|
AGENDA PACKET | ||
| 3:00 | Call to Order Approval of minutes of 15 December 2003 Announcements The next FSEC lunch with Pres. Hall will be Tuesday, Feb. 10th, 2004 | |
| 3:05 | Information & Consent Agenda Items | |
|
Athletic Council Mediation Program EPC Business |
Ken White Rob Morrison Chris Fawson Joyce Kinkead | |
| 3:30 | Key Issues & Action Items | |
|
Grading Policy Course Evaluations on the Web Grading Constraints |
Joyce Kinkead Glenn Davis Ruth Struyk Kevin Kesler | |
| 4:00 | University Business | Administration |
| 4:30 | Adjournment | |
| Faculty Senate Executive Committee Meeting Minutes for December 15nd, 2003 | |||
| Attendance: | |||
| Senators: | Kevin Kesler (0930) | Tom Kent (1189) | Marv Halling (3179) |
| Kevin Doyle (4025) | Ed Heath (3306) | Carol Kochan (2676) | |
| Dean Miner (801-370-8469) | |||
| Presenters: | Joyce Kinkead (1706) | Brent Miller (1180) | Gerry Giordano (1470) |
| John DeVilbiss (1358) | Jack Payne (2201) | Charles Thompson (7237) | |
| Karla Petty (1726) | Stephanie Kukic (1736) | Dennis Welker (3552) | |
| Administration: | Kermit Hall (1157) | ||
| Visitors: | Steven von Niederhausern (881-7023) | ||
| Excused: | Vance Grange (2702) | Janis Boettinger (4026) | Dale Blahna (2544) |
| Bruce Miller (2232) | Chris Coray (2861) | ||
| Call to Order Kevin Kesler called the meeting to order at 3:05 pm. Minutes: Carol Kochan moved to accept the minutes of November 17th. The motion, seconded by Dean Miner, was passed. Announcements: The next FSEC Lunch with President Hall will be held on Tuesday, January 20th, at noon in Champ Hall. A volunteer is needed for a search committee for a benefits position in the personnel office. Kevin Kesler volunteered to be on the committee. Committee Reports: EPC Business Joyce Kinkead presented the most recent EPC Business, which included several "cleaning up" deletions and program removals. Carol Kochan moved to place EPC Business to the Consent Agenda. The motion, seconded by Marv Halling, passed. Scholarship Advisory Board Joyce Kinkead then presented the Scholarship Advisory Board report. One important point was that most of the scholarships are actually waivers legislated by the state. For the first time they're charting commitments in awards made by students. There is a new University Research Fellowship program for new freshmen which is funded by the VP of Research office. This will replace the University Club Scholars program and will allow for better tracking, and ask for a return on the Universities investment in them. Then have progressed from granting 1 and 2 year awards to 4 year awards, which is greater encouragement for students to come and stay at USU. Carol Kochan moved to place the Scholarship Advisory Report on the Consent Agenda. The motion, seconded by Kevin Doyle, was passed. Research Council Brent Miller explained that the Research Council report is fully detailed in the 12 pages of text and several tables. He asked for questions, and encouraged the Executive Committee to review the report and let him know of any questions or concerns. Carol Kochan moved to place the Research Council report on the Consent Agenda. The motion, seconded by Tom Kent, was passed. Council on Teacher Education Gerry Girodano summarized the Report from the Council on Teacher Education. One concern is the caliber of the teachers who are going into public education. The students who are going into teacher education have on average a higher ACT and GPA, than those who don't. There has been an increase on students going into Teacher Education, which will help combat the lack teachers state wide. USU prepares more teachers for public schools than any other university in Utah, and 88% of the teachers USU produces stay in Utah to teach. Carol Kochan moved to place the Council on Teacher Education Report to the Consent Agenda. The motion, seconded by Marv Halling, was passed. Aggie Ecology Jack Payne presented the Aggie Ecology report on campus environmental sustainability. The question is how to promote an english garden, when the university exists in a high desert biome? Utah is currently the driest state in the nation, and also the highest in the nation in per capita use of water. Committees have looked into landscape, waste management, recycling, water use, energy use, and the scholarship of sustainability on the academic side. There now exists a water research laboratory. The report attempts to cover the ecological footprint of the University, and will be presented in more detail at the Faculty Senate meeting in January. Dean Miner moved to place the Aggie Ecology report on the agenda as an Information Item. The motion, seconded by Tom Kent, was passed. New University Website and Commercial John DeVilbiss and Charles Thompson presented the new University website, and explained the reasoning behind the changes, the new navigation, and functions of the website. They also presented, with the help of student videographer