Faculty Senate
MINUTES
February 19, 2004
MEMBERS - Listed Alphabetically
Tony Allred
Johnathan Aubrey
Laine Berghout
Lloyd Burton
Scott Butcher - Student
Paul Caldarella
Shelley Conroy
Roger Crockett - Carl Grunander representing
Gary Dohrer
Anand Dyal-Chand - Admin - Toni Weight representing
Ann Ellis
Rick Ford
Lauren Fowler
Joy Gall - Excused
Colleen Garside - Parliamentarian
Dawn Gatherum
Richard Greene - Frank Guliuzza representing
Addy Hall - Student
Cheryl Hansen
Sue Harley
Laird Hartman
Bobby Herrera - Excused
Michelle Heward
Warren Hill - Admin.
Bob Hogge
Joan Hubbard - Excused
Debra Huber
Pam Hugie
Becky Johns
Diane Kawamura - Kathy Frye representing
Wade Kotter
Diane Krantz
Taowen Le
Diane Leggett
Kathleen Lukken - Admin.
Laura MacLeod
Susan Matt - Bill Allison representing
Marek Matyjasik
President Millner - Excused
Michelle More
Matt Mouritsen
Dale Ostlie
Steve Peterson
June Phillips Admin
Kyle Poll - Student
Jack Rasmussen - Admin
Richard Sadler - Admin.
Paul Schvaneveldt
Rick Sline
Molly Smith
Erik Stern
Bob Summers - Absent
Betty Tucker
Michael Vaughan - Admin.
Huiying Wei-Arthus
Yu-Jane Yang
Kay Brown, Secretary
1. ROLL CALL
2. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES
Motion: Moved to approve the minutes from the January
29, 2004 meeting.
Made: Molly Smith
Second: Warren Hill
Outcome: The minutes were approved.
3. ADMISSIONS, STANDARDS, AND STUDENT AFFAIRS – Erika Daines, Chair
PPM 4-21a - CREDIT BY EXAMINATION OR PETITION
F. Credit by special examination may be awarded at the discretion of academic departments according to the following guidelines:
A student may take a special exam for any course described in the catalog only with the approval of the department chair.
1. Academic departments will provide an annual list of courses that may be challenged.
2. The Application for Special Examination forms are available from the Registrar or departmental office.
3. The department chair or designee may interview the candidate and determine if the student has sufficient background in the area to justify giving a special examination.
4. The department chair determines if there is a qualified and willing faculty member to construct, administer and score the exam.
4. The faculty member sends the examination results to the records office where the credit is posted to the student’s permanent record.
A designated faculty member constructs, administers and scores the exam then sends the results to the records office where the credit is posted to the student's permanent transcript.
5. The credit which can be earned (overall and in each sitting) will be determined by each department.
6. A student may not take examinations in more than one subject area at any one sitting.
7. A student may take an examination for any given course(s) one time only.
8. A fee will be charged for each sitting.
9. Veteran's benefits will not be paid for credit earned by special examination.
G. Credit by petition is awarded by the admissions office and appropriate academic departments according to guides published by the American Council on Education (ACE) and according to the following guidelines.
1. Military Credit is administered in accordance with the ACE Guide to the Evaluation of Military Service Experiences and articulation agreements with government agencies.
a. Elective Credit may be applied by the admissions office.
b. Specific course credit may be awarded by the appropriate department chair(s) with the Application for Credit form.
2. Credit for prior experiential learning and industrial or commercial training may be awarded provided that such awarding is carefully monitored and documented.
a. Departments awarding experiential learning credit must have written criteria which assure its academic equivalence to credit earned by traditional means.
b. Credit for prior experiential learning may be granted only at the undergraduate level.
c. Before credit for prior experiential learning becomes part of the student's permanent record, the student must have completed thirty credit hours with a GPA of 2.25 or better to establish evidence of a satisfactory learning pattern.
d. Credit may be granted with the approval of the department chair only upon the recommendation of teaching faculty who are appropriately qualified and who are on a regular appointment with the college on a continuing basis.
e. Credit may be granted only for documented learning which ties the prior experience to the theories and data of the relevant academic fields.
f. Credit may be granted only for documented learning which falls within the regular curricular offerings of the institution.
g. Credit for prior experiential learning may constitute no more than 25% of the credits needed for a degree or certificate.
h. No assurances will be made as to the number of credits to be awarded prior to the completion of the institution's review process.
i. Credit may be granted only to enrolled students and is to be identified on the student's transcript as credit for prior experiential learning.
