Minutes of the
Academic Senate Meeting
Tuesday, March
19, 2002
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 Avila, Guadalupe Bartscher, Patricia Blomberg, Judith 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 Oñate, 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.
Agenda Item #1: Approval of Agenda for Meeting of March 19, 2002
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.
Agenda Item #2: Approval of Minutes for Meeting of March 5, 2002
m/s/p
(Houlberg, Steier) to approve the minutes as corrected
Agenda Item #3: Report from Vice President La Belle
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.
Agenda Item #4: Proposed Revision to the Bachelor of Science in business:
Multiple Concentrations
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.
The
College of Business is proposing 3 changes in its existing undergraduate curricular
program with the goal of reducing the current unit requirement for graduation
from 126 to 120 units. The change is in response to pressure from within
the College (especially among students who cannot graduate within four years
despite best efforts and performance), from the academic administration, and
from the “Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB). The
Changes are: Removal of BICS 263, Introduction to Computer Information Systems,
from the core course requirements for all business majors. The course will
remain in the College of Business’s (CoB) curriculum, but will no longer be
a required course in the business core. Change the unit requirements for all
undergraduate concentrations in the College of Business from a fixed level
of 24 units (8 upper division courses) to variable units. The default level
will be set 21 units (7 upper division courses), but concentrations may require
more units (i.e., for professional certification needs), or fewer units (to
encourage taking elective courses). The approval of the Dean will be required
for variations from the default level. The College of Business provided each
senator with a 17 page “Summary of Proposed Change of Requirements for Existing
College of Business Undergraduate Curricular Program.” A copy of the summary
is also made available electronically on the senate’s web site. The College
of Business interim Dean Gerald Platt and the Associate Dean were present
to answer any questions.
m/s/p
(Duke, Terrell) to second reading
m/s/p
(Terrell Steier) to close debate
Voting
on the item - Passed (26 yea, 11 nay, 5 abstentions, 42 voting)
Agenda Item #5: Proposed Resolutions
on the hiring of Graduate Students as Teaching Associates and Graduate Assistants.
A proposed
resolution on the hiring of graduate teaching associates and graduate assistants
was first presented to the Academic Senate during the March 2, 2002 meeting.
A copy of the proposed resolution was provided to all senators. Pamela
Vaughn, Chair of the Academic Senate, introduced the resolution to the
senate and reminded senators that the proposed resolution is a reflection
of CSU policy.
m/s/p
(Duke, Houlberg) to second reading
m/s/p
(Houlberg, Duke) to close debate
Voting on the resolution - Passed
Agenda Item #6: Report from Coordinator of Academic Assessment Marilyn Verhey
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.
Agenda Item #7: Proposed revision
to the Bachelor of Science Degree in Computer Science and the Minor program
in Computer Science
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.
M/s/p (Duke, Houlberg) to second reading
Dawn
Terrell suggested that it is not an option
not to respond to accreditation recommendations.
M/s/p (Duke Houlberg) to close debate
Voting on the proposal. Passed unanimously.
Agenda Item #8: Proposed Policy on Academic Assessment
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
Agenda Item #9: Report from Statewide Senators
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.
Senate adjourned at 3:20
Respectfully
submitted,
James
Edwards
Secretary
to the Faculty