3 November 2000
|7 November||Faculty Affairs Committee||South 110||4 p.m.|
|9 November||Executive Committee||South 309||12:50 p.m.|
|14 November||College Senate||Newton 204||4 p.m.|
|21 November||UCC||South 209||4 p.m.|
|28 November||Student Affairs Committee||South 110||4 p.m.|
|5 December||College Senate||Newton 204||4 p.m.|
Correspondence: Christopher C. Leary, Department of Mathematics, South 324D
E-mail: email@example.com Phone: 245-5383
Comments from the Chair 108
Early Returns 125
Comments from the Chair
Ballots have been distributed. Please check to make sure that every member of your department who is eligible to vote has received their ballot. If anyone has not received a ballot, please let me know as soon as possible!
Voting is scheduled to end at 4 pm on Friday, 10 November 2000.
C. Filice, B. Gohlman, S. Iyer, S. Kirsh, S. Landes, J. Lerch, T. Macula, J. Mounts, J. Over, J. Pacella, C. Truglia, T. Greenfield, E. Gillin (Chair).
E. Gillin called the meeting to order at 4:03.
The proposed change to the syllabus policy recently passed by the Policy Committee has passed the first reading in Senate. The Chair has been asked to comment on the proposal at the next Senate meeting.
Consider proposal from General Education Committee regarding the approval process for core offerings.
T. Greenfield described the process by which courses satisfying the SUNY General Education (SUNY core) requirements are approved. He noted that, as procedures currently stand, a course could be approved for Geneseo’s core requirements, yet not be on the approved list of SUNY core courses. This, he stated, essentially creates two cores, complications in advising and book keeping, and the potential for students to meet the Geneseo requirements, but to have their degree revoked for not meeting the SUNY core requirements. He had been acting to keep the two cores in agreement, but seeks to formalize this procedure.
E. Gillin read the text of the proposal.
The General Education Committee recommends revising our core review policies to note that no new core course that corresponds to a SUNY General Education Outcome [Social Science, Fine Arts, Mathematics (Numerical/Symbolic), Natural Science, Humanities, Other Civilizations (Multicultural), US History, others as they may apply] will be approved for core credit until SUNY System has approved the course for core.
B. Gohlman moved the proposal; C. Truglia seconded the motion.
J. Over asked about the consequences of not passing the motion. He noted that Geneseo has the ability to approve core courses for out of state transfer students. This in and of itself circumvents SUNY Systems authority over all of the courses used to meet the SUNY core. T. Greenfield agreed that SUNY System control was not complete, but that the consequences of not passing the motion (and running two cores) would be felt by students (i.e., confusion on course selection and the potential for not satisfying degree requirements). He also reiterated that it would create book keeping nightmares and an increased burden on advisors.
Discussion ensued regarding the SUNY degree audit process, and the likelihood of a degree being revoked if a mistake was make with regard to the SUNY core. There was general agreement that potential existed for students failing to get their degrees, or for degrees being revoked following an audit.
H. Hoops asked how this proposal would impact the unique portions of the Geneseo core (e.g., the Foreign Language requirement). T. Greenfield stated that the proposal did not affect the portions of our core that are unique to Geneseo (e.g., the 2nd and 3rd semesters of F. L.).
T. Macula asked about the match between the set of courses comprising the SUNY core (i.e., the minimum), and the set of courses comprising the Geneseo core. T. Greenfield stated that six of the Geneseo core courses were not approved by SUNY System. He met with department chairs regarding these courses, and they were removed from the Geneseo core. T. Macula then asked whether it would be simpler to equate the two sets: the Geneseo core equals the SUNY core. B. Gohlman noted that we could debate this point forever. However, from a practical point of view, we need to ensure that at the minimum, our core satisfies the SUNY core.
T. Greenfield stated that every year, 3% of the graduating seniors (roughly 35) have a problem with their core requirements. Currently, these problems are handled locally. If in the future, problems arise with the SUNY core the likely result would be the failure of the student to graduate (or the revoking of the degree following an audit). E. Gillin inquired about the delay in course approval. T. Greenfield stated that approval time had been less than a month thus far. SUNY would likely move to a submission schedule (e.g., 3/year) in the future.
Discussion then arose regarding the possibility and the impact of a protest vote. T. Macula speculated about the long-term consequences of approving the proposal. E. Gillin asked what would happen if Policy Committee voted down the proposal. T. Greenfield stated that the Dean’s Office would not act against a Senate vote, but that the impact of a protest vote would not be felt beyond the Geneseo campus. B. Gohlman noted that we should not take a stand that might be detrimental to some of our students. T. Macula noted that not voting down the proposal might ultimately do more harm to a larger number of students. S. Kirsh opined that if it is the students who are hurt, it is not truly a protest. S. Iyer noted that voting down the proposal would not remove the SUNY core courses, it would simply complicate the matter.
