Minutes of the Academic Senate Meeting
The Academic Senate was called to order by Academic Senate Chair Pamela Vaughn at 2:10 p.m.
Senate Members Present:
| Aaron, Eunice Alvarez, Alvin Bartscher, Patricia Cherny, Robert Collier, James Colvin, Caran Concolino, Christopher Consoli, Andres Corrigan, Robert A. Daniels, Robert Duke, Jerry |
Edwards, James Friedman, Marv Fung, Robert Garcia, Oswaldo Garcia, Velia Gerson, Deborah Gregory, Jan Harnly, Caroline Henry, Margaret Higgins, Susan Hom, Marlon Houlberg, Rick Hubler, Barbara |
Jerris, Scott Kassiola, Joel La Belle, Thomas Langbort, Carol Levine, Josh McKeon, Midori Nichols, Amy Ońate, Abdiel Pong, Wen Shen Raggio, Marcia Sayeed, Lutfus Scoble, Don Shrivastava, Vinay |
Smith, Miriam Steier, Saul Su, Yuli Terrell, Dawn Turitz, Mitch Vaughn, Pamela Warren, Mary Anne Warren, Penelope Wolfe, Bruce Yip, Yewmun |
| Senate Members Absent: Strong, Rob (exc); Adisa-Thomas, Karima (abs); Ganji, Vijay (exc); Boyle, Andrea (exc); Gillotte, Helen (exc); Moallem, Minoo (exc); Luft, Sandra (exc); Newt-Scott, Ronda (abs); Bishop, Anna (abs). |
| Guests: Bonnie Homan, R. Nickerson, Dan Buttlaire, Gail Whitaker, J. Gemello, M. Verhey, G. Eisman, Sung Hu, Paul Barnes, D. Tsuruta |
Pamela Vaughn encourages all senators to vote and to remind their colleagues to vote on the changes to the SFSU constitution, the CSU constitution and the new bargaining agreement.
m/s/P (Turitz, Steier) to amend the agenda to include the COB curriculum proposal as agenda item 4 and move item 4 to the end of the agenda.
The Provost outlined the historical development that has brought us to the present development of the core items for the development of a university-wide teacher evaluation instrument. He pointed to two important areas in the assessment of effective teaching. First, is in the area of professional development and the second is in the area of student evaluation of teaching effectiveness. The Provost encouraged all faculty to play an active role in contributing to their own teacher evaluation and not to limit that evaluation to students’ feedback only, but to include syllabus, curriculum development, and documentation of instructional development.
Rick Houlberg asked if the individual instructor could select what goes in the evaluation. Tom La Belle indicated that, yes, the instructor and the department can add items to the evaluation instrument. Rick Houlberg if there is a system to implement the instrument. Tom Labelle indicated that there would be a senate policy developed to guide in the implementation of the teaching effectiveness instrument. Susan Higgins asked why there was not a question about students being graded fairly. Tom La Belle indicated that his area had been studied extensively and Marilyn Verhey would be covering that area. Josh Levine asked if additional items are added what will be the feedback for the instructor and what is the role that the evaluation will play in retention, tenure, and promotion process. Tom La Belle indicated that it is up to the faculty member to provide evidence of teaching effectiveness. If the faculty member believes that an evaluation from a third party should be added, then that information should be included. Josh Levine asked if additional items could be added to the evaluation instrument. Tom La Belle indicated that if a faculty member comes up with their own unique items, or set of core items, then it is the responsibility of the faculty member to establish the reliability and validity of those items.
Pamela Vaughn, Chair of the Academic Senate, introduced the item. This item is returning to the senate from the February 5 senate meeting and remains in first reading.
m/s/p (Terrell Steier) to close debate
Voting on the item – Passed (26 yea, 11 nay, 5 abstentions, 42 voting)
m/s/p (Duke, Houlberg) to second reading
m/s/p (Houlberg, Duke) to close debate
Marilyn Verhey provided to all senators a report on the development and testing of a core set of university-wide teaching effectiveness items. The Faculty Affairs Committee and the Academic Senate Executive Committee have accepted the report. It is before the senate for approval. Marilyn thanked Pamela Vaughn, Penny Warren and Caran Colvin and all the members of those committees who worked on these items. She also acknowledged the 400 faculty and 4, 000 students who participated in this process. Marilyn provided a summary of the report. A copy of the summary was provided to each member of the senate and the full report can be found on the Senate web site.
Pamela Vaughn reminded senators that the present report is part of a process agreed to by the senate and that once the report is approved by the senate; the final policy on a university wide assessment instrument will be developed by the senate’s Faculty Affairs committee. Josh Levine asked what was the actual scoring for each item when testing for reliability and validity. Marilyn Verhey indicated that each item had different percentages of faculty who agreed or disagreed. Overall, the average for each item that was accepted is about 2/3 approval. John Levine indicated that the form should include an indication of the faculty members’ discipline or subject matter taught. Caran Colvin, chair of the senate’s Faculty Affairs committee, indicated that her committee would take up the nature of the testing instrument and the procedure for implementation when they develop the university policy. Pamela Vaughn reminded senators that we are accepting a report on the validity and reliability of the core items. The report must now go to both the Faculty Affairs Committee and the Academic Policy Committee for the final drafting of university policy. That policy, once proposed, will come before the senate for final approval.
m/s/p (Duke, Terrell) to accept the report with congratulation for a job well done to Marilyn Verhey
Passed unanimously.
