The Academic Senate was called to order by Chair Mark Phillips at 2:10 p.m.

Senate Members Present: Sanjoy Banerjee, Paul Barnes, Patricia

Bartscher, Sally Berlowitz, Marian Bernstein, Janet Buchholz, Rosa Casarez-Levison,

Yu-Charn Chen, Michelle Cheng, Robert Cherny, Robert Corrigan, Jerry Duke, Gerald

Eisman, Ken Fehrman, Newman Fisher, Ann Hallum, Jennifer Hammett, Caroline Harnly,

Mary Ann Haw, Marlon Hom, Bonnie Homan, Rick Houlberg, Todd Imahori, Dane Johnson,

Herb Kaplan, James Kelley, Thomas La Belle, Wanda Lee, Lois Lyles, Hollis Matson,

Eunice Aaron, Eugene Michaels, Joel Nicholson, Abdiel Oñate, Raymond

Pestrong, Mark Phillips, Mario Rivas, Don Scoble, Peggy Smith, Lana Thomson,

Thaddeus Usowicz, Marilyn Verhey, Kenneth Walsh, Mary Ann Warren, Penelope Warren,

Nancy Wilkinson, Alfred Wong, Yim Yu Wong.

Senate Members Absent: Patricia Wade(exc.), Helen Goldsmith(exc.),

Darlene Yee(exc.), Dawn Terrell(exc.), David Hemphill(exc.), Roberto Rivera,

Helen Gillotte(exc.), Peter Haikalis(exc.), Will Flowers(exc.), Gary Hammerstrom(exc.),

James Collier, Lee Sprague(exc.), Gerrie Baughman.

Senate Interns Present: Sabrina Mehrok.

Guests: G. Whitaker, D. Schafer, K. Monteiro, N. Fielden, L.


Announcements and Report

Chair's Report

  • There will be an open meeting with President Corrigan, sponsored by CFA,

    to discuss PSSIs and other compensation issues. The meeting will be held Monday,

    March 17 in HUM 133 from 2:00 to 4:00 p.m.

  • Rigoberta Menchú, Nobel Peace Prize Laureate, is speaking on campus

    at 2:30 p.m. today in Malcolm X Plaza.

  • Welcome to Rosa Casarez-Levison, a new senator from the College of Education.

Agenda Item #1 - Approval of Agenda for Meeting of March 11, 1997

The agenda was approved as printed.

Agenda Item #2 - Approval of Minutes for Meeting of February 25, 1997

The minutes were approved as printed.

Agenda Item #3 - Report from Vice President La Belle

Vice President La Belle reported that Dr. Carol E. Baker, Director of the

Office of Measurement and Evaluation of Teaching at the University of Pittsburgh

was on campus March 3 and 4, at the invitation of the Academic Senate. The University

of Pittsburgh has used an institutional-wide process for assessment of teaching

for 20 years. Dr. Baker was here to discuss teaching evaluation instruments,

the validity and reliability of the instruments, the collection of data, and

the use of the evaluation results.

At SFSU, beginning in 1990, the Faculty Affairs Committee studied teaching

evaluation instruments. A task force was formed to develop criteria for evaluation

procedures for the enhancement of teaching effectiveness, to propose guidelines

to improve procedures for assessment and to develop mechanisms for making resources

available to faculty. The revised report was issued in 1996. That report includes

a formative section which indicates that a portion of teaching assessment is

to help a faculty member learn more about how s/he can improve teaching effectiveness.

La Belle felt that the emphasis has to be on the formative side. He said that

formative feedback from the students should come early in the semester so that

it can be used by the faculty member during that semester. He encouraged faculty

are to use classroom assessment techniques available through the Center for

the Enhancement of Teaching. He also said that peer coaching, informal classroom

visits, and mentoring relationships could also be used in a formative manner.

La Belle added that the summative section is quantitative and used for evaluation.

A department review of assessment tools is important to assure the instrument

is reliable and valid and to insure that administration of the assessment tools

is consistent. Peers can review teaching, advising, theses, and course development.

Class observations are conducted annually. Faculty members can develop a portfolio

including evaluation results, syllabi, video tapes, and other tools to show

their teaching effectiveness.

