FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT:
	Sheri Layral
	312 Signers' Hall
	474-7964   FYSENAT

For Audioconferencing:  Bridge #:  1-877-751-8040  (Passcode:  512265)
			Fairbanks:  474-8050  (Chair's Passcode:  802028)

A G E N D A
UAF FACULTY SENATE MEETING #113
Monday, February 3, 2003
1:00 p.m. - 3:15 p.m.
Wood Center Carol Brown Ballroom

1:00	I	Call to Order – Godwin Chukwu      			  5 Min.
		A.	Roll Call
		B.	Approval of Minutes to Meeting #111 & 112
		C.	Adoption of Agenda

1:05	II	Status of Chancellor's Office Actions 		  5 Min.
		A.	Motions Approved:  
			1.	Motion to amend Section 3 (Article V: 
				Committees, Permanent) of the Bylaws 
				pertaining to the Developmental Studies 
				Committee membership.
			2.	Motion to delete the B.A. in Human Services.
			3.	Motion to approve a Minor in Environmental 
				Politics.
			4.	Motion to approve a B.S. in Computer 
				Engineering.
			5.	Motion to amend the A.A.S. degree 
				requirements.
			6.	Motion to amend the Certificate program 
				requirements.
			7.	Motion to delete the M.A.T., Secondary.
			8.	Motion to delete the M.A.T., Secondary 
				Licensed Teachers.
		B.	Motions Pending:  none

1:10	III	A.	Remarks by Chancellor M. Lind   		10 Min.
		B.	Dr. Corene Schwartz, Athletic Director   	10 Min.
		C.	Tonya Trabant, Career Services		  5 Min.

1:35 	IV	A.	Rural Campus comments  			15 Min.
		B.	Public Comments/Questions 			  5 Min.

1:55	V	Governance Reports
	A.	President-elect's Comments - P. Pinney		  5 Min. 
	B.	President's Report - G. Chukwu     			  5 Min.
	C.	Staff Council - L. Ledlow 				  5 Min.
	D.	ASUAF -D. Miller / GSO - 		    		  5 Min.
	E. 	Eva Kopacz, Faculty Liaison				  5 Min.

2:20		***BREAK***						10 Min

2:30	VI	New Business						25 Min.
	A.	Motion on Low Grade Reports, submitted by Curricular 
		Affairs (Attachment 113/1)
	B.	Motion to approve a Certificate and A.A.S. in Educator:  
		Paraprofessional, submitted by Curricular Affairs 
		(Attachment 113/2)
	C.	Motion to amend the baccalaureate Core Curriculum, 
		submitted by Core Review (Attachment 113/3)
	D.	Motion to approve adding ENGL 211 or 213 as a prerequisite 
		for all Writing Intensive courses, submitted by Core Review 
		(Attachment 113/4)
	E.	Motion to approve the Unit Criteria for the School of Mineral 
		Engineering, submitted by the Ad Hoc Committee on Unit 
		Criteria (Attachment 113/5)

2:55	VII	Committee Reports 					15 Min.
	A.	Curricular Affairs - R. Illingworth (Attachment 113/6)
	B.	Faculty Affairs - P. McRoy
	C.	Graduate Academic & Advisory Committee – M. Murray
	D.	Core Review - D. Schamel (Attachment 113/7)
	E.	Curriculum Review - G. Holton
	F.	Developmental Studies - J. Weber (Attachment 113/8)
	G.	Faculty Appeals & Oversight - P. Layer 
	H.	Faculty Development, Assessment & Improvement – 
			A. Bult-Ito (Attachment 113/9)
	I.	Ad Hoc Committee on Unit Criteria - G. Holton

3:10	VIII	Members' Comments/Questions			  5 Min.

3:15	IX	Adjournment

ATTACHMENT 113/1
UAF Faculty Senate #113
February 3, 2003
SUBMITTED BY CURRICULAR AFFAIRS

MOTION:
======

The UAF Faculty Senate moves to change the Low Grade Report system for freshmen students to Freshmen Progress Reports, in which all freshman grades would be reported.   

	EFFECTIVE:  	Fall 2003

	RATIONALE:    	The eight faculty and other staff members of 
		the Early Warning Program recommended this change as 
		part of an overall effort to provide personal intervention 
		in a more positive assistance approach rather than what 
		might appear as punitive.  Specific issues forwarded by 
		this group include:

o	All faculty and instructors teaching classes with freshmen enrolled should submit Freshmen Progress Reports for all freshmen, not just for those who are doing poorly
o	This switch from Low Grade Reports to Freshmen Progress Reports will assist all freshmen with the transition into college and provide an additional connection between students and faculty
o	To make the process expedient, timely, and user-friendly, Freshmen Progress Reports should be available for faculty and instructors to submit electronically
o	Students should be able to access their individual progress report electronically, as well as continued mailings to students at their current local address
o	Freshmen Progress Reports need to be formatted in a clear and concise manner to eliminate extraneous information.
o	The report will be provided to students at all UAF campuses.

ATTACHMENT 113/2
UAF Faculty Senate #113
February 3, 2003
SUBMITTED BY CURRICULAR AFFAIRS

MOTION:
======

The UAF Faculty Senate moves to approve a Certificate and A.A.S. in Educator:  Para-Professional which includes 12 new courses. 

	EFFECTIVE:  	Fall 2003 or 
			Upon Board of Regents' Approval

	RATIONALE: 	See full program proposal #41-52 and #53-54 
			on file in the Governance Office, 312 Signers’ Hall.

			Certificate consists of general requirements of
			12 credits, 8 credits of certificate core,
			10 credits of program requirements for total of
			30 credits.

			AAS consists of AAS degree requirements of 12
			credits, 18 credits of program requirements, and
			12 credits in a concentration area (Alaska Native
			Languages, Elementary Education, Special Education,
			Counseling/Social Work, Early Childhood
			Education, Microcomputer Support Specialist,
			Rural Development), and 18 elective credits to total 
			60 credits.

