and faculty survey that will be distributed to 1,800 employees to ascertain faculty and staff perceptions of UA student satisfaction. UA will be using an instrument developed by the USA Group Noel-Levitz, one of the leading student retention consulting firms in the country. The advantage of using this instrument is that it is a nationally established survey that we will use over time to measure the effectiveness of UA's efforts toward improving student satisfaction. Additionally, many universities have participated nationally, and student satisfaction at UA can be compared to that of students from appropriate peer colleges and universities across the nation. In order to ensure a good cross section and adequate response from the students, specific faculty will be asked to allow the distribution of the survey during a class period in the first two weeks of November and to encourage students to respond. We are asking for distribution during class to assure an adequate response rate from the established sample of students (studies show response rate in class average 90 percent compared to less than 40 percent otherwise). This is the standard methodology used at other universities administering this survey. The complementary employee survey will be distributed and collected from departmental contacts. I appreciate your sincere effort in supporting the survey in your class and/or, if selected, filling out an employee survey. Over the next couple of weeks, the chancellor from your respective MAU will provide more information and possibly request your specific involvement in this project. Thank you in advance for your efforts toward improving the University of Alaska and your campus. Mark R. Hamilton President ******************** ATTACHMENT 97/8 UAF FACULTY SENATE #97 OCTOBER 30, 2000 SUBMITTED BY CORE REVIEW MOTION: ====== The UAF Faculty Senate moves to accept "The Bacccalaureate Experience: Core Curriculum Requirements" as updated by the Core Review Committee. EFFECTIVE: Immediately Upon Chancellor Approval RATIONALE: The Core Curriculum requirements were approved by the UAF Faculty Senate in April 1990 and this document was printed and distributed in August 1990. Since then the Senate has approved numerous changes and additions to the guidelines. This document includes all the changes and an updated philosophy statement. *************** CAPS - Addition [[ ]] - Deletion THE UAF BACCALAUREATE EXPERIENCE The Philosophy The pursuit of the baccalaureate degree in the TWENTY-FIRST [[late twentieth]] century is a formidable undertaking. Social change and the knowledge explosion create new disciplines and alter the conventions, content, methods, and the applications of existing disciplines. We in higher education have reacted to THESE PHENOMENA [[this phenomenon]] by promoting an ever-growing curriculum of specialized majors, often at the expense of the basic liberal ARTS education concept of unity of knowledge as expressed by a common core of intellectual experiences. As UAF students advance toward a degree goal they, too, encounter an array of general education and specialized curriculum offerings by the University. IN ORDER TO ASSURE THAT THE BACCALAUREATE EXPERIENCE OF ALL UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA FAIRBANKS STUDENTS REFLECTS THE ACADEMIC PHILOSOPHY OF A LIBERAL ARTS EDUCATION, THE UNIVERSITY HAS CREATED A CORE CURRICULUM. THE CORE CURRICULUM IS DESIGNED TO INCLUDE THE INTELLECTUAL EXPERIENCES CONSIDERED ESSENTIAL FOR ALL UAF STUDENTS, REGARDLESS OF ACADEMIC MAJOR OR CAREER ASPIRATIONS. [[If these encounters are to reflect a clear learning purpose, then the curriculum must reflect a clearly stated academic philosophy defining the meaning and purpose of the baccalaureate degree at the University of Alaska Fairbanks. Formulation of this philosophy starts directly with this question: What intellectual experiences shall be deemed essential for all UAF students, regardless of academic major or career aspirations.]] THE CORE CURRICULUM WILL BE SUSTAINED IN QUALITY THROUGH AN ON-GOING PROCESS OF STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOMES ASSESSMENT. THE ASSESSMENT WILL BE CONDUCTED AND REPORTED BY THE CORE REVIEW COMMITTEE OF THE FACULTY SENATE, ACCORDING TO THE PLAN APPROVED BY THE FACULTY SENATE. On the Conduct of Intellectual Inquiry. The development of the intellect is a basic aim of the baccalaureate degree. The University experience must demand more than [["recipe knowledge," that is,]] the rote learning of material currently held to be "factual" and of the elemental "mechanics" of applied knowledge. What must be emphasized are intellectual activities which connect the mental processes of critical thinking and problem solving, and which explore certain metaphysical issues in knowledge creation. Problem solving is a constant feature of human existence and we expect a learned demonstration of an intellectual ability to [[systematically]]design and conduct critical inquiry