Steven von Niederhausern, a new commercial promoting USU with material on students sending experiments into space. Carol Kochan moved to place the report on the agenda as an Information Item. The motion, seconded by Kevin Doyle, was passed. Student Government Update Stephanie Kukic and Karla Petty gave a rundown on this year's ASUSU leadership, their current projects, and responsibilities. One issue was the Student Bill of Rights, which was introduced in the last Faculty Senate meeting. This will become an annual report due to the FSEC in the fall, to keep the Faculty Senate apprised of the student side of the university, their goals, and efforts to make the university better for students. The annual report will strengthen relationships between students and faculty and will initiate changes that would be mutually beneficial. Ed Heath moved to place the Student Government Update on the agenda as an Information Item. The motion, seconded by Tom Kent, passed. Key Issues and Action Items: Faculty Evaluations on the Web Dennis Welker expressed the faculty concern regarding the public availability of faculty evaluations on the internet. This was one subject brought up in the open session of Faculty Forum. He presented a compromise which would restrict access of the records to the QUAD system, allowing students, and not the general public, to view them. Discussion continued about whether the records are legally meant to be private or public. President Hall suggested that the more important issue is the construction of the evaluation. Joyce Kinkead explained that students would like to fill out the evaluations online, perhaps see midterm evaluations. The decision was made that more discussion needs to take place after more research on what other institutions are doing about this issue of privacy and faculty evaluation. Carol Kochan moved to table the issue for the next FSEC meeting on January 26th. The motion, seconded by Kevin Doyle, was passed. University Business: President Hall presented the current University Business. Ron Godfrey is the new VP of Business and Finance. There is a tuition task force which is examining tuition pricing and financial aid issues. The Governor was supportive of higher education, recommending a 2% salary increase and about a 12% contribution to benefits. She also expressed the desire that the two state research institutions join forces to be more competitive on major grants. Joint Boards of Trustees meetings have been working on enhancing research capacity, and more fully stimulate economic development in the state. He addressed the need to pay attention to the development of the Student Bill of Rights. Progress is being made on the Children's House, the new child development center. Efforts are being made towards a Winter Graduation, which will most likely start in 2004. Compact Plan initiatives are being worked on. Banner is progressing nicely. Inaugural lectures by recently promoted full professors will begin in January. Adjourn: Kevin Kesler called for adjournment. The meeting adjourned at 4:57 pm. |
Athletic Council Report For Period of January 1, 2003 to December 31, 2003 Submitted to the Utah State University Faculty Senate By the USU Athletic Council Kenneth L. White (Chair 2003-2004), Faculty Athletics Representative Introduction: Committee Members: Kenneth White, Chair; Dee Von Bailey, Vice-Chair, Kermit Hall, Stan Albrecht, Fred Hunsaker, Juan Franco, Rance Pugmire, Mary Ellen Cloninger, Art Jones/Rich Gordin, Randy Watts, Duke Di Stefano, Tyler Olsen, Nate Putnam, Holly Anderson, Vicki Allen, Ronda Callister, Lynn Dudley, Lance Littlejohn, Julie Foust. Ex Officio Members: Brian Evans, Ken Peterson Mission: The Athletic Council advises the President with respect to the athletic program. The duties of the council are to: (a) help maintain an athletic program compatible with the best academic interests of the university; (b) assure compliance with the rules of the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), and the university athletic code; (c) review and recommend to the President and the Board of Trustees all intercollegiate athletic budgets; and (d) recommend policies and procedures for all aspects of the intercollegiate programs. The annual report from the Athletics Council to Faculty Senate includes both future and current issues facing the Athletics Department. Each issue is reviewed by the athletics council to insure the Department of Athletics is operating within the guidelines of the NCAA and Utah State University. Monitoring the annual budget, identifying potential new revenue sources and efficiently managing expenses are always a priority. A long-term goal of the Athletics Department is to become increasingly self-funded. Key facts and discussion items for the current year include: USU's affiliation with the Sun Belt Conference, strong academic reforms from the NCAA, and the current status of the newly reinstated women's basketball program.