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

Executive Summary
Certificate & A.A.S., Educator:  Para-Professional

The Educator:  Para-Professional program is designed to prepare students to work in K-12 classrooms assisting the classroom teacher.  The EDPA curriculum emphasizes school protocols, classroom methods, management, and assessment.  The EDPA Program will provide the student the opportunity to develop the skills and qualities required for employment in a variety of educational settings.  

The program was developed in consultation with school district personnel from the College of Rural Alaska service area, para-professionals, and state representatives from the Department of Education and Early Development under the guidance of the University of Alaska Fairbanks School of Education faculty.  

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

41.	NEW COURSE:  EDPA 110 - Introduction to Para-Professional Education (2+0) 2 credits; offered As Demand Warrants; effective Fall 2003 or upon BOR approval.  
42.	NEW COURSE:  EDPA 120 - Classroom Management (2+0) 2 credits; offered As Demand Warrants; effective Fall 2003 or upon BOR approval.  
43.	NEW COURSE:  EDPA 130 - Differentiating Instruction (2+0) 2 credits; may be repeated 2 times; offered As Demand Warrants; effective Fall 2003 or upon BOR approval.
44.	NEW COURSE:  EDPA 140 - Developing Children as Writers (1+0) 1 credit; compressed to 1-3 weeks; may be repeated 3 times; graded Pass/Fail; offered As Demand Warrants; effective Fall 2003 or upon BOR approval.
45.	NEW COURSE:  EDPA 150 - Developing Children as Readers (1+0) 1 credit; compressed to 1-3 weeks; may be repeated 3 times; graded Pass/Fail; offered As Demand Warrants; effective Fall 2003 or upon BOR approval.
46.	NEW COURSE:  EDPA 160 - Primary Math methods (1+0) 1 credit; compressed to 1-3 weeks; offered As Demand Warrants; effective Fall 2003 or upon BOR approval.
47. 	NEW COURSE:  EDPA 170 - Upper Elementary Math Methods (1+0) 1 credit; compressed to 1-3 weeks; may be repeated 3 times; graded Pass/Fail; offered As Demand Warrants; effective Fall 2003 or upon BOR approval.
48.	NEW COURSE:  EDPA 190 - Integrating Local Knowledge into the Curriculum (1+0) 1 credit; compress to 1-3 weeks; may be repeated 4 times; graded Pass/Fail; offered As Demand Warrants; effective Fall 2003 or upon BOR approval.
49.	NEW COURSE:  EDPA 199 - Practicum I , 1 credit; compressed to 3 weeks; may be repeated 2 times; graded Pass/Fail; offered As Demand Warrants; effective Fall 2003 or upon BOR approval.
50.	NEW COURSE:  EDPA 210 - Technology in the Classroom (.5+1) 1 credit; may be repeated 2 times; offered As Demand Warrants; effective Fall 2003 or upon BOR approval.
51.	NEW COURSE:  EDPA 250 - Current Topics for Educators (1+0) 1 credit; compressed to 1 week; may be repeated 6 times; graded Pass/Fail; offered As Demand Warrants; effective Fall 2003 or upon BOR approval.
52.	NEW COURSE:  EDPA 299 - Practicum II , 1 credit; compressed to 3 weeks; may be repeated 2 times; graded Pass/Fail; offered As Demand Warrants; effective Fall 2003 or upon BOR approval.

REGENTS GUIDELINES

Board of Regents Summary Form

MAU:	University of Alaska Fairbanks 
College of Rural Alaska, Interior-Aleutians Campus

Title and brief description:	Educator:  Para-Professional (EDPA)
	Certificate in Educator:  Para-Professional
	A.A.S. in Educator:  Para-Professional

The Educator:  Para-Professional Program is designed to prepare students to work in K-12 classrooms assisting the classroom teacher. The EDPA curriculum emphasizes school protocols, classroom methods, management, and assessment. The EDPA Program will provide the student the opportunity to develop the skills and qualities required for employment in a variety of educational settings.

The program was developed in consultation with school district personnel from the College of Rural Alaska service area, para-professionals, and state representatives from the Department of Education and Early Development under guidance of the University of Alaska Fairbanks faculty.

Target Admission Date: 	Fall, 2003

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

How does the program relate to the Education Mission of the University of Alaska?

The mission of the EDPA program is to provide academic and hands-on, skill-based education to students through flexible course delivery methods to meet the needs of both Alaska’s rural and urban based students. To this end the program meets the vocational-technical educational responsibility of the University of Alaska Fairbanks and directly affects the following UAF 2005 Strategic Plan Goals:
•	Provide high quality undergraduate education for traditional and non-traditional students
•	Form active collaborations with communities, organizations, businesses, and government to meet identified state, national, and global needs
•	Serve as a premiere higher educational center for Alaska Natives
•	Serve as a model to demonstrate how gender, race, and cultural diversity strengthen a university and society

Describe the State Needs being met by this program.

As of fall 2002, there are 2,481 FTE para-professional educators in the state of Alaska. To be in compliance with the Act, each local educational agency receiving assistance under Title I must ensure that all para-professional educators have:
a.	completed at least 2 years of study at an institution of higher education;
b.	obtained an associate's (or higher) degree; or 
c.	met a rigorous standard of quality and can demonstrate, through a formal State or local academic  assessment:  (i) knowledge of, and the ability to assist in instructing, reading, writing, and mathematics; or (ii) knowledge of, and the ability to assist in instructing, reading readiness, writing readiness, and  mathematics readiness, as appropriate. 
These requirements must be met by existing para-professional educators by January 2006. As of January 2002, no new para-professional educators may be hired unless they have met these requirements.

The EDPA Program was developed to improve educational content and classroom based skills of the para-professional educator, and to meet the requirements for para-professional educators established by the federal No Child Left Behind Act of 2002. Completion of the coursework proposed for the Educator:  Para-Professional Program will also meet and exceed the draft State of Alaska Core Competency Standards for para-professional educators developed in 2002. This program will contribute to an educated Alaskan workforce by providing a cadre of para-professional educators

What are the Student opportunities and outcomes?  The enrollment projections?