SYSTEMATICALLY. To arrive at plausible answers or solutions requires first having plausible questions - an analysis task built on abstract conceptualization, logical reasoning, and [[on]] the [[exegesis]] EXPLANATION AND INTERPRETATION of appropriate text material. Finally, the opportunity for synthesizing knowledge must be present. The ultimate form of knowing is the perception and articulation of the "pattern" - of the significant relationships among pieces of knowledge. The synthesizing exercise should stimulate creative work and, hopefully, the joy of intellectual discovery and accomplishment. Advanced Literacy in Language and Mathematics. Functional literacy is not, IN ITSELF, a goal of university education. Regardless of the skill levels in English and Mathematics students bring to the University, they must experience an educational process that pushes them beyond the functional to advanced levels. For language literacy this means multi-dimensional competency in the use of English: 1) the critical comprehension of complex reading material; 2) the preparation of clear, organized, and soundly reasoned statements in a variety of written forms; and 3) the capability, [[and]] confidence, AND [[to]] COMPETENCE TO PARTICIPATE BOTH ORALLY AND AURALLY [[orally participate]] in public forums. Advanced literacy in mathematics implies a solid grasp of quantitative reasoning and appreciation of mathematical applications. Most important is acquiring the knowledge necessary for informed judgements on the uses of mathematical [[and statistical]] interpretations confronting us in everyday life. Inherent in these advanced literacies is an empowering process. Achievement of the range of competencies comprising these fields of study represents real personal power. [[It is a power which]] THE POWER GAINED BY DEVELOPING SUCH COMPETENCIES keys success, satisfaction, and greater self-determination throughout the total academic experience and in the CONTEMPORARY [[modern]] world. The Nature and Use of Science. At its heart, "science" represents [[a]] distinct approachES to the study, explanation, AND UNDERSTANDING of both the natural and social worlds. College-level work in the sciences should foster an intellectual comfort with different [[aspects of the]] scientific methodS [[such as the quest for objectivity, hypothesis building and testing]] and with the SCIENTIFIC [[explanatory]] functions of theory. Facility with the [[quantitative manipulations and measures associated with basic]] USES OF RESEARCH IN scientific enterprises is an important part of this academic process. The student should become closely acquainted with the larger intellectual frameworks[[,]] which have nurtured the development of scientific thought, including the ways we have come to understand and articulate [[the]] ITS basic concepts [[of these frameworks]]. [[No student, for example, should graduate without a fundamental understanding of evolutionary theory because its major assumptions and propositions have triggered substantial work in virtually every other discipline. Einstein's theory of relativity is another such framework.]] NO PARAGRAPH BREAK While particular emphasis is placed on SCIENTIFIC APPROACHES [[the scientific approach in its various forms]], adequate attention should be given to other traditions of human inquiry, both empirical and non-empirical. In CONTEMPORARY [[modern]] times, technological developments [[have had]] ARE HAVING an enormous impact on all facets of the world's ecosystems, raising philosophical and ethical questions critical to the making of humane public policy. These are questions that simply will not go away and should CONTINUE TO BE DEALT WITH DIRECTLY [[be directly dealt with]] in the natural and social science curriculums. Studies in History, Language, and Culture. In one sense, we all are members of a "global village" because of [[almost]] instantaneous communication networks, speedy transportation systems, and interlocking world economies. But in another sense, we live in a highly uncertain and fragmented world comprising a multitude of differing historical and cultural traditions. We all have a history which has shaped the way we define ourselves as cultural, linguistic, and national groups. For the American university, the study of Western civilization, including the culturally pluralistic tradition of America, is an essential prerequisite to related studies of our contemporary cultural consciousness and major social institutions. However, we must go beyond this to the comparative study of non-Western history and culture since it ultimately has the chance of making more comprehensible intentional complexities and certain seemingly intractable conditions such as war, poverty, and oppression. The comparative study of history and culture also [[should]] WILL include content that forces a critical examination of how the shared images, values, and convictions of a cultural group directly form the fundamental assumptions