Minutes of the Meeting of the
Academic Senate
May 22, 2014
1. The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Keith Ogawa at 3:00 p.m. on May 22, 2014. Roll was called and the following Senators were present: Chairperson Keith Ogawa, Vice Chairperson Valerie Burke, Past Chairperson Claude Malary, Berna Aksu, Peter Freund, Laura Heid, David Quijada, Martin Rokeach, and Ronald Olowin. Absent with notice were Parliamentarian Helga Lénárt-Cheng and Senator Jeannine King.
Also present were: Hisham Ahmed, Shawny Anderson, David Bird, Robert Bulman, Joel Burley, Vice Provost Richard Carp, Gratia Cobeen, Steve Cortright, Provost Beth Dobkin, Alexis Doval, Charles Hamaker, Elizabeth Hamm, Jennifer Heung, Dean Pat Kreitz, Dean Zhan Li, Mark Lingwood, Barbara McGraw, Mike Riley, Mari-Anne Rosario, Myrna Santiago, Jim Sauerberg, Vice Provost Chris Sindt, Gregg Thomson, Ted Tsukahara, Dean Steve Woolpert, Br. Michael Yribarren, and Joseph Zepeda.
REPORTS
2. Chairperson's Report - Chair Ogawa announced the passing of Professor Diana Wu from SEBA and asked for a moment of silence. He thanked everyone for attending the additional Senate meeting.
Valerie Burke publically thanked Charles Hamaker for filling in as Interim Vice Chairperson in her absence.
Chair Ogawa briefly summarized the results of faculty fora he held for each school throughout the spring semester. He posed four areas for discussion:
1. Rumors - faculty were concerned with the pre-enrollment registration, the new scheduling parameters and its impact on small departments/programs as well as interdisciplinary programs.
2. Concerns: Three factors in particular were communication/governance, infrastructure, and faculty welfare and workload.
3. What we do well: Great teachers and commitment to the students, connection to the mission. Technology in the classroom has improved and we are now seen as best practice.
4. What to do more of: would like an active mentoring program for new faculty.
Consent Agenda: Cinematic Arts Minor. Approved.
3. Report on WASC - Vice Provost Chris Sindt distributed a written report: Update on the WASC Reaccreditation. In summary:
- The Reaccreditation began in the Fall 2012,
- A large part of last year was spent on the institutional report submitted on September 23, 2013.
- Off site review was held on December 2, 2013. Received Official Lines of Inquiry (areas that WASC will pay particular attention to.)
- Reaccreditation visit this fall, September 10-12, 2014.
- The team report due November 2013
- Commission Action due on February 20, 2015.
The following were the official lines of Inquiry:
Assessment of student learning
Program review
Diversity initiatives
Leadership transition
Campus Master Plan
Strategic Planning processes
Information technology infrastructure
4. Provost's Update - Provost Dobkin reported that the Library will undergo a significant renovation this summer; the renovation will not preclude the plans for the new Library.
Provost Dobkin reported at an earlier meeting that a faculty grant fund will be available with funding up to $9,000. Ideally, this could become a larger fund in the future.
OLD BUSINESS
5. Resolution for the Administration of Online Course Evaluations - A MOTION was made by Senator Aksu and SECONDED by Senator Rokeach to discuss the following Resolution/faculty petition received from the Faculty Welfare Committee.
From: The Faculty Welfare Committee
To: The Academic Senate
Re: Administration of Online Course Evaluations
Date: May 19, 2014
Introduction:
This resolution was developed by faculty and reviewed, revised and unanimously supported by the Faculty Welfare Committee.
Since the rollout of the college-wide online course evaluation system this AY, a number of issues have been identified by faculty and have been brought to the attention of the Office of Institutional Research (OIR). Some of these issues were the normal teething problems of any new large-scale system while others stem from the varying needs of different programs. We would like to acknowledge the efforts of the OIR in the initial transition to college-wide online course evaluations (COCE), as well as in responding to the concerns of the faculty.