The EDPA program provides a career ladder opportunity for Alaskans to enter teaching and other related fields. The following concentration area options (in addition to general requirements and program requirements) are available:  Native Language, Elementary Education, Special Education, Counseling/Social Work, Early Childhood Education, Microcomputer Support Specialist, Rural Development, or other advisor approved, discipline-based concentration area. 

Enrollment Estimates CRA wide:

Year	Headcount*	Graduates	
03-04	78	20	
04-05	86	56	
05-06	94	61	
06-07	104	68	
07-08	114	74	

* Includes both full and part time

Describe the Research opportunities, if applicable.

While research is not a primary focus of this program, the delivery modes and utilization of local school district teachers as university instructors make the program a unique model which can be shared throughout the academic community. This program will provide long range research opportunities to compare the improvement of targeted Title I students before and after the required education of para-professional educators, the number of EDPA students transitioning into a four year program, specifically a teacher program and the comparison of rural/urban, Native, non-Native students to program completion. 

Identify any additional Faculty and Staff requirements as well as any existing expertise and resources that will be applied.

The primary faculty/program coordinator will be hired through the Interior-Aleutians Campus Title III Grant program. Other faculty will be secured from the teaching staff of rural extended campuses as well as school district teachers, administrators and other experts and professionals qualified to teach specific courses.

Identify the impacts on existing Technology and Facilities as well as projected needs.

The faculty/program coordinator to be hired to head the EDPA program may reside anywhere within the region served by the Interior-Aleutians Campus, thus local facilities will not be taxed for office space. In addition, current administrative support will be used. 

Most of the resources used in the EDPA classes will be materials provided by school districts that support their curriculum. The impact on library and technology resources are minimal and will be limited to those needed for core classes and Internet based resources.

The College of Rural Alaska community campuses will provide classroom space for EDPA training sessions. In communities without a local university facility, training space can be found in the private sector and reasonably supported by tuition fees through partnership arrangements. In addition, collaboration with school districts will provide space to teach university courses. 
Therefore, through community and school district partnerships, the impact on existing UAF and CRA technology resources and facilities can be limited to existing resources.

Resource Commitment to Proposed Degree Program

Resources	Existing	New
	  Total
	
	College/School	College/School 	Others(Specify)		
Regular Faculty (FTE’s & dollars)
			Title III for 
2 years
$102,730	

$102,730	
Adjunct Faculty (FTE’s & dollars)
			Title III for 
2 years
$45,000	

$45,000	
Teaching Assistants
(Headcount)					
Instructional Facilities
(in dollars and/or sq. footage)			Partnerships:
In-kind 2 years
$60,000	

$60,000	
Office Space
(Sq. footage)
					
Lab Space
(Sq. Footage)
					
Computer & Networking 
(in dollars)					
Research/instructional/office Equipment
(in dollars)					
Support Staff
(FTE’s & dollars)
		Admin. Asst.
for 2 years
$41,350	Title III for 
2 years
$18,028	

$59,378
	
Supplies 
(in dollars)
			Title III for 
2 years
$2,000	

$2,000	
Travel
(in dollars)
			Title III for 
2 years
$5,000	

$5,000	
Totals		$41,350	$232,758	$274,108	

Signature_____________________________    	__________
Executive Dean of College 				Date
Proposing the New Degree Program

ATTACHMENT 113/3
UAF Faculty Senate #113
February 3, 2003
SUBMITTED BY CORE REVIEW

MOTION:
======

The UAF Faculty Senate moves to amend the Baccalaureate Core Curriculum (page 29 of the 2002-03 catalog) as follows:  

[[  ]]  = Deletion
CAPS = Addition

BACCALAUREATE CORE

[[Courses used to meet core requirements may not be used to meet any other requirements for a degree.]]  

COURSES USED TO MEET A SCIENCE OR MATHEMATICS CORE REQUIREMENT MAY ALSO BE USED TO SATISFY OTHER DEGREE REQUIREMENTS.  OTHER CORE COURSES MAY NOT BE USED TO MEET REQUIREMENTS FOR A DEGREE.

	EFFECTIVE:  	Fall 2003

	RATIONALE: 	

(1) This motion is a simplified version of one unanimously approved by the Dean’s council of CSEM in December 2002 for consideration by the Faculty senate. The wording of this simplified version was suggested and approved by Ms. Gayle Gregory, Graduation Manager.  This motion has received the unanimous approval of the Faculty Senate’s Core Review Committee.

(2) In effect, this policy will simply formalize current degree requirements.  For example, the B.S. Chemistry requirements start off:
"1. Complete the general university requirements. (As part of the core curriculum requirements, complete Math 200X; Phys 103X and Phys 104X or Phys 211X and Phys 212X)."

Degree requirements for all other B.S. and B.A. degrees in sciences have similar wording to accomplish the same task.

(3) It was the intention of the science core committee (at the invention of the current UAF Core) that the science and math core requirements serve as ‘minimum’, not as stand-alone requirements. We simply wish to ensure that all baccalaureate students graduate with at least one college-level math and 2 college-level science courses. It was expected that in many cases these minimum courses were used to satisfy other requirements. The proposed wording simply clarifies the situation. 

ATTACHMENT 113/4
UAF Faculty Senate #113
February 3, 2003
SUBMITTED BY CORE REVIEW

MOTION:
======

The UAF Faculty Senate moves to add ENGL 211X or ENGL 213X as a prerequisite for all "W" courses.

	EFFECTIVE:  	2003-04 academic year.

RATIONALE:  	"W" courses are intended to allow students to hone their writing skills within their chosen discipline.  ENGL 211X/213X provides "instruction in critical reading and argumentative writing".  These are foundation courses for Written Intensive courses, and should be treated as such.  Successful completion of ENGL 211X/213X should ensure that students are fully prepared meet the writing requirements of the advanced courses. 

	Past Senate action 1) added ENGL 111X as a prerequisite for "W" courses, AND 2) adopted the position that all Core requirements should be completed before the junior year.  This motion is consistent with past Senate actions.

ATTACHMENT 113/5
UAF Faculty Senate #113
February 3, 2003
SUBMITTED BY AD HOC COMMITTEE ON UNIT CRITERIA

MOTION:
======

The UAF Faculty Senate moves to approve the Unit Criteria for the School of Mineral Engineering (SME).  