by which people make sense of everyday life and of the world around them. This kind of intellectual journey will raise many issues about value formation, the power of cultural identity, and the sources of ethnocentrism. The most sanguine presumption is that at journey's end, there will be more than mere tolerance for cultural differences. Rather, there will emerge a solid understanding and appreciation for different cultural traditions AND THE WAYS THAT EXPOSURE TO CULTURAL DIFFERENCES CAN ENHANCE OUR EVERYDAY LIVES. [[and the way history has mixed many of these traditions into multicultural societies.]] Finally, there exists [[one other]] ANOTHER literacy pertinent to being a citizen of the CONTEMPORARY [[modern]] world - the development of a basic competence in a foreign or non-English language. Together with the pure intellectual benefits of the learning exercise (and there are many), facility in a second language opens a very large window to real experiences in different cultural realities. UAF STUDENTS WILL BE ENCOURAGED TO RECOGNIZE BOTH THE PERSONAL AND PROFESSIONAL BENEFITS OF COMPETENCY IN OTHER LANGUAGES. Humanistic Expressions. It is the humanistic study of aesthetics, literature, and ideas that reveals the full meaning of being human. Unfortunately, it is precisely the humanities which the [[modern]] technocratic worldview has most de- emphasized. Nowhere else in the curriculum are the human senses and emotions so completely engaged as in the study of literature, the visual and performing arts, and philosophic discourse. Moreover, humanistic expressions are cultural products vividly portraying the salient realities of a particular people at a particular time. For example, the prose and poetry of a historical period can bring the human condition to life in ways the literal style of textbooks cannot. It is in this realm of learning that beauty, creativity, and the powers of the human imagination and intellect are most directly encountered and shared through time. Within this domain, the question of values becomes significant. Much of everyday life is spent dealing with value ambiguity. People continually must make decisions within multiple environments loaded with conflicting moral possibilities. Then they must bear responsibility for the consequences of their decisions. Through [[enculturation]] THEIR LIVED CULTURAL EXPERIENCE people develop a set of principles to guide the making of these real-life choices. These principles---and everybody has them and uses them constantly-reflect the core values and moral standards each of us believe we live by (or try to live by). [[Enculturation, hence]] Value formation, derives collectively from the ethos of those social institutions in which people spend good portions of their lives - the family, the church, peer groups, and schools, including the university. [[At a university, students should directly confront the nature of values.]] AT THE UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA FAIRBANKS, STUDENTS WILL DIRECTLY ENGAGE THE NATURE OF VALUES IN THEIR BACCALAUREATE EXPERIENCE. The cultural values of society - of humankind - are for learning and for debating. The ultimate benefit if this exercise depends on the way we use it to reflect upon and refine our own personal codes of conduct. Content Concentration. Intellectual concentration in a specific discipline serves as conceptual anchor to the baccalaureate experience and as the professional foundation of the student's post-baccalaureate career. The major field or area of specialization is where we expect the intellectual development of a solid grounding in a defined body of knowledge. Instruction in the advanced aspects of the field is an integral part of this undertaking; but full understanding is not gained without directed independent study and synthesizing activities. Also, each specialized field of study should examine the ethics and values associated with the application of its methods and knowledge. ******************** ATTACHMENT 97/9 UAF FACULTY SENATE #97 OCTOBER 30, 2000 SUBMITTED BY FACULTY AFFAIRS FACULTY AFFAIRS MEETING REPORT, 12 Oct 2000 - C.P. McRoy, Chair Members Present: C.P. McRoy (chair); M. Davis; B. Mortensen Visitors: N. Swazo; T. DeLaca New Business: Change of meeting date and place for November: 16 Nov @ 3pm in Wood Center Conf A 1) Research Integrity Drs. Swazo and DeLaca attended the meeting to discuss the formation of the proposed "UAF Research Ethics Committee". The concern expressed by Dr. Swazo was whether the proposal creates a review process for matters of alleged misconduct that is parallel to that specified by University Policy P10.07. and regulation R 10.07.06. Dr. DeLaca's proposal is in response to new developments in Federal regulations and the coordination of research misconduct investigations by the Office of Science and Technology Policy and Office of Management and Budget. An explicit set of rules and regulations with severe penalties exists for