La Belle felt that at SFSU, there could be common instruments used campus-wide

to cover core questions. Variable items could be added to the evaluation form

by the college, department, and/or faculty member. He said that efforts should

be made to link what is learned through the assessment process to the Center

for the Enhancement of Teaching so that a good support system is available.

He felt that the Senate has laid a good foundation and it is time to build on

that foundation.

La Belle said that his office is ready to try to provide the infrastructure

to move ahead with improving teaching effectiveness. Chair Phillips added that

while we make teaching the primary value on this campus, he felt that through

a sloppy evaluation system, we may trivialize it. He added that we have a responsibility

to make sure we have the best data possible.

Eisman stated that Educational Technology Advisory Committee (ETAC) has been

dealing with faculty intellectual rights, particularly as it applies to on-line

courses. Since faculty are working on new ways of delivering instruction, these

courses are still experimental. He said that faculty are trying to discover

what works and what doesn't work and that evaluation of these types of courses

needs to be different. ETAC will be bringing a proposed policy to the Senate

when it is available.

Agenda Item #4 - Proposed Revisions to MS in Psychology: Concentration

in School Psychology

CRAC Chair Ann Hallum introduced this item and Psychology Department

Chair Ken Monteiro as resource. Hallum stated that this proposal

changes the name of the degree from M.A. to M.S., bringing the program in line

with other programs. Hallum added that it was also recommended by the an APRC

external review. Monteiro added that although there is no policy within

the program for name changes, they are thinking about having applied programs

be M.S. and research programs be M.A. M/S/P (Matson, Hom) to move to

second reading. M/S/P (Smith, Fehrman) to close debate. The item was

approved unanimously.

Agenda Item #5 - Proposed Revisions to the MA in Education: Instructional


CRAC Chair Ann Hallum introduced this item and Instructional Technologies

Chair Gene Michaels as a resource. Hallum stated that this proposal makes minor

adjustments to the prerequisites to ensure that all students enter the program

with a similar level of understanding, and that adjustments were made to the

emphases is to reflect student enrollment by replacing the Instructional Media

Production with Technology Integration for Teachers, the other two emphases

remain the same.

Matson asked if there will be a different process to evaluate the level

of knowledge of students with different backgrounds. Michaels responded

that in terms of computers and video, all entering students should be at the

same level. If they are not at the technical skills level, there are prerequisite

courses they must take.

M/S/P (Smith, Fehrman) to move to second reading.

Wilkinson questioned whether two common courses are enough to comply

with policy. Graduate Division Associate Dean Donna Schafer replied that there

is currently no policy being followed with a specific number of common courses.

Michaels added that there are more than the three core courses in common

since all students take other common seminars.

Eisman asked about the Changes to Prerequisites section on page

2. Number 4 states that students must demonstrate a basic level of video production

skills. He asked what would happen if a teacher with limited vision applied

to the program. Michaels replied that the situation has not occurred

yet, but accommodations would be made if it does. M/S/P (Fehrman, Smith)

to close debate. The item was approved unanimously.

Agenda Item #6 - Up-date on the Monterey Conference

Phillips described the statewide meeting concerning Cornerstones and

the Review of the Baccalaureate : This meeting brought together faculty and

administrators from all CSU campuses, students and trustees. There were a series

of presentations about the four Cornerstone projects or directives and a report

on the Baccalaureate study.

Phillips said that there are some things that Cornerstones single out

as important that SFSU is already doing and/or CUSP is already addressing. This

might present an opportunity for SFSU to have a positive contribution. He felt

that their are some issues not being addressed by our campus. One issue is how

much are we moving to a larger incentive system; how much of the funds that

are given to a campus are based on how well certain criteria are met. A second

issue identified as essential for us to pay attention to is whether Cornerstones

might undermine some things that we as a campus perceive to be of high value.

Houlberg said that seeing what the system is dealing with in the future

is positive. He felt that elimination of seat time, Carnegie unit, testing within

individual classes, and the use of technology are major changes in what we do.

He said that another positive at the conference was that he was able to see

how this campus is different from others. Houlberg also saw that some other

campuses have come up with alternative solutions to problems that we also have.

