For
a WORD file of these minutes - click the disc 
2000-2001
FACULTY COUNCIL
MINUTES
2000-2001 Meeting #21, Tuesday, February 27, 2001
Present:
McKeever (chair), Smelser (vice-chair),
Bitterwolf, Brunsfeld, Chun, Foltz, Fritz, Glen, Goble, Guilfoyle, Haggart
(w/o vote), Kraut, McClure, Nelson, Nielsen, Olson, Norby, Pitcher (w/o
vote), Thompson Absent: Finnie, Goodwin, Hong, McCaffrey, Meier,
Trivedi Observers: 5
Call
to Order. A quorum being present, Faculty Council
Chair, Professor Kerry McKeever, called the meeting to order at 3:35 p.m. in
the Brink Hall Faculty Lounge.
Minutes.
The secretary noted a correction in the minutes. The fifth sentence
of the ninth paragraph on page one should be corrected to read, "Administrators
do not have the longevity of faculty members and their predecessors
successors are not obliged to keep those promises made earlier."
The council, by voice vote, accepted the minutes of the February 20, 2001,
meeting as distributed and corrected.
Chair’s
Report. Chair McKeever had no report to make and
turned her time over to Professor Jeffrey Harkins, Chair of the Faculty
Affairs Committee (FAC), to review the procedures to be taken by
that committee in working on the handbook changes regarding tenure review.
Harkins said the committee would attempt to report back to the council by
April 3, 2001. In response to councilors’ questions, Harkins said
that the committee will begin working immediately on those directives
concerning the annual review, but eventually will work on all the issues
concerning the post-tenure review brought to it by the council. Vice Chair
Smelser reiterated that the issues that have gone forward to the FAC are
issues of strengthening the annual review process and the trigger process
for peer reviews as stated in the motions passed at the last meeting.
Councilor
Brunsfeld reminded the council that the task force had spent two years
discussing these issues and that their hard work should receive the highest
consideration in the deliberations of the council and the FAC. He said that
the council needs to be sure that the final document includes the positive
things that the task force recommended, such as a strong reward system.
The
council will resume its discussion of post-tenure review next week
and adopt directives to the Faculty Affairs Committee concerning, among
other things, three and five year reviews and the establishment of a reward
system. Professor Harkins said that the FAC would address all of the
directives sent to it by the Faculty Council. He also noted that in the
deliberation process the FAC would use the report of the tenure review task
force as its guide.
Chair
McKeever thanked Councilors Nelson, Meier, and Bitterwolf for their
help in talking to individual legislators and committees concerning the
budgetary needs of higher education. Provost Pitcher also praised the work
of Marty Peterson of the administrative staff, who used his extensive
network of contacts to lobby for higher education. Councilor Brunsfeld
called special attention to the work that Faculty Council Chair Kerry
McKeever had done in presenting the faculty and staff salary issues to the
legislature.
Provost’s
Report. In reference to the work being done by the
Faculty Affairs Committee, Provost Pitcher reminded the council that he
needed to have a tenure review progress report in the hands of the
National Association of Schools and Colleges by April 12, 2001.
Pitcher
said that the higher education budget requests were facing some
opposition as a result of a protest (concerning minimum wages for farm
workers) staged by Boise State University students, allegedly under the
guidance of a B.S.U. professor, during a legislative session. Members of the
legislature felt threatened and believe that the actions were not
only badly timed (a memorial service was about to be held), but an
inappropriate action on the part of the students. One result of that
disruption was that the security in the legislative chambers has been
significantly increased. Pitcher said that the administration is doing
everything that it can to put this episode in the proper perspective and
maintain the original support for the higher education budget. The
Associated Students of the University of Idaho (ASUI) have initiated a
petition drive to say "thank-you" to the legislature for their
support of education.
FC-01-022
– Add Philosophy 102, Reason and Rhetoric, as a new course that may be
used as communication core credit under regulation J-3-a.