such activities. It is essential that UAF be in compliance with the requirements. The Faculty Affairs Committee (Mortensen & McRoy) will obtain the Federal Regulations on misconduct in research for review and action relative to University policy by the committee. Old Business 2) Sabbatical Leave Policy (Weins) - Postponed 3) Research Faculty (McRoy) - Postponed 4) Emeritus Procedure (Mortensen) - This is no longer an issue for FA. 5) Information Resources Regulation - No action Other business: Term Faculty Promotions: J. Leipzig will attend the November meeting to present this issue. ******************** ATTACHMENT 97/10 UAF FACULTY SENATE #97 OCTOBER 30, 2000 SUBMITTED BY GRADUATE ADVISORY & ACADEMIC COMMITTEE Graduate Advisory and Academic Committee - Jim Gardner, Chair GAAC met September 27, 2000: those attending were Gimbel, Eicken, Kan, Richmond, Murray, Lincoln, Lin, Sankaran, Reynolds, Gregory, and Gardner. The committee also met on October 9, 2000: those attending were Gimbel, Murray, Sankaran, Mason, Konar, Gregory, and Gardner. Both meetings focused mainly on the proposal for an M.A. in Cross- Cultural Studies, submitted by Ray Barnhardt through the Department of Alaska Native Studies and the Center for Cross-Cultural Studies. Ray, Phyllis Fast, and George Charles attended the 10/9 meeting in order to present the proposal to the committee and answer any questions from the committee. At the end of the 10/9 meeting, a public vote was taken of the committee members and the proposal was passed 3-2 (1 abstain). With the approval of this proposal, the already passed proposal to delete the Ed.S. specialist degree in Cross-Cultural Studies is also advanced to the full Faculty Senate. At the 9/27 meeting, Joe Kan (Graduate School Dean) submitted a proposal to the committee to increase the minimum requirements for completion of a UAF Ph.D. to include passing both written and oral comphrensive examinations. This proposal will be further discussed at a future meeting of the committee. It was also brought to the attention of the committee that the fee for submitting graduate applications to UAF has been increased from $35 to $50. The committee discussed the merits of this increase, and will seek an explaination for the increase. No other business was discussed and the committee adjourned. ******************** ATTACHMENT 97/11 UAF FACULTY SENATE #97 OCTOBER 30, 2000 SUBMITTED BY CORE REVIEW CORE Review Committee Report - Jin Brown, Chair The Committee has met twice. New members were introduced and our progress in the on-going assessment of the CORE Curriculum was discussed. Mathematics and the Natural Sciences will be doing their alternate year assessment during this academic year. Other areas of the CORE were assessed last year. Also, in regard to assessment, the Committee was informed that we have been asked to do a "notebook" in regard to the accreditation process. That work will be addressed as this year progresses. In the first meeting, we determined that conditions, particularly enrollment, have changed, and that our move to set the CORE Curriculum into a moratorium has been abandoned. We will consider new courses for the CORE Curriculum, with the understanding that there is broad sentiment that to further expand the CORE is at the point of "watering down" the original idea, and must be considered with great care. The Committee and invited others (from University Relations, Governance, the Graduation Office, and the Advising Center) were given the opportunity to view the CORE Curriculum web site that has been under construction through the summer. Suggestions were given at that meeting and are being incorporated into the site. The site will be interlinked to other pertinent UAF sites. A motion was sent to the Senate to redress a minor point of the By-laws. The library member of CORE Review has always been (with no clear explanation of why) an Ex Officio member of the Committee. We have moved that the Library chair of the Committee be given voting membership. In that the Library course of the CORE Curriculum is a required course and in that all other required areas have voting membership we feel that this matter needs redressing. Over the past year, Sheri Layral has worked to update the original document of the CORE Curriculum to incorporate changes since the 1990 document was released. In doing so, Sheri found that while the individual pieces of that 1990 document were each approved by the Senate, the document in whole was never so ordained. In our last meeting, the CORE Review Committee completed and voted upon an updating of the Philosophy statement that precedes the CORE Requirements. The updated document as a whole is now complete and CORE Review has submitted a motion to the Senate to accept the document in total for the first time (to include all updating of the original). The Committee has asked Sheri Layral to collect syllabi from every course offered during the semester that carries the CORE