Rationale:
Whereas in moving to the new COCE in the last two semesters, there is a collective sense among faculty of several critical problems in the online process that remain to be resolved and that impact the formative nature of faculty teaching evaluations and the rank and tenure process. There is a need to distinguish these easily fixable problems apart from the teething problems of any new large-scale system.
This resolution highlights these problems and proposes some solutions for consideration and adoption as part of the COCE implementation.
Whereas, that
1. Instructors for several courses were assigned in error (i.e. the instructor attached to a particular course was not actually teaching the course).
2. Some faculty were not informed about when the students received the invitation to do the course evaluations.
3. Several students in each course did not get an invitation at all. Some students who had dropped a course still received invitations. Given our class sizes, missing data for several students could skew the results considerably, resulting in unreliable data.
4. In general, the timing of the open window for course evaluations is inconsistent with graduate programs, with some course evaluations emailed out even before the course instruction starts, and others way past the course end dates, and some at awkward timings in relation to the courses.
5. The results are not returned to faculty in a timely manner before the start of the next quarter/semester.
6. There are issues with generally poor response rates on the evaluations, with some courses with 0 or 1 response, and on average, rates around 50%. Again, given our class sizes, these kinds of response rates could significantly skew the data collected.
7. The above are all critical issues as they impact the rank and tenure process for faculty, as the R&T Committee itself has brought to the Senate’s attention most recently. Because of the abovementioned issues, the reliability of data collected since we transitioned to COCE is highly questionable and should not be utilized in R&T discussions as is.
Whereas, that
1. The timing of the release of the questionnaire should be within the penultimate period of the course ending. This timing should be allowed to vary and be controlled by program as the course calendars vary by program. We can resolve this issue by granting access to support staff for administering the evaluations. For each program, support staff should be formally assigned with the authority and responsibility to work out the details of administering and troubleshooting the COCE.
2. The window of time for which the students have access to providing the feedback also should be determined by program, and decided at the program level. From the data collected so far, it seems that the standard (very long) window has worked against the very objective it was meant to achieve, which was to ensure a higher response rate by increasing students’ opportunities to complete the evaluations.
3. The feedback from the students is important for faculty to improve their course content and delivery. The results of the course evaluations should be returned to faculty within one week (i.e. 7 days) of faculty submitting their grades for the course.
4. An assessment of the teething problems with COCE should be made and a period of ‘grace’ be announced for the R&T Committee to appropriately discount this data in evaluating the faculty for R&T purposes based on the data collected during this ‘grace’ period.
5. A reassessment of how the modified system is working should be made after Autumn 2014 results are obtained and a report submitted to the Senate with the findings of this reassessment.
Be it resolved that:
The Academic Senate facilitate a discussion among the faculty of the aforementioned issues.
The Academic Senate recommend decentralizing the administration of course evaluations while implementing the items above to alleviate issues of concern in the interim while the system is being tweaked and due diligence is taking place.
Senator Aksu explained that the Resolution was discussed at the Senate meeting on May 15, 2014. There was no disagreement with the issues themselves. There appears to be agreement as to what needs to be done, however, none of the solutions proposed have been implemented at the institutional level. She urged the Senate to make a recommendation for resolution as it is extremely important for faculty being reviewed.
Ted Tsukahara explained that the FWC became involved because they received a faculty petition from SEBA. The FWC then contacted the Office of Institutional Research (OIR) to discuss the current situation. The Resolution before the Senate is a plea to resolve a situation that is troubling for a good number of faculty in terms of how the information will be used. Prior to meeting with OIR, the R&T Committee had emailed faculty stressing the importance of good course evaluations. The FWC was made aware of a committee that was formed to communicate between OIR and the various constituencies on campus, but they (FWC) could find no evidence that communication is taking place. In the meantime, for R&T colleagues, it is requested that it be taken into consideration, to use their judgment to recognize that the data may not be truly accurate. The intention of this process is to open up communication and to make sure we don't become rigid about how we use course evaluation data for decision-making purposes.