The council was provided with background information by Professor
Kathryn George, Chair of the Philosophy Department, Professor William
Voxman, Coordinator of the U of Idaho Core Curriculum, and Professor Jeffrey
Harkins, a member of the University Curriculum Committee. This new core
course is a two-credit introductory course emphasizing critical
expression with the following objectives:
This
is a course in the form and style of argumentative discourse. Students
will develop critical thinking and rhetorical skills as they prepare and
deliver written and oral presentations. Students will construct, evaluate,
and present arguments. Students will learn how to identify arguments and
fallacies, to improve their abilities to organize their thoughts, to
express them clearly and simply, and to judge suitability of their
material for their audience.
The course is
designed to educate students in basic reasoning skills, and also in the
communication skills required to express the results of their reasoning.
It will emphasize both written and oral expression, each of which will be
evaluated for both content and mechanics.
Professor
George, in her memorandum to the council, stated that "we
plan to offer only a few sections of the course each half-semester (2
credits, 4 days a week). Phil 102 will not count for the philosophy
major. It will serve UI students because it is a good enrollment alternative
for students who find they must drop a course before mid-term. Serving these
students’ needs is the most important reason for offering the course for 2
credits."
Several
councilors raised questions about whether teaching the course on a
half-semester basis would be a wise decision. The response was that it is
already done in physical education and that many students are desperately
looking for courses after they have dropped a course at mid-term. The course
offering format is unusual, but it meets some real educational needs.
Professor Voxman indicated that the University Committee on General
Education (UCGE) felt that this was a "legitimate"
communication core course and that it would be an excellent addition to
the course options in the communication core. He also made note of the fact
that he would be forming a committee to review the communication core
curriculum requirements and courses offered. Professor George, in response
to a concern of Councilor Norby that the course sections would all be filled
at the beginning of the semester, replied that at least one section of the
course would have a delayed enrollment time frame.
FC-01-022
was adopted by unanimous voice vote.
FC-01-013
– Spring Calendar Revision. The time having
passed for the removal of this agenda item from the table, the council
resumed discussion of the Faculty Affairs Committee (FAC) recommendations
regarding the teaching calendar. Professor Harkins reviewed many of the options
that had been considered by the FAC in its deliberations. One popular
idea was to start the spring semester at a date that would end two weeks
before the spring semester at Washington State University (WSU). However,
that idea was deemed to be impractical from a number of viewpoints,
particularly with relationship to the holiday period. The best
recommendation was that the U of Idaho delay the start of the spring
semester two days (starting on Wednesday) to bring the spring semester
into synch with the fall semester. It would also satisfy the SBOE/Regents
requirement of 160 instructional days during the academic year. Under this
proposal the fall semester would have 79 and the
spring semester 81 instructional days.
A
brief discussion by the council highlighted faculty and student concerns
with the proposal. While most of the members of the council approved of the
change, several members raised questions concerning the hardships
involved in structuring spring courses to meet this new schedule and
additional concerns about a variety of problems caused by cross-listed
courses – both those listed at WSU (enrolling U of Idaho students) and
those listed at the U of Idaho (enrolling WSU students).
FC-01-013
was adopted by majority vote (10 yea, 5 nay, and 1
abstention). It will be presented to the general faculty at the spring
faculty meeting.
Report
of the Faculty Council Task Force on the Teaching Evaluation Process. Councilor
Nielsen, Chair of the Task Force, provided the council with a detailed
report on the possibility of adopting an on-line format for course
evaluations.
Professor
Nielsen said that the task force focused on two objectives: (1)
analyze the feasibility and desirability of changing from a written course
evaluation form to an on-line system, and (2) consider possible revisions to
the evaluation form itself. The work on (2) is still in progress, and they
hope to have a report on that matter completed later this semester.
Meanwhile, they have completed an analysis of item (1) and have reached a
consensus.
Nielsen
said that several of the task force members approached the prospect of an
on-line evaluation format with a good deal of skepticism.
Conventional wisdom suggested that student participation would be diminished
if filling out the evaluation form required outside-of-class initiative.
There was also concern that the alternate format would give a significant
negative bias to the evaluation result. The task force concluded that
only a test of an on-line evaluation system could confirm or refute these
suspicions, so they undertook such a test in the Fall semester of 2000.