E. Gillin called the question.
The motion passed with a vote of 8 yes votes, 1 no vote, and 2 abstentions.
E. Gillin asked that members forward any ideas that might be appropriate for the Policy Committee to discuss.
The meeting was adjourned at 4:58.
Jeffrey R. W. Mounts
Present: J. Ballard, S. Muench, C. Faulkner, K. Hahn, T. Hon, J. Koch, M. Lima (Chair), J. McLean, N. Paternosto, P. Schacht, E. Spilman, H. Waddy (Visitor)
M. Lima called the meeting to order at 4:05. The committee approved the minutes of last meeting.
This meeting was to focus on what the Committee would like the evaluation of teaching form (or SOFI) to measure. J. Ballard started the conversation by suggesting that members of FAC read a summary of last year Arreola's seminar on "Developing a Comprehensive Faculty Evaluation System." S. Muench agreed that Arreola’s seminar underscored the importance of considering a SOFI form (or equivalent) as only ONE of the many sources of measurement. M. Lima agreed to make copies of sections of Arreola's book available to members of FAC before next meeting.
J. McLean commented that different people could use the SOFI results for different purposes. S. Muench reminded the committee that SOFI began as a survey of student opinion for choosing classes, and later it became an important documentation for personnel evaluation. J. Ballard asked the committee to consider what the SOFI could measure. She suggested that since the SOFI has become an important documentation for personnel evaluation, one of the things that the SOFI is supposed to measure is teaching effectiveness. But she doubted whether the SOFI is indeed a reliable tool for measuring teaching effectiveness.
M. Lima asked the two student members of the FAC about their impression of the SOFI. E. Spilman said that in filling the SOFI form, she thought that she was offering constructive criticism to the class. N. Paternosto asked E. Spilman to specify what audience on her mind in filling the SOFI. She responded that she had teachers and students in mind, particularly those students who would take the course in the future. J. Ballard suggested that a distinction had to be made between measuring teaching effectiveness (summative assessment) and soliciting constructive criticism (formative assessment). She added that in the current way of reporting the SOFI scores, only the numerical scores, not students’ written comments, are available to students.
J. McLean proposed to have two separate parts of the SOFI form--one devoted to summative assessment, the other to formative assessment. J. Ballard supported the idea by adding that the summative part of SOFI will be used for faculty evaluation, and the formative part of SOFI devoted will be returned to the instructor for teaching improvement. The committee discussed whether the summative and formative assessments are inseparable, and how different questions can be asked in the two parts of the SOFI.
P. Schacht suggested that the submission of the formative part of SOFI to institutional analysis should be optional. J. Ballard disagreed. She argued that submitting two parts of the SOFI to institutional analysis will underline the different purpose of each part. H. Waddy added that in administering the two parts of SOFI, she could anticipate a fairer student evaluation if students filling in the formative part first before filling in the summative part. When filling in the formative part, Waddy argued, students would have time to organize their thoughts, and hence they would be able to answer questions on the summative part more thoughtfully. E. Spilman agreed. She said that if there are two separate forms to fill in, students express their personal grievances in the formative section, and direct their attention to evaluating teaching effectiveness in the summative form.
N. Paternostro asked whether the committee was recommending three separate evaluation forms--two (formative and summative) parts of local SOFI form and a national assessment form. J. Ballard suggested that the committee should consider two evaluation forms only: one summative (which could be a local form or a national form), and the other formative. Then the committee discussed how the success of formative evaluation was dependent on the existence of a truly formative culture on campus. Contrasted to other Colleges that have had a "Teaching and Learning Center" for more than fifteen years, Geneseo, unfortunately, is yet to have one.
P. Schacht opposed the institutionalization of collecting formative evaluations. He argued that before we knew how the information would be used, it would be safer not to institutionalize the collection of formative data. H. Waddy disagreed. She thought that having formative assessment is a step toward nurturing a culture of formative teaching. S. Muench added that students like to give constructive criticism to their teachers. The formative assessment would give them an opportunity to express their criticism, which would otherwise be included in the summative assessment.
M. Lima asked the committee to suggest the focus for the next meeting. J. McLean moved to continue to discuss what to be measured in a summative assessment form. To give enough time for committee members to read some of Arreola’s scholarship on faculty evaluation systems and prepare for specific examples of summative assessment, Lima suggested that the committee meet again on Tuesday, November 7 (South 110).
The meeting adjourned at 5:30 PM