designation. The Committee will begin regular review of syllabi to ensure that courses carrying the CORE designation are still inclusive of the standards that originally gained those courses CORE designation. There is some feeling that courses, particularly "O" and "W" courses, may have drifted over the years as they have changed professors. We feel that some level of checking is appropriate. The Committee continues its day-to-day work in hearing petitions and approving courses for the CORE ("O" and "W" designations). ******************** ATTACHMENT 97/12 UAF FACULTY SENATE #97 OCTOBER 30, 2000 SUBMITTED BY FACULTY APPEALS & OVERSIGHT Report of the second meeting of the Faculty Appeals and Oversight Committee (10/16/00) - Godwin Chukwu, Chair Present: Godwin A. Chukwu, SME; Brian Himelbloom, SFOS/FITC; Ed Husted, CRA; George Khazanov, CSEM; Mitch Roth, CSEM Guests: Joe Kan, Paul Reichardt, Norm Swazo Absent: Kristy Long, CRA/ACE; Joan Moessner, CLA; Oscar Kawagley, SOEd; Dennis Schall, SOEd; Rick Steiner, SFOS-MAP; Madeline Schatz, CLA Committee Membership The present committee consists of eleven (11) positions representing the units. The following schools/colleges still have vacant positions to be filled: SOM (2) SALRM (2) SME (1) Sheri Layral has notified the Deans of these schools/colleges to elect representatives to fill the positions. Madeline Schatz is the new CLA representative in the committee. Old Business 1. (a). The Provost pointed out some "wordings" in the "Guidelines for the Evaluation Process of Administrators" which might have some legal implications. His comments were considered during the committee's further deliberations on the issue. (b). The Provost confirmed the names of the three Administrators that will be evaluated during the 2000/2001 review period (Executive Dean of College of Rural Alaska; Dean of School of Fisheries and Ocean Sciences; Dean of Graduate School). The hire date of the other Administrators will be provided to the committee by the Provost in order to prepare a roster of evaluation period for all the Administrators. 2. (a). The committee deliberated on the evaluation process for Administrators and recommends the ATTACHED version. (b). There was a discussion on whether the Vice-Chancellor for Administrative Services should be included in the list of Administrators to be evaluated. Majority of the committee members maintain that the Vice-Chancellor has both staff and research links to the faculty, and therefore should be evaluated. The committee decided to refer the matter to the Administrative committee of the Faculty Senate for further discussion and clarification. New Business Joe Kan (Dean of Graduate School) was invited to share his views on the appeal procedure for candidates rejected for admission into the graduate program. He cited situations that would necessitate his overturning Faculty Review Committee's recommendation supporting candidate's application for admission to the graduate program. The Faculty Appeals & Oversight Committee recommends that the same procedure for "Appeals Policy for Academic Decisions" should apply in this case with the following amendment: the word STUDENT should be replaced with CANDIDATE where appropriate. ******************** ATTACHMENT 97/13 UAF FACULTY SENATE #97 OCTOBER 30, 2000 SUBMITTED BY FACULTY DEVELOPMENT, ASSESSMENT & IMPROVEMENT Faculty Development, Assessment & Improvement Committee Meeting Report The Faculty Development, Assessment & Improvement committee held its second meeting on September 26, 2000 as an audio-conference from 11:30 - 12:30 in the Chancellor's Conference Room. Those present: B. Cooper, L. Curda, R. Dupras, D. McLean-Nelson, E. T. Robinson, A. Rybkin, J. Collins, R. Norris-Tull, C. Price. Absent: B. Butcher and J. Morrison. Two items were circulated prior to the meeting: Summary Report of 1999/2000 Faculty Reviews by Provost Reichardt and the Memorandum of Understanding between the University of Alaska and the Union as to Article 9, Faculty Status:Appointment, Evaluation, Promotion, Tenure, and Termination. Carol Gold, History, was the guest of the committee. Her involvement with Article 9 and her interest in faculty development made her a logical choice to discuss the Article and related items. Introductions were made as the meeting was called to order by chair, E. T. Robinson. The new meeting time appears to serve the committee well and those present favored the conference room as our meeting place. Carol Gold highlighted the areas contained in Article 9. A very lively and informative discussion followed with a number of items addressed. Article 9 in synopsis form deals with 9.1 Faculty Appointment, 9.2 Evaluation, 9.3 Responsibilities, Rights, and Privileges of Tenure, and 9.4 Termination of Appointment. The discussion centered on 9.2 evaluation as this is of most concern and interest and comprises the majority of the document. Items and concerns related to evaluation were to make the process a useful exercise