He also felt that most of what happened could have been done via e-mail and

did not necessitate a 20 hour conference.

Phillips further reported that SFSU and CSU LA were the only campuses

with a significant number of delegates of color. This raised some further concerns

about the degree of sensitivity by the decision-makers to access and other issues

that are important to this campus. In terms of where do we go from here, he

felt that the senate should wait for the written report which is not yet ready

for distribution.

Matson asked what the delegates found good in Cornerstones. Houlberg

responded that identifying the problem might be seen as positive, Since what

has been done on this campus has been insular, the dimensions are much larger.

He said did not find answers at the conference.

Michaels said that the emphases that he had drawn from discussions

with delegates included that undergraduate education is much more highly valued

than graduate education and that large sections and distance education are also

valued. If that happens, he felt that the CSU will start to resemble the community

college system, not UC. The collapse of the BA will reflect the AA not the MA.

Michaels wondered how accurate these are as thrusts of Cornerstones.

Cherny stated that he is generally positive about the process. He felt

that the Trustees are proud of the fact that their experience has been different

than the experience of the UC Regents. He said that when the UC Regents moved

to eliminate affirmative action, they did not consult the faculty; when the

CSU was considering remediation they consulted the public and the faculty and

changed their position as a result. He felt that the Chancellor's Office and

the Trustees were listening. In response to Michaels question, he felt the document

stated a commitment to graduate and post baccalaureate education. He further

stated that the document predicted a large unmet need for both and that the

CSU needs to meet those needs.

Hallum said that her break-out group dealt with active learning. As

one student in her group said, faculty need to be "the guide by the side,

not the sage on the stage." She said that without funding, it is difficult

to do active and distance learning. She felt that Cornerstones shows strong

support for graduate and post baccalaureate education, however, with the possibility

of economic differentiation for those programs, if may be difficult for some

people to enter professional programs.

Hom said, paraphrasing Tom Ehrlich, this is the first time that the

CSU has invited 500 faculty and administrators to participate in a process like

this. Hom said he sees this as positive. He sees the three types of BA as potentially

scary particularly if the general BA is seen as lesser or inferior to the specialized

or technical BA. If resources are limited, how will access be provided particularly

concerning diversity of students? Hom questioned if Cornerstones was looking

at faculty recruitment and what types of faculty will be needed to meet these

changing needs. He felt that the CSU will become suburban and that urban issues

will be ignored.

Kelley felt that the conference was viewed as very important by the

Chancellor and the Trustees. He felt it would be important if the Chancellor

and Trustees learned anything. He stated that both UC and CSU graduate enrollment

has decreased while private university graduate enrollment has increased. He

felt that the CSU needs to find ways to provide more graduate opportunities

since UC will not do much. He said Extended Education may be used imaginatively

by offering one day courses, short courses, and weekend education. One overall

impression that he got was about changes based on external events. Kelley identified

four externals that have had an effect on the CSU: the emancipation of the campuses

by removal of the rules from the Chancellor's Office that constrained campuses;

the need to depend on external funding through development; performance based

salary increases which were driven by political pressures for accountability;

and technology, which is not cheap, must be used in a judicious way.

Kelley felt that the message that the delegates in his group sent back

to the Chancellor's office was the need to change the behavior from the Chancellor's

predecessors who penalized initiative. He felt initiative must be rewarded.

Phillips added that different campuses will respond differently to

the Cornerstones report. The content of the next volume of the report is not

known. He felt that since it's been said that we need to maintain unlimited

access with no increase in funds while maintaining quality, the approach to

the legislature is important.

Smith questioned whether there were any staff or legislators at the

conference. Phillips replied that the only staff there were working the

conference, not attending it. He said that there were two students to represent

all campuses and no legislators were present.

Matson thanked the senators who went and said that she appreciated

some of the interesting answers. Phillips said that he doesn't know if faculty

were heard at the conference. He doesn't know how open the process is and we

won't know until further along in the process. He felt that the key is to pay

careful attention to Cornerstones. CUSP will deal with it, the Senate will be

kept informed, and the Executive Committee will deal with it.

The Senate was adjourned at 3:33 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Bonnie Homan

Secretary to the Faculty