Senator Rokeach asked what is meant by "decentralizing the administration of course evaluations..." He is not sure what would be involved. Others were also concerned with assigning the task to staff in various schools/departments. Dean Woolpert asked if the chairs/directors been consulted? He would not be comfortable notifying them of a new responsibility without their consultation. Robert Bulman asked what it is that the Senate is to vote on, is it an endorsement of the five points listed?
Vice Chair Burke supported correcting the issues, but through the Office of Institutional Research, as it is their job to implement the evaluations.
Hisham Ahmed said the diagnosis of the problems is very clear but he cautioned against the proposed solution of decentralization as that could create additional problems. Senator Heid agreed that she does not see decentralization as a solution. She suggested that a line of communication be opened up between OIR and the faculty that signed the petition.
Senator Freund added that the process needs to be customized, not decentralized. He suggested striking that portion of the resolution that asks for decentralization of the administration of course evaluations.
Past Chair Malary suggested that the solution could be one resolution with two aspects: the first part of the Resolution charges the Senate to ensure that the OIR conducts the evaluations that take into account the particulars of every school. The second action is a remedy until the first portion is resolved, that is to write to the R&T Committee asking them to take into consideration the aberrations that have occurred in the course evaluation process. Senator Aksu urged the Senate to consider one additional item which stipulates that the results are delivered to faculty in a timely manner.
Provost Dobkin commented that many issues have been raised that beg for evidence and clarity. She suggested meeting with three faculty representatives and OIR over the summer about the issues. Ted Tsukahara volunteered as well as Senator Olowin.
Chair Ogawa summarized that there are two proposals on the table, a modification proposed by Past Chair Malary and the option put forward by Provost Dobkin to create the Task Force to work with her and the OIR over the summer.
Vice Chair Burke offered the following language to incorporate the suggestions and concerns expressed:
Be it resolved:
1. Senate should submit a letter to R&T to request that they carefully weigh course evaluations taking into consideration data issues, reliability, and low response rates until such issues are satisfactorily resolved.
2. OIR should work closely with faculty to customize the administration of course evaluations by school, program, department as needed, and to ensure timely return of results.
3. Correction of these issues by OIR should be attempted before the end of the spring quarter 2014.
Senator Aksu accepted the above as a friendly amendment. A MOTION was made by Past Chair Malary and SECONDED by Senator Freund to approve the Resolution as amended. The motion passed by a hand vote of 8-0 with one abstention.
NEW BUSINESS
6. Integral Summary Argument and Petition to the Academic Senate - Chair Ogawa introduced the document which asks the Senate to grant exemption from the core curriculum for the Integral program. A Summary Argument and Petition to the Academic Senate was submitted by the Director, Instruction Committee and Tutors, Integral Curriculum of Liberal Arts. (The full report is on file in the Office of the Academic Senate.) The Resolution is presented below:
V. Petition
The tutors and Instruction Committee of the Integral Curriculum of Liberal Arts respectfully request that the Academic Senate reaffirm the College’s historical recognition of the Program as “a special community of learning with its own curriculum, requirements, faculty and degree” by adopting this
Resolution: (1) The Integral Curriculum of Liberal Arts is exempted from the purview of the Core Curriculum Committee; (2) the requirements for the degree, Bachelor of Arts in the Integral Curriculum of Liberal Arts, are reaffirmed as given in the Undergraduate Catalog of Courses, 2013 – 2014, p. 143, with the following amendments: “As a separate curriculum, the program offers a bachelor’s degree proper to it. The degree is granted for the successful completion of the eight seminars, the eight tutorials in mathematics, the eight in language, the four laboratories, a tutorial in music and the senior essay. Note that the College requires further the successful completion of four January courses and sufficient electives to bring the total to 36 courses. Those completing the first two years of the program have fulfilled all requirements of the College in general education, except English and two January courses. Students who withdraw from the program prior to its completion will have fulfilled a number of the College’s Core Curriculum requirements, according to a schedule of equivalences determined by the College’s Core Curriculum Committee.” (3) Any subsequent modification of the requirements for the degree, Bachelor of Arts in the Integral Curriculum of Liberal Arts, will be advanced through the Undergraduate Educational Policies Committee, in accordance with the Faculty Handbook, 1.7.4.5.1.f.