        EFFECTIVE:      Immediately
		Upon Chancellor Approval

        RATIONALE:      The committee assessed the unit criteria 
                submitted by the School of Mineral Engineering (SME).  With 
                some minor changes, agreed upon by the department 
                representative, Godwin Chukwu, the unit criteria were found 
                to be consistent with UAF guidelines.

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

UAF REGULATIONS FOR THE EVALUATION OF FACULTY:
INITIAL APPOINTMENT, PERIODIC REVIEW, RE-APPOINTMENT,
PROMOTION, AND TENURE

AND
SCHOOL OF MINERAL ENGINEERING UNIT CRITERIA
STANDARDS AND INDICES

THE FOLLOWING IS AN ADAPTATION OF UAF AND REGENTS CRITERIA FOR PROMOTION AND TENURE, SPECIFICALLY DEVELOPED FOR USE IN EVALUATING THE FACULTY IN THE SCHOOL OF MINERAL ENGINEERING.  ITEMS IN BOLDFACE ITALICS ARE THOSE SPECIFICALLY ADDED OR EMPHASIZED BECAUSE OF THEIR RELEVANCE TO THE SCHOOL OF MINERAL ENGINEERING FACULTY, AND BECAUSE THEY ARE ADDITIONS TO AND CLARIFICATION OF UAF REGULATIONS.  THESE UNIT CRITERIA ARE FOR USE IN THE ANNUAL EVALUATION OF FACULTY AS WELL.

CHAPTER I.

PURVIEW

The University of Alaska Fairbanks document, “Faculty Appointment and Evaluation Policies,” supplements the Board of Regents (BOR) policies and describes the purpose, conditions, eligibility, and other specifications relating to the evaluation of faculty at the University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF).  Contained herein are regulations and procedures to guide the evaluation processes and to identify the bodies of review appropriate for the university.

The university, through the UAF Faculty Senate, may change or amend these regulations and procedures from time to time and will provide adequate notice in making changes and amendments.

These regulations shall apply to all of the units within the University of Alaska Fairbanks, except in so far as extant collective bargaining agreements apply otherwise.

The provost is responsible for coordination and implementation of matters relating to procedures stated herein.

CHAPTER II.

INITIAL APPOINTMENT OF FACULTY

A.	Criteria for Initial Appointment
Minimum degree, experience and performance requirements are set forth in "UAF Faculty Appointment and Evaluation Policies," Chapter IV.  Exceptions to these requirements for initial placement in academic rank or special academic rank positions shall be submitted to the chancellor or chancellor’s designee for approval prior to a final selection decision.

B.	Academic Titles
Academic titles must reflect the discipline in which the faculty are appointed.

C.	Process for Appointment of Faculty with Academic Rank
Deans of schools and colleges, and directors when appropriate, in conjunction with the faculty in a unit, shall observe procedures for advertisement, review, and selection of candidates to fill any vacant faculty position. These procedures are set by UAF Human Resources and the Campus Diversity and Compliance (AA/EEO) office and shall provide for participation in hiring by faculty and administrators as a unit.

D.	Process for Appointment of Faculty with Special Academic Rank
Deans and/or directors, in conjunction with the faculty in a unit, shall establish procedures for advertisement, review, and selection of candidates to fill any faculty positions as they become available.  Such procedures shall be consistent with the university’s stated AA/EEO policies and shall provide for participation in hiring by faculty and administrators in the unit.  

E.	Following the Selection Process
The dean or director shall appoint the new faculty member and advise him/her of the conditions, benefits, and obligations of the position.  If the appointment is to be at the professor level, the dean/director must first obtain the concurrence of the chancellor or chancellor’s designee.

F.	Letter of Appointment
The initial letter of appointment shall specify the nature of the assignment, the percentage emphasis that is to be placed on each of the parts of the faculty responsibility, mandatory year of tenure review, and any special conditions relating to the appointment.

This letter of appointment establishes the nature of the position and, while the percentage of emphasis for each part may vary with each workload distribution as specified in the annual workload agreement document, the part(s) defining the position may not.  

CHAPTER III.

EVALUATION OF FACULTY FOR TENURE/PROMOTION

A.	General Criteria  
Criteria as outlined in "UAF Faculty Appointment and Evaluation Policies," Chapter IV, AND SME UNIT CRITERIA, STANDARDS AND INDICES, evaluators may consider, but shall not be limited to, whichever of the following are appropriate to the faculty member’s professional obligation:  mastery of subject matter; effectiveness in teaching; achievement in research, scholarly, and creative activity; effectiveness of public service; effectiveness of university service; demonstration of professional development and quality of total contribution to the university.

For purposes of evaluation at UAF, the total contribution to the university and activity in the areas outlined above will be defined by relevant activity and demonstrated competence from the following areas: 1) effectiveness in teaching; 2) achievement in scholarly activity; and 3) effectiveness of service.

Bipartite Faculty  
Bipartite faculty are regular academic rank faculty who fill positions that are designated as performing two of the three parts of the university’s tripartite responsibility.

The dean or director of the relevant college/school shall determine which of the criteria defined above apply to these faculty.

Bipartite faculty may voluntarily engage in a tripartite function, but they will not be required to do so as a condition for evaluation, promotion, or tenure.

B.	Criteria for Instruction
A central function of the university is instruction of students in formal courses and supervised study. Teaching includes those activities directly related to the formal and informal transmission of appropriate skills and knowledge to students.  The nature of instruction will vary for each faculty member, depending upon workload distribution and the particular teaching mission of the unit.  Instruction includes actual contact in classroom, correspondence or electronic delivery methods, laboratory or field and preparatory activities, such as preparing for lectures, setting up demonstrations, and preparing for laboratory experiments, as well as individual/independent study, tutorial sessions, evaluations, correcting papers, and determining grades.  Other aspects of teaching and instruction extend to undergraduate and graduate academic advising and counseling, training graduate students and serving on their graduate committees, particularly as their major advisor, curriculum development, and academic recruiting and retention activities. 

