Meeting Minutes 3:30 5:00 PM Senate Chambers
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
1. Council of Chairs
Meeting Minutes 3:30 – 5:00 PM Senate Chambers October 1, 2013
Present: Anziano, Michael
Next meeting: October 15, 2013, 3:30-5:00 pm, Senate Chambers
2. Reports/Announcements
Lisa Snyder, Assessment Director, announced the programs that successfully submitted their 5 Year Program Assessment Plans by the 10/1 deadline. Over the next month or so, the Assessment Committee will be reviewing plans and working with departments. The Provost and Ryan Haaland, Engineering and Physics, discussed the recent ABET accreditation team visit. The College considers Engineering and Physics to be a gold standard of assessment processes. However, the ABET team listed concerns around the [List of attendees]
Meeting Minutes, October 1, 2013
Page 2 program’s assessment of student learning outcomes and continuous improvement (i.e. how the program is using assessment data to close the loop). So even the gold standard has room for improvement. Departments should take note that when the HLC accreditation team visits in 2015 they should expect a similar approach to how the accreditors will be looking for evidence of student learning, how departments are assessing student learning and then using this data to inform decisions and make improvements.
3. ASFLC Representation on Council of Chairs
The Provost asked the Council of Chairs if there are any concerns about having an ASFLC representative attend the Council of Chairs meetings. Discussion: o Q: What is the reason for having this student representation? A: There is currently ASFLC representation at the Board of Trustees, President’s Council, the Faculty Senate and the Council of Chairs is a level of shared governance without student representation. o What about discussions regarding personnel issues? Could we go into an executive session if such issues arose? Would student representation inhibit open conversation? There is a concern about a student seeing bickering among the members of the council. o The ASFLC President, Dylan Leigh approached Keri Brandt, Sociology, regarding this request for representation, Keri agreed that student representation on the Council, similar to other levels of academic governance , is a good idea to help create a more collective environment. o The Provost asked for an initial vote. Those in favor = 12; those opposed = 11; abstained =2. Given the close vote the Council would prefer a consensus among the members. A suggestion was made to invite a student representative based on the agenda items. This issue will be discussed in future meetings.
4. Colorado Open Record State (CORA)
The Provost shared the Colorado Open Records Act Requests document (see attached) as a reminder that Colorado is an Open Records State and therefore all emails sent to and from fortlewis.edu accounts are considered public record.
5. Syllabus and Learning Management System Policies
These policies have been forwarded to the Faculty Sentate which has tasked various committees including the Faculty Handbook committee to review the drafts. Q: What does the faculty handbook say about the process of curricular decisions? A: I don’t know. Some faculty believe these policies are curricular issues and should therefore be discussed among the faculty at large and then presented to Senate for a vote. Other faculty see these policies as procedures not about the content of the course. There is precedent for the Sentate [List of attendees]
Meeting Minutes, October 1, 2013
Page 3 to vote on academic policies. The Senate will be discussing these policies at the next meeting on October 16, 2013 The Provost has brought these policies to the Council of Chairs so that the Chairs could discuss these policies directly with faculty and facilitate concerns, recommendations, and feedback. This method was considered to be the best way to reach the broadest faculty audience and get their input. The next step will be to bring these revised drafts to the Faculty Senate for discussion, debate and a possible vote. Reminder that Senate meetings are open to the public and anyone can comment. Faculty concerns/dislikes of Syllabus & LMS policies: o Requirement that syllabi would be reviewed every 5 years by Curriculum Committee . John Baranski, Curriculum Committee Chair, described the Committees concerns about the workload of reviewing program changes, course proposals and syllabi for quality and rigor for all credit bearing courses (e.g. 1000 standing courses, COBLR, innovative month courses, extended education ) . There was a discussion about the current process of how courses are reviewed for quality and rigor and what role if any the Curriculum Committee should play in evaluating syllabi. Where does the locus of authority rest? There has to be a systematic way of looking at the quality and rigor of courses. . Lisa Snyder, Assessment Director, discussed the concerns of the HLC Criterion 4 Work Group which has identified a gap for identifying how the institution systematically assures that courses meet learning outcomes. The Provost stated that the current process of course and program approval is that the Faculty, through the Senate, approves the course/program and then it goes to the Provost for signature. Within this process there needs to be an understanding of how the course fits into a program and how it is aligned with program and college learning outcomes. This is currently an institutional gap. o Requirement that syllabi must be posted in the LMS o Requirement that syllabi be made available to students 2 weeks prior to the start of the semester. This would mean faculty would need to be preparing syllabi over the winter break and in August before the start of their contract. o Lack of flexibility to change a syllabus, concerns about loss of academic freedom . Discussion that syllabi should not dramatically change. It’s acceptable to make minor adjustments but egregious changes should be avoided so that students don’t complain about a “bait and switch”. . Syllabi should not be changed until an assessment is done that informs a change and that changes are done to improve a course and student learning. . It is expected that faculty will change their delivery methods/instruction, and modify courses during a semester however the syllabus can remain unchanged. o The History department is uncomfortable about submitting a course syllabus along with a new course proposal. . How does the Faculty Senate feel about this? Could the department chair be responsible for signing off on all syllabi? o What are the penalties if a faculty member doesn’t meet deadlines or post syllabus? [List of attendees]
Meeting Minutes, October 1, 2013
Page 4 . Tenured faculty could receive a negative senior review for not complying with institutional policies . Chairs could write a letter of reprimand o Regarding the requirements in red: Which federal policies are out there? Is there a federal law? Congress did not make any laws regarding syllabus requirements. Items in red denote federal compliance issues that are required by the HLC. o Chairs proposed that the LMS policy be tabled until a LMS is selected. Chairs would like to hear about the experiences from faculty participating in the Canvas Pilot. . The Provost stated that collegewide use the LMS was part of the strategic plan and that $300,000 was set aside in the annual budget to support this initiative. The Stragetic Plan never assumed that participation in the LMS was an opt-in. . Kelly Stanley, eLearning Director, noted that the needs of the institution would drive the selection and implementation of the LMS. The Instructional Technology Committee would be receiving feedback from the faculty in the Canvas pilot before their next meeting in two weeks and will likely be making a recommendation based on this information. Feedback from the Canvas pilot will be shared with the Chairs. o Will there be stipends available to pay adjuncts to attend training on how to use the LMS? The Deans council is looking at adjunct pay. Many adjuncts are expected to use the LMS at the institution where they are employed and do not receive additional compensation for that training. What happens next with these policies? The policies will be redrafted based on comments from this meeting and then sent back out to the Chairs and to the Faculty Senate President for distribution and discussion at future Senate meetings.
6. Provost announcements of upcoming events
10/2/13 11:30- 1:00 Pizza with the President & Provost 10/9/13 4:00-6:00 Open Discussion Meeting with Non-Tenured Faculty & Provost (invitations were sent) 10/14 Speak Your Mind Session 10/3 & 10/4 Open Sessions – Student Success Collaborative
Meeting Adjourned at 5:00 PM