Future Goals and Objectives:
UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY Athletics Department Budget Report Fiscal Years 2002-03 and 2003-04 Net Funds Available
Expenses
Budget - Explanation of Budget Changes from FY 2002-03 to FY 2003-04
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Introduction: Educational Policies Committee Report for Faculty Senate 1/26/2004 Joyce Kinkead-Chair, Stanley Allen-Agriculture, Duke DiStefano-ASUSU Pres., Todd Crowl-Natural Resources, Karla Petty,-ASUSU Acad VP, Richard Cutler-Science, Jan Roush-HASS, Stephanie Kukic-GSS, Scott Hunsaker-Education, David Olsen-Business, David Luthy-DEED chair, Weldon Sleight-Extension, Cheryl Walters-Library, Jeffrey Walters- ASC Chair, Paul Wheeler-Engineering Meeting Dates September 8, 2003, October 2, 2003, November 6, 2003, December 4, 2003, January 8, 2004, February 5, 2004, March 4, 2003, April 1, 2004. Curriculum Subcommittee In January meetings, the Curriculum Subcommittee approved the following program changes:
In December the Academic Standards Subcommittee met and the following item was considered: Review of No-test Days Policy: At the request of the EPC, the ASC reviewed the university's 'No-test Days' policy as defined in the USU General Catalog (p.18). There is an apparent discrepancy between the language of this policy, which states that "During No-test Days neither final examinations nor testing of any kind will be given . . .," and the wording of the Provost's memo on Semester Reminders, which states "Tests should not be scheduled during this period (i.e., No-test Days) except for regularly scheduled quizzes." The ASC engaged in considerable debate concerning the appropriate definitions of the terms "Examination," "Test," and "Quiz" and how consistently they might be interpreted by different persons. A motion was adopted which recommends the following revision of the language of the No-test Days policy: No-test Days. A five-day period designated as No-test Days precedes the five days of final examinations which are normally scheduled at the close of each academic semester. During No-test Days, [neither] no major examinations, including final examinations, [nor testing of any kind] will be given in order that students may concentrate [up]on classwork, the completion of special assignments, writing projects, and other preparation for duly scheduled final examinations. Karla Petty expressed two concerns on behalf of the students. The first was that students are often unaware of the policy or their means of redress if they believe the policy has been violated. The second was that students are likely to be inhibited about confronting course instructors or their administrators on issues related to this policy. It was suggested that students might seek redress through the Student Advocate, rather than in person, and that the No-test Days policy and the means for seeking redress of its perceived violation could be printed in the Schedule of Classes each semester. Motion carried. Recommendations EPC recommends approval of above changes by Faculty Senate. The following proposals were not approved:
|
Interim Report to Faculty Senate January 2004 Craig Petersen, Director of Analysis, Assessment, and Accreditation, met with the committee to discuss the faculty evaluation system students are currently using at Utah State and how results are reported. The practice of publishing faculty evaluation scores on the university website was discussed. Craig indicated that currently faculty evaluation data are accessible by entering "About USU" and then going to an instructor's home department. The results of the faculty evaluation are reported using the mean score from the first two questions of the evaluation. Each instructor's average is posted as well as the department, college, and university averages. Results are available for the past four semesters and will continue to be updated each semester. The committee discussed having students complete the faculty evaluations on-line. Craig Petersen had his students complete the faculty evaluations on-line for both his on-campus and off-campus course. He created a link to the faculty evaluation form using the quiz module in WebCT. Completing the course evaluation was the last class assignment. Students were given points (10) in the on-campus course for completing