1.	Effectiveness in Teaching 
Evidence of excellence in teaching may be demonstrated through, but not limited to, evidence of the various characteristics that define effective teachers. Effective teachers

a.	are highly organized, plan carefully, use class time efficiently, have clear objectives, have high expectations for students;

b.	express positive regard for students, develop good rapport with students, show interest/enthusiasm for the subject;

c.	emphasize and encourage student participation, ask questions, frequently monitor student participation for student learning and teacher effectiveness, are sensitive to student diversity;

d.	emphasize regular feedback to students and reward student learning success;

e.	demonstrate content mastery, discuss current information and divergent points of view, relate topics to other disciplines, deliver material at the appropriate level;

f.	regularly develop new courses, workshops and seminars and use a variety of methods of instructional delivery and instructional design;

g.	may receive prizes and awards for excellence in teaching.

H.	DISSEMINATE NEW IDEAS TO THE STUDENTS RESULTING FROM RESEARCH AND OTHER ENGINEERING   ACTIVITIES, SUCH AS CONSULTING AND SERVICE ON REVIEW PANELS;

I. 	INVOLVE STUDENTS, UNDERGRADUATES AS WELL AS GRADUATES, IN QUALITY RESEARCH ACTIVITIES.

J.	 ENGAGE IN ADVISING AND MENTORING  STUDENTS.

2.	Components of Evaluation
Effectiveness in teaching will be evaluated through information on formal and informal teaching, course and curriculum material, recruiting and advising, training/guiding graduate students, etc., provided by:

a.	systematic student ratings, i.e. student opinion of instruction summary forms,

and at least two of the following:

b.	narrative self-evaluation, WHICH DOCUMENTS EFFORTS TO IMPROVE INSTRUCTIONAL PERFORMANCE.

c.	peer/department chair classroom/LABORATORY observation(s),

d.	peer/department chair evaluation of course materials.

SPECIFIC SME CRITERIA FOR TEACHING PERFORMANCE BEFORE APPOINTMENT OR PROMOTION TO:

A.	ASSISTANT PROFESSOR: EVIDENCE OF TEACHING ABILITY AND A COMMITMENT TO QUALITY  TEACHING AND EVIDENCE OF CONTINUED IMPROVEMENT.

B.	ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR: THE RECORD MUST SHOW THAT THE MATERIAL TAUGHT IS RELEVANT AND THAT THE PRESENTATIONS STIMULATE THE LEARNING PROCESS. EVIDENCE OF THE EXPECTED QUALITY OF INSTRUCTIONAL PERFORMANCE MAY INCLUDE (BUT NOT LIMITED TO) COURSE AND/OR CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT, NOVEL APPROACHES TO INSTRUCTION, EFFECTIVE GUIDING AND MENTORING OF STUDENTS, AND EFFECTIVE CLASSROOM TEACHING PERFORMANCE. THERE MUST BE EVIDENCE OF SUPERVISION OF GRADUATE STUDENT RESEARCH (AS A MAJOR SUPERVISOR OR CO-SUPERVISOR) LEADING TO SUCCESSFUL COMPLETION OF THE DEGREE PROGRAM.

C.	PROFESSOR: SIGNIFICANT CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE INSTRUCTIONAL  PROGRAM ARE EXPECTED.  THESE INCLUDE , BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO CONTRIBUTIONS TO MAJOR IMPROVEMENTS IN COURSE AND/OR CURRICULUM OFFERINGS, UPGRADING OF INSTRUCTIONAL FACILITIES, ABILITY TO MOTIVATE AND/OR INSPIRE STUDENTS, AND TRAINING OF GRADUATE STUDENTS LEADING TO SUCCESSFUL COMPLETION OF THEIR DEGREE PROGRAM(S). 

C.	Criteria for Research, Scholarly, and Creative Activity  
Inquiry and originality are central functions of a land grant/sea grant/space grant university and all faculty with a research component in their assignment must remain active as scholars.  Consequently, faculty are expected to conduct research or engage in other scholarly or creative pursuits that are appropriate to the mission of their unit, and equally important, results of their work must be disseminated through media appropriate to their discipline.  Furthermore, it is important to emphasize the distinction between routine production and creative excellence as evaluated by an individual's peers at the University of Alaska and elsewhere.

1.	Achievement in Research, Scholarly and Creative Activity
Whatever the contribution, research, scholarly or creative activities must have one or more of the following characteristics:

a.	They must occur in a public forum.
b.	They must be evaluated by appropriate peers.
c. 	They must be evaluated by peers external to this institution so as to allow an objective judgment.

d.	They must be judged to make a contribution.

2.	Components of Research, Scholarly and Creative Activity
Evidence of excellence in research, scholarly, and creative activity may be demonstrated through, but not limited to:

a.	Books, reviews, monographs, bulletins, articles, proceedings and other scholarly works published by reputable journals, scholarly presses, and publishing houses that accept works only after rigorous review and approval by peers in the discipline.

b.	Competitive grants and contracts to finance the development of ideas, these grants and contracts being subject to rigorous peer review and approval.

c.	Presentation of research papers before learned societies that accept papers only after rigorous review and approval by peers.

d.	Exhibitions of art work at galleries, selection for these exhibitions being based on rigorous review and approval by juries, recognized artists, or critics.

e.	Performances in recitals or productions, selection for these performances being based on stringent auditions and approval by appropriate judges.

f.	Editing or refereeing articles or proposals for professional journals or organizations.

g.	Scholarly reviews of publications, art works and performance of the candidate.

h.	Citations of research in scholarly publications.

i.	Published abstracts of research papers.

j.	Reprints or quotations of publications, reproductions of art works, and descriptions of interpretations in the performing arts, these materials appearing in reputable works of the discipline.

k.	Prizes and awards for excellence of scholarship.

l.	Awards of special fellowships for research or artistic activities or selection of tours of duty at special institutes for advanced study.

m.	Development of processes or instruments useful in solving problems, such as computer programs and systems for the processing of data, genetic plant and animal material, and where appropriate obtaining patents and/or copyrights for said development.