for both the faculty member and the University of Alaska Fairbanks. Some approaches this committee may consider are to seek innovative and effective ways to determine the performance of faculty. Getting faculty development up and running with a renewed emphasis is a positive step forward. There are number of items to address from review of annual activity report formats to the procedures to be followed with post tenure review. The procedure of voting at all levels for post tenure review should be addressed. The desire is to make the effort of evaluation a positive process for all concerned. Providing helpful feedback in the peer review process needs emphasis. Merit as an issue and in the process was discussed. Salary compression and market adjustment in a number of areas remain concerns A number of items will be discussed at the next meeting including, but not limited to, speakers, instruction assessment surveys, and items from the last meeting to address the evaluation process. The next meeting is to be held at 11:30 - 12:30, Tuesday, October 17, in the Chancellor's conference room. It should be noted that the committee welcomes and invites interested faculty to join the membership. Contact the governance office (7964) or chair, E T Robinson at 6526 or firstname.lastname@example.org. The meeting was adjourned. Respectfully submitted, E. Thomas Robinson ******************** ATTACHMENT 97/14 UAF FACULTY SENATE #97 OCTOBER 30, 2000 SUBMITTED BY CURRICULAR AFFAIRS Curricular Affairs Committee Meeting Report - Ron Illingworth, Chair The Curricular Affairs committee held meetings on September 27 and October 11, 2000 as an audioconference from 1100 to 1205. Our next meeting is scheduled for 25 October, 2000 from 1100-1200. All meetings will be audioconferenced as well as face to face as several members of the committee are from outside Fairbanks. We began by addressing prioritized issues from our list of issues for discussion this year. Issue 1: Course prerequisites - are they accurate and valid in the catalog and can they be enforced? Status: The Registrar's office has devised a memo which will be sent to each department and which will identify the prerequisites for each course listed in the catalog. Departments will be requested to verify the validity and accuracy of these prerequisites. Their input will be returned to the Registrar's office and the catalog updated. Then, during registration, the Registrar's office will run a program which will check a student's records with the prerequisites listed for the course. Students will not be restricted from classes solely on the basis of this computer generated sort. However, questionable areas will be identified to the instructor for resolution before the beginning of the class. This process will be beta tested in the Engineering Department before implementation. Issue 2: Status of formation of BAS oversight committee. Status: This committee of the Faculty Senate has not yet been formed. In its place several ad hoc committees are attempting to guide the development of the BAS. This operation seems to be occurring outside of Senate intentions. Senate leadership intervention appears to be necessary to either change the Senate position or to bring these ad hoc committees together under Senate leadership. Issue 3: Institutional integrity in the area of course offerings shown in the catalog Status: Two different lists have been produced; one by Institutional Research and one from the Registrar's office. There are differences between the two lists. The Registrar's list will be provided, with a cover memo, to the College and School Deans for their distribution to their departments. The listing contains courses which may be subject to consideration for removal/elimination based on their not having been offered since 1997. This will be an expedited process outside of the normal course approval process. However, all recommendations will be reviewed by the Curriculum Review Committee prior to any removal/elimination action. Issue 4: Transfer credit meeting core requirements for the AAS. Status: A draft proposal is being created and will be presented at the next meeting of the Curricular Affairs Committee on 25 October, 2000. Existing policy covers the bachelor's degree but does not address students who possess a bachelor's degree from another institution and come to UAF to acquire an AAS. Issue 5: Minor student enrollment in University courses Status: This is a carry-over from last years discussions. The committee is agreed to the need for clarification of this policy. A draft will be presented at the next Curricular Affairs Committee meeting on 25 October, 2000. Policies affecting both dual-enrollment and the AHEAD program are being reviewed. Fred Dyen from the Tanana Valley Campus, submitted a Transfer Credit Equivalency request for adding the US Army Cold Weather Leaders and Ski Trainers Course as an option for AVTY 231, Arctic Survival course. This was unanimously approved.