Mary Ann Warren asked if there could be some discussion on why item 6 was not validated. Marilyn Verhey indicated that the item dealt with whether a faculty member showed respect toward a student. It was found, through extensive reviews of the literature, that there are often incidences were a student does not deserve respect. So the item was rejected on that basis. Abdiel Onate thanked the Provost for providing leadership in the development of the assessment items. He felt that a university-wide assessment would provide a valuable tool for comparing teaching across the university. Susan Higgins asked that now that we have accepted the report on the reliability and validity of these items, are they now mandated to be used in a university wide assessment of teaching effectiveness? Pamela Vaughn indicated that it would be up to FAC and APC to develop the policy and to select or reject these items. She thanked all who participated in the development of these items and looked forward to the development of the final policy and instrument.
Amy Nichols, chair of the Curriculum Review and Approval committee, introduced the item to the senate. The Department of Computer Science is proposing the following changes to the Bachelor of Science Degree and Minor Program: 1) Replace a one unit course, CSc 311 Assembly Language Programming Lab, by a new one unit course, CSc 305 Social and Ethical Implications of Computing. The new course has been approved by the Course Review Committee; 2) Add a four-unit biological sciences requirement to the major. This increases the unit count of the major by four but will not increase the total count for the degree as the new requirement can be satisfied by General Education Segment II courses. Note, CSc 311 will also be removed from the Computer Science Minor Program. Before you for your review are the proposed revisions to the Bachelor of Science Degree in Computer Science and the Minor Program in Computer Science. This is a consent item from CRAC. The Department of Computer Science is proposing changes to the degree and minor program. The catalyst for the proposed changes stem from the recent accreditation review by the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology. The recommendations were to strengthen the ethics and science components of the program. If these changes are not implemented, the program risks losing their accreditation status. The first proposed changes substitute a 1-unit course, CSc 305 Social and Ethical Implications of Computing, and dropping the CSc 311 Assembly Language Programming laboratory currently required for the degree. This course will also be dropped from the minor. The second proposed change is to require that all Computer Science BS students be required to complete an additional 4 units of science coursework. These courses consist of GE segment II physical and biological sciences category B biological sciences requirements: bio 100/101, bio 210/211 and bio 230. Students will be advised to select their GE segment II category B coursework from this list, which keeps the total number of units for the degree at 120. Also there are subsequent changes to the bulletin copy because of these changes and those are listed on page 4 of the proposal. Jozo Dujmovic, Chair of Computer Science, and Sung Hu, Associate Dean, College of Science, were in attendance to answer any questions.
Robert Cherny asked about the limited number of units that are dedicated to the topic of ethics. Jozo Dujmovic indicated that the one-unit ethic course was added to meet the accreditation recommendation. He also indicated that ethics is an important unit of instruction in many of the courses in the curriculum. Rick Houlberg indicated that he supports the proposal and cautioned us not to allow accreditation agencies to play the dominant role in curriculum changes. Our curriculum should reflect faculty decisions and expertise.
Dawn Terrell suggested that it is not an option not to respond to accreditation recommendations.
Voting on the proposal. Passed unanimously.
Pamela Vaughn introduced the proposed policy and indicated that it is coming as a consent item from APC. Following consultation with the University Academic Assessment Advisory Committee, the Academic Policies Committee submits for consideration the proposed policy on Academic Assessment. Marlon Hom, chair of APC, indicated that the proposed policy comes to us from the university advisory committee. The policy, after a review, was forwarded to APC for further review and action. The current proposal before the senate is the result of a semester-long review by APC and UUAC. Marilyn Verhey, Chair of the UUAC, is available to answer questions from the senate floor. Rick Houlberg indicated that the proposal would require CRAC to assess curriculum proposals to assure that they meet the university assessment criteria. However, he pointed out that there is nothing in the report that indicated what CRAC is supposed to evaluate or look for. It’s not clear to him what CRAC is supposed to do. Marilyn Verhey indicated that it is assumed that assessment is a faculty-driven process. That when new curriculum proposals move forward that the faculty member will include the assessment procedure in good faith. It is not necessarily a judgment call for CRAC but an evaluation as to the importance of including the assessment procedure in the new curriculum proposal. Tom La Belle indicated that it might make good sense to include someone from the office of assessment as a member of the committee. Susan Higgins was concerned that we might be building too much into the curriculum proposal process. It might pamper the development of new proposals and put an unnecessary burden on faculty. Pamela Vaughn indicated that any new BA or BS degree program would be required to include an assessment plan so it only follows that they should be included as part of CRAC evaluation criteria
m/s/p (Terrell, Duke) to second reading
Voting, passed unanimously
Robert Cherny spoke about the summary of the meeting of the Academic Senate, CSU, a copy of which was provided to all senators. Jan Gregory provided the following summary of the statewide senate plenary session by email to all senators: Faculty Affairs Committee of the ASCSU on March 6-7. Spoke at length with both Jackie McClain and Susan Meisenhelder about the (then-new) Tentative Agreement between CSU and CFA and their hopes for greater collegiality in discussing implementation should the faculty ratify the TA. Discussed spiritedly and revised several resolutions for discussion by the full Senate on: Faculty role in the search, selection, and review of system wide administrators; Faculty role in the search, selection, and review of campus administrators; Development or updating of campus policies on Teaching Associates and teaching Assistants to bring campus practice into conformity with new CSU language (Standards and Classification of graduate students employed in a variety of roles), passed at the March 8 plenary; success of the Parties in finally reaching a Tentative Agreement, also passed at the March 8 plenary. Heard reports from subcommittee studying compliance of campuses with the ASCSU resolution on implementation process for YRO department chair task force workload task force -- the report on CSU T/TT and lecturer workload is now posted on the web for your edification and reading pleasure, and the survey of comparison institutions in the US is under way, with results to be prepared by fall Academic Affairs liaison Lorie Roth.
Respectfully submitted,
James Edwards
Secretary to the Faculty