SPECIFIC CRITERIA FOR RESEARCH PERFORMANCE BEFORE PROMOTION OR APPOINTMENT TO:

A. ASSISTANT PROFESSOR: EVIDENCE OF THE ABILITY TO ESTABLISH A VIABLE RESEARCH  PROGRAM IN THE AREA OF SPECIALIZATION.

B. ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR: MUST HAVE ESTABLISHED AN APPROPRIATE RESEARCH PROGRAM WHICH PRODUCES SATISFACTORY PUBLICATIONS IN REFEREED PROFESSIONAL JOURNALS AND PRESENTED RESEARCH RESULTS AT PROFESSIONAL MEETINGS.  THE  SUBMISSION OF RESEARCH  PROPOSALS, THE COMPLETION OF CONTRACT RESEARCH REPORTS,  AND  PUBLICATION IN CONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS CONSTITUTE SUPPLEMENTARY EVIDENCE  THAT THE RESEARCH PROGRAM  IS OF HIGH QUALITY.  MUST SHOW EVIDENCE OF SUSTAINED  RESEARCH PRODUCTIVITY AND PUBLICATION. THE FACULTY MEMBER MUST SHOW  INDEPENDENCE  AND LEADERSHIP BY THE CREATION OF RESEARCH IDEAS THAT  INVOLVE  STUDENTS.

C. PROFESSOR: THE RESEARCH PROGRAM SHOULD HAVE PRODUCED SUFFICIENT PUBLICATION IN THE REFEREED PROFESSIONAL LITERATURE, AND THERE SHOULD BE A RECORD OF STUDENT INVOLVEMENT.  THE PUBLICATIONS SHOULD BE OF SUFFICIENT  QUALITY AND QUANTITY TO DEMONSTRATE THE EXISTENCE OF AN  ON-GOING, PROFESSIONAL, INDEPENDENT RESEARCH PROGRAM.  A NATIONAL OR INTERNATIONAL REPUTATION (AS DEMONSTRATED  BY PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES OR PRESENTATIONS AT MEETINGS AND DOCUMENTED OPINIONS OF OTHER ENGINEERS  AND SCIENTISTS IN  THE FIELD) IS EXPECTED. THERE SHOULD BE A RECORD OF  SUCCESSFUL COMPLETION  OF GRADUATE  WORK BY HIS OR HER STUDENTS. THERE SHOULD BE DEMONSTRATED EVIDENCE OF  EXTERNAL RESEARCH  FUNDING.

D.	Criteria for Public and University Service
Public service is intrinsic to the land grant/sea grant/space grant tradition, and is a fundamental part of the university’s obligation to the people of its state.  In this tradition, faculty providing their professional expertise for the benefit of the university’s external constituency, free of charge, is identified as “public service.”  The tradition of the university itself provides that its faculty assumes a collegial obligation for the internal functioning of the institution; such service is identified as “university service.”

1.	Public Service 
Public service is the application of teaching, research, and other scholarly and creative activity to constituencies outside the University of Alaska Fairbanks.  It includes all activities which extend the faculty member’s professional, academic, or leadership competence to these constituencies.  It can be instructional, collaborative, or consultative in nature and is related to the faculty member’s discipline or other publicly recognized expertise.  Public service may be systematic activity that involves planning with clientele and delivery of information on a continuing, programmatic basis.  It may also be informal, individual, professional contributions to the community or to one’s discipline, or other activities in furtherance of the goals and mission of the university and its units. Such service may occur on a periodic or limited-term basis.  Examples include, but are not limited to:

a.	Providing information services to adults or youth.

b.	Service on or to government or public committees.

c.	Service on accrediting bodies.

d.	Active participation in professional organizations.

e.	Active participation in discipline-oriented service organizations.

f.	Consulting.

g.	Prizes and awards for excellence in public service.

h.	Leadership of or presentations at workshops, conferences, or public meetings.

i.	Training and facilitating.

j.	Radio and TV programs, newspaper articles and columns, publications, newsletters, films, computer applications, teleconferences and other educational media. 

k.	Judging and similar educational assistance at science fairs, state fairs, and speech, drama, literary, and similar competitions.

2.	University Service
University service includes those activities involving faculty members in the governance, administration, and other internal affairs of the university, its colleges, schools, and institutes.  It includes non-instructional work with students and their organizations.  Examples of such activity include, but are not limited to:

a.	Service on university, college, school, institute, or departmental committees or governing bodies.

b.	Consultative work in support of university functions, such as expert assistance for specific projects.

c.	Service as department chair or term-limited and part-time assignment as assistant/associate dean in a college/school.

d.	Participation in accreditation reviews.
   
e.	Service on collective bargaining unit committees or elected office.

f.	Service in support of student organizations and activities.

g.	Academic support services such as library and museum programs.

h.	Assisting other faculty or units with curriculum planning and delivery of instruction, such as serving as guest lecturer.

i.	Mentoring.

j.	Prizes and awards for excellence in university service.

K.	PARTICIPATION IN STUDENT RECRUITING.

3.	Evaluation of Service
Each individual faculty member’s proportionate responsibility in service shall be reflected in annual workload agreements. In formulating criteria, standards and indices for evaluation, promotion, and tenure, individual units should include examples of service activities and measures for evaluation appropriate for that unit. Excellence in public and university service may be demonstrated through, e.g., appropriate letters of commendation, recommendation, and/or appreciation, certificates and awards and other public means of recognition for services rendered.

SPECIFIC SME CRITERIA FOR SERVICE PERFORMANCE BEFORE PROMOTION OR APPOINTMENT TO:

A. ASSISTANT PROFESSOR: EVIDENCE OF UNIVERSITY/PUBLIC SERVICE

B. ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR: CONTRIBUTIONS TO DEPARTMENT/SCHOOL/COLLEGE/UNIVERSITY MATTERS. CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE PUBLIC, INDUSTRY, GOVERNMENT AGENCIES AND SERVICE TO THE PROFESSION.