the evaluation while the off-campus course was given bonus points. The response rate for 500 students in the on-campus course was approximately 95%; for the off-campus course it was 100%. Craig believed that the comments obtained on-line were more insightful than those normally produced in class because students had time to think about their responses. Students' responses are still confidential because WebCT credits the students for completing the evaluation, but does not allow the instructor to see which students wrote what comments. In comparison to conducting the evaluations in class, Craig noted that the response rate was higher for the on-line method than when evaluations are distributed in-class. He believes that in class evaluation return rate is approximately 75%. Reasons for the lower in-class return rate might be students hurrying to their next class, students being absent the day of evaluations, or students' apathy concerning filling out evaluations. The following pros and cons for using on-line evaluations were discussed. Pros:
Cons:
Questions under consideration by the committee:
|
| Regarding Grading Constraints I would like to request that Faculty Senate address the question of grading policies for final exams, in particular, to clarify what constitutes the "96 hours" allotted for grading. At the end of Fall semester, when I was having difficulty accessing the Web-for-Faculty grading system to adjust some grades, I contacted the SIS help desk. I was informed that the problem was that the system could not handle the number of logins it was getting from students, in addition to faculty use. I was told that the system had been closed to student use until Tuesday and that faculty were supposed to have all their grades in within 96 hours, which was the Tuesday after Friday exams. Any grades not in by 5:00 on Thursday would have to be entered via change of grade forms, regardless of the inability of faculty to access the system. I would like to raise my objections to the policy of counting Saturday and Sunday as part of the 96 hours allotted for grading. I, like most faculty, work at home many weekday evenings during the semester, and yes, also weekends. However, I make that choice. I do not choose when to give my finals and do not believe I should or can be required to spend weekend hours grading them. I, in fact, did have my grades done by Tuesday. However, a flaw in the "submit grades from a spreadsheet" program prevented my grades from being updated on Tuesday night as they should have been, even though the message indicated they had been accepted and would be submitted during the night. I did not discover that the grades were not correctly entered until I was able to check on Wednesday after I returned from a doctor's appointment. As I see it, a related problem deals with the scheduling of final exams. This semester, I had two classes of over 70 students each and both of my finals were scheduled on Friday. Even though the breadth class exam was Scantron based, there is no guarantee of having the scores back before Monday. The other course was a programming course that requires intensive faculty grading time. (Our department has a very commendable policy that faculty grade all programming problems in the introductory courses themselves.) It is my understanding that the access problems associated with Web-for-Faculty and the Quad system are expected to be solved with the introduction of the new Banner program. However, until that happens, I would like to see something done to avoid the problems that arose last semester. And I would hope that recognition be given to the fact that faculty are doing their best and do not need to be "punished" by being required to enter grades on change of grade forms for problems beyond their control. Not only is this unreasonable for faculty, but, in terms of work required by the registrar's office, it would certainly make more sense to provide a single sheet with all grades, rather than having the data entered from individual forms. Thank you for your attention to this matter. | |
| Mary Veronica Kolesar Principal Lecturer Department of Computer Science Utah State University 4205 Old Main Hill Logan, UT 84322-4205 |
e-mail: MaryV.Kolesar@usu.edu Office phone and voice mail: 435-797-2421 Department phone: 435-797-2451 Office fax: 435-797-3265 |