PPM 4-19 - 2. CRITERIA FOR CREDIT/NO CREDIT
a. A maximum of 20 hours of credit/no credit in elective courses may be used for graduation.
b. Classes taken on a credit/no credit basis will not satisfy major, minor, general education, or specific course requirements with the exception of those courses or programs of study approved by the University Curriculum and General Education committee and those courses approved by academic departments for credit by special examination (see PPM 4-21a).
Friendly amendment to eliminate from PPM 4-21a , item F 4 stated below -
4. The department chair determines if there is a qualified and willing faculty member to construct, administer and score the exam.
The Senate discussed whether or not item F 3 was needed. It was expressed that this is not an arbitrary function of whether you may or may not take the test,. It is also an educational function for the student to understand what is required in the course and what will be covered in the test.
Call for the question.
The motion passed.
Motion: Moved to approve the above changes to PPM 4-21a and PPM 4-19
Criteria for Credit/No Credit.
Made: Warren Hill
Second: Gary Dohrer
Outcome: The motion passed with 2 opposed.
PPM 6-4
I. WITHDRAWAL FROM INDIVIDUAL COURSE
A. Students may withdraw from individual courses during the first 60%
67% of a semester or term. Students may not withdraw from individual courses
during the remaining 40% 33% of the semester or term.
B. No entry will appear on the transcripts of those students who drop
individual courses during the first three weeks of fall or spring semesters,
or during the first 20% of summer term. A "W" grade will appear on
the transcripts of students who withdraw from individual courses during the
period of the fourth to the ninth tenth week of fall or
spring semesters, or during 21% to 60% 67%
of summer, or
for courses that deviate from fifteen weeks.
C. Students who stop attending a class without officially withdrawing will receive a "UW" (Unofficial Withdrawal) for that class. The procedure and deadlines for making registration changes are published each term in the class schedule.
D. Unless receiving prior approval from the instructor, students who do not attend the first two class periods or 5% of the course after enrolling in the course, may be dropped by the instructor within two working days. Students are dropped by the instructor notifying the Registrar's Office. If the instructor does not drop the student from the course and the student does not plan to attend, the responsibility to drop lies on the student.
E. Refund of tuition and fees will be based on the refund polity of the institution.
II. COMPLETE WITHDRAWAL FROM THE SEMESTER OR TERM
A. Students may withdraw completely from all courses for which they have
registered up to the end of the ninth tenth week or 60%
67% of the term for courses that deviate from fifteen weeks. Thereafter,
students may appeal in cases of compelling, non-academic emergencies by
submitting a petition and supporting documentation to the Registrar's
Office. Appeals may be submitted until the last day of regular class
instruction preceding the final examination period.
B. A withdrawal form must be obtained from the Registration Office and processed according to the instructions.
C. Clearance approval signatures must be obtained from the dean of Student Affairs, the Stewart Library, and Campus Security Police.
D. The student's record will reflect only the statement "Registered and Withdrew," and the date.
E. Refund of tuition and fees will be based on the refund policy of the institution.
Motion: Moved to approve PPM 6-4 I. Withdrawal from Individual Course,
and II Complete Withdrawal from the Semester of Term.
Made: Dawn Gatherum
Second: Diane Krantz
Outcome: The motion passed with 3 opposed.
4. APPOINTMENT, PROMOTION, ACADEMIC FREEDOM AND TENURE – Doris Geide-Stevenson, Chair
PPM 8-11 III.
D. Criteria for Granting Tenure
Each college has formulated a written policy statement, the college tenure
document, containing the criteria to be used in tenure review. These
statements include (1) the criteria, consistent with the minimum criteria
outlined below; (2) the rationale for the criteria; and (3) the method for
measuring performance with respect to the criteria. Any
C changes
in the college tenure document criteria shall be submitted
through the dean to the Appointment, Promotion, Academic Freedom and Tenure
Committee for analysis and recommendation to the Faculty Senate. Upon the
approval of the Faculty Senate, the revision in the college tenure document criteria
statements shall be forwarded to the provost. Upon approval by the
provost and Board of Trustees, the changed college tenure document criteria
will be considered adopted. The date of the final approval of the college
tenure document criteria will be affixed to the policy
statement, and that date will be considered as the effective date. Thereafter,
the approved and dated college tenure document criteria will
apply until any revision is channeled through the steps outlined herein and a
new effective date is affixed. Copies of the approved revised college tenure
document criteria will be on file in the offices of the
department chair, the dean, the Faculty Senate, and the provost and will be
accessible online at the provost homepage.
Motion: Moved to approve the revisions to PPM 8-11, III D as stated
above.