C. PROFESSOR: EVIDENCE OF LEADERSHIP IN THE SERVICE AREA IS EXPECTED. CONTRIBUTIONS  TO DEPARTMENTAL/SCHOOL/COLLEGE/ UNIVERSITY MATTERS ARE EXPECTED AS WELL AS EFFECTIVE  APPLICATION OF EXPERTISE TO PROFESSIONAL AND PUBLIC ORGANIZATIONS.

Draft 12/12/02

ATTACHMENT 113/6
UAF Faculty Senate #113
February 3, 2003
SUBMITTED BY CURRICULAR AFFAIRS

Curricular Affairs Committee Meeting Report

The Curricular Affairs committee held audioconferenced meetings on 3 Dec 2002 and 15 Jan 2003 from 1130am to 1 pm.   Members present included Mike Hannigan, Wanda Martin, David Barnes, Eduard Zilberkant, Carol Barnhardt, James Gladden, Gary Holton, William Schneider, Gayle Gregory, Ron Slominski, Shannon Uzzell, and Ron Illingworth.

All meetings were audioconferenced as some members of the committee are from outside Fairbanks.

The committee addressed the following issues:

1.	The committee forwarded the previously approved change renaming the Low Grade Report for freshmen students to the Freshmen Progress Report to the Faculty Senate for action.  At the January meeting it was reported that this motion was approved by the Senate and confirmed by the Chancellor.  It will be effective Fall 2003.

2.	The committee forwarded the previously approved proposal from the Foreign Language Department to amend the Local Advanced Placement Credit option currently in place to the Faculty Senate for action.  At the January meeting it was reported that this motion was returned to the committee for additional action.  Subsequent discussion ensued as to what course to pursue.  Bill Schneider raised concerns re granting credit for a course not taken as opposed to waiving the requirement.  Further discussion resulted in a determination to 1) contact the Foreign Language Department with the results of the Senate’s actions and to ask the department what they would like to do; and 2) to schedule a subsequent meeting to include Math, English and the Foreign Language departments to further discuss policies on local advanced placement.

3.	The committee approved the deletion of the B.A. in Human Services and forwarded this to the Faculty Senate.  It was approved by the Senate, confirmed by the Chancellor, and is scheduled for the February BOR meeting.

4.	The committee approved changes to the AAS degree related instruction areas adding several courses to the listing.  The changes were approved by the Senate and confirmed by the Chancellor.  They will be effective Fall 2003.

5.	The committee approved a statement of Certificate related instruction requirements which build to the AAS degree.  This document was approved by the Faculty Senate and confirmed by the Chancellor.  It will be effective Fall 2003

6.	The committee forwarded the previously approved new minor in Environmental Politics to the Senate for action.  At the January meeting it was reported that the minor had been approved by the Senate and confirmed by the Chancellor.  This does not require BOR action.
The committee continued the discussion on the proposal to make placement into a course mandatory.  A motion was forwarded to this committee by the Developmental Studies Committee for our concurrence.  Discussion ensured.  Currently, assessment is mandatory but placement is not.  The professional organizations closely associated with underprepared students, the National Association of Developmental Educators (NADE), the College Reading and Learning Association (CRLA) as well as the American Mathematical Association of Two-Year Colleges (AMATYC) all have come out with strong recommendations for mandatory placement.  Additionally, the external review of the Developmental Education program at UAF received the same recommendation for the reviewers.  There was some discussion on implementation and the availability of assessment scores.  Discussion was continued to the next meeting.

8.	The committee began discussion on one new item: Web-based delivery of courses.

	a)	Discussion included what we are currently doing at UAF, what are the characteristics of a quality web-based course, how are student activities and learning outcomes measured, and what are other schools doing.  Currently, the only standards and examples that instructors can use when creating a new course are the Course Credit indicators in the catalog (p 176) which tie credit to hours of "seat time" and the originally approved course information which the Senate maintains.

	b)	It was agreed that, while there might be differences in the specific delivery techniques used, we were long past any debate on the validity or value of distance delivered courses.

	c)	The chair indicated that he had put a request for information as to what other schools are doing to a distance delivery focused list-serv and would report the results at the next meeting.

The next meeting of the Curricular Affairs Committee is scheduled for 29 January, 2003.

Respectfully submitted
Ronald D. Illingworth, Chair
Curricular Affairs Committee

ATTACHMENT 113/7
UAF Faculty Senate #113
February 3, 2003
SUBMITTED BY CORE REVIEW

Core Curriculum Review Committee
Report of Activities and Meetings for January '03
Prepared by Douglas Schamel, Chair

We last met as a committee on 13 January, 2003.  Major activities include:

1) Approval of 10 petitions, denial of 4 petitions, and return of 1 petition to the student with no action (there was no documentation accompanying that petition).  Petitions denied included one to allow a 500-level course to substitute for a Core requirement (BOR policy does NOT allow these courses to count for degree requirements), two petitions to allow substitutions for Core Math (in both cases, the completed courses were deemed below acceptable levels by the Math department), and one to substitute a 100-level course for the Ethics requirement (this was approved by the PHIL department, but not approved by the committee).  Included in the successful petitions were two 200-level ethics courses (one approved by the PHIL department and one denied by that department, but approved by NRM).

2) We worked successfully with deans, directors, department heads, and the Graduation Office to add appropriate prerequisites to "W" and "O" courses, consistent with Senate policy, for the 2003-04 catalogue.

3) Approval of three motions to forward to the Senate for action:  
a)	Addition of ENGL 211X/213X as a prerequisite for all "W" courses
b)	Core as minimum for Core Science and Math courses.
c)	Allow the transfer of 200-level ethics courses (formalizing standard operating procedures of this committee over the last several years).  This motion has subsequently been removed from the Senate agenda, pending discussion with the PHIL department.

4) Provost Reichardt has asked this committee to work with Dean Joseph (CRA) to establish "contact persons" in each UAF department to "ensure 'outcomes equivalency' for all core courses bearing the department’s designator and to ensure meaningful participation of CRA faculty in this endeavor".  This action resulted from a meeting of Drs. Brown and Schamel with CRA deans and directors, called at the request of CRA. 

5) During a routine examination of "O" courses, the committee discovered an "O" course that did NOT require oral presentations during Fall '02.  This discovery is distressing, especially since the errant department had poor showings in "O" courses during Spring '02.  In response, the committee voted unanimously to: a) remove the "O" designator from the errant course, b) examine all "O" courses offered by that department in Spring '03, and c) encourage the department to work with the COMM department to become more effective in presenting "O" courses.  Copies of the memo will be sent to the appropriate dean, the Provost, the department head, the Registrar’s Office, and departmental faculty.

6) The committee wishes to collaborate with the Curricular Affairs committee to streamline "bonus credit" for ENGL 111X, and Foreign Language courses.  This action is consistent with our theme of "truth in advertising". 

ATTACHMENT 113/8 
UAF Faculty Senate #113
February 3, 2003
SUBMITTED BY DEVELOPMENTAL STUDIES

Minutes of The Developmental Studies Committee
January 16, 2003, 2-3:30pm
Wood Center Memorial Conference Room

Present: Patty Baldwin, John Bruder, John Creed, Cindy Hardy, Marjie Illingworth, Ron Illingworth, Wanda Martin, Debbie Moses, Greg Owens, Jane Weber.

The Committee met and reviewed reports from subcommittees on the Developmental Assessment recommendations.  Subcommittees A and B gave recommendations for changes in wording and substance from the recommendations assigned to each group.  No representative of Subcommittee C was present at the meeting.

The longest discussion addressed establishing a campus-wide attendance policy for Developmental classes.  These suggestions will be incorporated into our final report.

Jane Weber and Cindy Hardy will compile the suggestions into a draft document that the committee will proof one last time for consistency.  We will then pass the final committee recommendations along to Bernice Joseph who will forward them to the Faculty Senate.

We are still waiting action of the Curricular affairs Committee on our Mandatory Placement recommendation.  Once they have made a decision on this, it can be passed on to the Senate for action.

We also discussed when to hold a face-to-face meeting of the entire committee, especially so we can include members from the Kuskokwim campus who are not available at the time of our usual meetings.  The best time seems to be Wednesday, May 14 before the CRA face-to-face meeting.

The next meeting will be February 20, 2-3:30 p.m.

ATTACHMENT 113/9
UAF Faculty Senate #113
February 3, 2003
SUBMITTED BY FACULTY DEVELOPMENT, ASSESSMENT, & IMPROVEMENT

Minutes of Faculty Development, Assessment, and Improvement Committee Meeting - Tuesday, 14 January 2003 / 9am
Office of Faculty Development, 222 Bunnell
Minutes submitted by Abel Bult-Ito

Committee Members present: Brian Barnes, Abel Bult-Ito (Chair), Lee Haugen, Paul McCarthy, Joy Morrison, Hild Peters, Tom Robinson, Channon Price, Shunpu Zhang

Committee Members absent: Gerald Berman, George Charles, Linda Curda, Roger Norris-Tull, Ann Wilson

Guests present:  Jordan Titus 

1)	We continued our very interesting and stimulating discussions of IAS teaching evaluations.  Jordan Titus participated again.  I will summarize the main issues discussed.  Shortcomings of the current IAS forms as well as possible solutions were discussed.  Shortcomings include: 
•	Different interpretations of evaluation items by students, instructors, peer-reviewers, and administrators.
•	Summative student evaluations given at the end of the course have not shown to improve teaching effectiveness.
•	Students are not adequately instructed about importance and meaning of evaluations.
•	In the current system, the handling of student evaluations is entirely in the hands of one or two student volunteers and some of the risks of this arrangement were discussed.
•	Faculty are inadequately informed about research on student evaluations and what factors influence them, which include issues related to the discipline, gender, and minority status.
•	Yellow sheets are currently only available to instructors, but could also be very useful for supervisors.  Should this arrangement be reevaluated?

Possible solutions include:
•	Adding other teaching evaluation items beyond the IAS, which could include peer-review, pre- and post-tests for learning outcomes assessment, course materials, and others.
•	Results of student evaluations can probably be improved by informing students about importance and meaning of the evaluations.
•	Interpretation of student evaluations could probably be improved with training at all levels from students to administrators.
•	Alternative instruments such as the IDEA form are available and the institution can always make their own.  However, changing the evaluation system would be a major undertaking and require a considerable amount of time.
•	Instructors have the option to add five questions of their own to the current IAS teaching evaluation package.  A fact that apparently is not well known.
•	Workshop about teaching evaluations for faculty.
•	5-min PowerPoint/video for training of students in the use and value of student evaluations.
•	Formative student evaluations during the semester appear to be able to increase teaching effectiveness and might be a potential alternative.

As a first step to start improving the current student evaluation system, a Sub-Committee on Student Evaluations was formed to explore the contents of a 5-minute PowerPoint/video presentation for training of students in the use and value of student evaluations.  The committee members are Channon Price (Chair), Hild Peters, and Joy Morrison.  This 5-minute presentation could also be used as a demo to start discussions of these issues at the Faculty Senate level.  

Other steps to improve the correct use of IAS student evaluations could include workshops and training on use of teaching evaluations for faculty and administrators.  The committee will probably explore these areas as well in the next few months.

2)	Report by the Sub-Committee on the Faculty Mentoring Program.  Tabled for next meeting.

3)	Faculty Development at UAF Annual Report.  Tabled for next meeting.

4)	The next meeting of the FDAIC is scheduled for 9:00 am on Tuesday 11 February 2003.  The committee will meet again in the Office of Faculty Development conference room, 222 Bunnell.  The tentative agenda for this meeting is:
•	Report by the Sub-Committee on the Faculty Mentoring Program (20 min).
•	Faculty Development at UAF Annual Report (15 min).
•	Report by the Sub-Committee on Student Evaluations (15 min).
•	Other business (10 min).

5)	Meeting was adjourned at 10:10am.

ATTACHMENT 113/
UAF Faculty Senate #113
February 3, 2003
SUBMITTED BY 

ATTACHMENT 113/
UAF Faculty Senate #113
February 3, 2003
SUBMITTED BY