Made: Rick Sline
Second: Bob Hogge
Outcome: The motion passed unanimously.
5. FACULTY EVALUATIONS – Kathy Herndon, Johnathan Aubrey, Kyle Poll
Senate representatives addressed the following questions that were raised at the December 4, 2003 Faculty Senate meeting.
Proposed Evaluation Form
1. What if the information/rating from the department course evaluation and the student evaluation of the faculty member are different?
2. Will the evaluation be done on the web or in paper form in the classroom?
3. How will this add to the workload in departments?
4. Who will complete the data analysis?
5. Using class instruction time for department evaluations and student evaluations takes time.
6. Should there be an aggregate of the two evaluations?
Proposed Web Dissemination of Evaluation Results
1. Present a dissemination system that is restricted to Weber State and does not allow access other than student access, at least not public access.
2. Should there be access to the evaluations from the course schedule?
3. How long will the evaluations remain online and how will they be organized?
4. How much will this cost?
5. Does this student evaluation become part of online course evaluation?
Evaluation Questions from the December Senate meeting as amended were presented.
COURSE
1. The course objectives were clearly stated.
2. Exam questions were Assessment of student learning
was
consistent with topics covered in course
activities. lectures and
reading assignments.3. The course was well-organized.
4. Overall, this was an effective course.
INSTRUCTOR
5. The instructor was enthusiastic about the subject matter.
6. The instructor presented the subject clearly.
7. The instructor used class time productively.
8. The instructor provided extra help when/if needed.
9. Overall the instructor’s teaching was effective.
The matter was discussed in two parts. First, a discussion regarding the evaluation instrument and second, if appropriate, a discussion regarding the dissemination of the information.
Motion: Moved the senate recommend that deans and department chairs
use the foregoing evaluation instrument for students to use in
evaluating faculty.
Made: Jonathan Aubrey
Second: Gary Dohrer
A friendly amendment was made to change the wording to question 2 as noted above.
Concern was expressed regarding the instrument. Is it sound? Will it provide accurate information? The survey has not been validated. Will the students get the information that they want or think they are getting?
A study was presented to the senate regarding the ability of student evaluations to provide the evaluator with accurate information. Concern was expressed regarding factors outside the control of the instructor that may effect the results.
The ad hoc committee responded that they had made a conscious effort to gather a wide selection of instruments already in use at other institutions, focusing on those used in Utah. It is there recommendation that the two questions presently being used are completely ineffective. Commercial questionnaires are available and were also reviewed by the committee. Every question proposed by the committee was one used on a commercial questionnaire.
Students were asked what they wanted to achieve from the evaluations. Kyle Poll indicated he believed they wanted to provide students with choices when registering for classes. It was pointed out that in many instances, particularly in upper division classes and in some colleges, students do not have choices because multiple sections of the same course are not available.
Questions were raised regarding the application of this motion to online courses and it was determined that the online courses are evaluated separately and would not be effected by these evaluations.
Discussion was held regarding the effect of this motion. The history of the motion was reviewed. Student senators brought the issue of changing the faculty evaluations to the Faculty Senate last year. The Teaching and Learning Forum was charged to work with students and form an ad hoc committee if necessary to review the issue of student evaluations of faculty. Such a committee was formed and it brought recommendations to the Senate last December. The motion to support the evaluation was tabled after discussing the issue because many questions were raised, amongst other things, regarding the manner of dissemination of the questions. Faculty Senate members were asked to engage in a campus-wide discussion and forward information to the ad hoc committee.
The current motion is a recommendation to department chairs and deans to support the student request to incorporate additional questions in their evaluations. It is not a change of the PPM nor does it set policy. It is a recommendation and show of support for the student request.
Main
Motion: Moved that the Faculty Senate recommend that deans and department chairs use the foregoing evaluation instrument for students to use in evaluating faculty.How the information will be disseminated was then discussed. The committee recommended that the information be disseminated through the student portal so that it would be accessible to WSU students and the faculty member but not to the general public. A presentation was made illustrating the access to the information through the student portal. Concerns regarding resources were raised.
Motion: Moved to disseminate the student evaluation of faculty
information online through the student portal.
Made: Diane Krantz
Second: Johnathan Aubrey
Amended
Motion: Moved to add a disclaimer to the evaluation information posted on the web indicating that this is not an official Weber State document and the survey has not been validated.Call for the question on the main motion.
Motion passed.
Main
Motion: Moved to disseminate the student evaluation of faculty information online through the student portal.ADJOURN: The meeting adjourned at 5:05 p.m.