Faculty
were recruited (on a voluntary basis) to participate. Thirty-eight sections
with a total enrollment of 1,354 students were enlisted. They ranged from
large freshman-level core courses to small graduate courses and represented
a wide range of disciplines across the campus. Where possible, parallel
sections of the same course were used, with one group of sections using the
on-line format and another group using the standard written format. Nielsen
related that the on-line format had only minor
effects on either the participation rate or results of the course
evaluations.
The
on-line evaluations generated 692 out of 1,354 possible responses, or
51.1%.
The
written evaluations across campus last semester generated 30,409 out of
55,677 possible responses, or 54.6%.
The
average response rate for sections participating in the on-line experiment
was 50.2%.
The
average response rate for sections using the paper form was 53.0%.
Nielsen
said that through discussions and experience the task force has become
convinced of several significant advantages that would be gained from
an on-line system of course evaluations.
·
Efficiency. The work and cost that goes into producing,
distributing, and processing the tens of thousands of written evaluation
forms each semester would be eliminated.
·
Cost. The savings on the cost of printing alone is
significant, not to mention the labor cost of distribution and processing.
The estimate of the one-semester cost for paper evaluations is $5,233.
·
Speed. Whereas instructors now get their evaluation results
back weeks after the end of the semester, on-line results would be
available to view instantly.
·
Accuracy. There would be fewer errors in data collection and
reporting with the online format.
·
Information. The online format allows the gathering of some
information not possible with the paper form.
·
Convenience. Whereas instructors now receive a stack of
evaluations and one printed summary sheet of numerical averages, in an
on-line system the instructor could print all responses on only a few
sheets. It would be possible to group all responses to a single essay
question consecutively, rather than having to leaf through a pile of
papers reading one response from each sheet.
·
Flexibility. An on-line system would facilitate one feature
the task force is considering: the ability for instructors to customize
some of the evaluation questions to fit their classroom strategies.
Professor Nielsen
provided the council with the following recommendation of the task
force:
That the Faculty
Council recommend to the Provost that the current written course
evaluation system be replaced campus-wide by an on-line system for course
evaluations.
Councilor
Nielsen concluded the task force report by recalling that some of the
task force members approached this idea with healthy skepticism, but the
task force now believes that this is where the future of course evaluations
lies, and based on the task force’s experiment, they are convinced that
the campus community is ready now to make the change.
Members
of the council proceeded to ask questions and make comments about the
task force’s report.
Councilor
Kraut raised several concerns about the conduct of the experiment:
·
possible bias in the selection of faculty who participated toward
those who already receive high evaluation marks
·
did students participate because it was an experiment – thus
raising participation rates artificially
·
would the participation rates fall or rise if the students were
rating six courses instead of the one in the experiment
·
should there be incentives for faculty as well as students
In
response to a question from Councilor McClure, Professor Nielsen noted that faculty
members could not avoid having their courses evaluated if the university
used an on-line evaluation system. Students are notified via email of
their responsibility to evaluate a course and the time frame for the
evaluation process – it is not initiated by the instructor. Councilor
McClure also restated her concern that students need to "sign-off"
on these evaluations. There are too many potential problems when there are
anonymous student entries.
Councilor
Chun noted that on-line evaluations are already used for distance courses
and the response rates are very good. He also reminded the council that an
additional instructional day is gained by using an on-line evaluation
system.
Councilor
Fritz stated that faculty members should not have access to the
evaluation information prior to the submission of final grades for the
course.
Councilor
Goble wondered if it would be possible to obtain the student’s grade
point average tied to the evaluation document. Nielsen said that this
information could be gathered and reported in a general fashion, but that
they would not be able to tie a specific evaluation to a specific student’s
grade point average. Councilor Bitterwolf pointed out that there is a great
deal of research literature already available on this very subject.
Councilor Brunsfeld noted that the committee really wanted to gather a
lot of student demographic information in connection with the collection of
evaluation data, but they simply ran into too many student rights’
problems. They decided to leave the process anonymous and limit the kinds of
demographic data to that which is now gathered on the current written form.
Councilor
Glenn seconded the idea of anonymity and added that since the U of Idaho
promotes itself as being a "wired" campus it should make
use of this technology to evaluate courses. He believes that there will be a
high participation rate by students and urged the inclusion of evaluations
at other points during the semester, as well as the end point.
Councilor
Nelson urged the task force to also compile a list of general
concerns/guidelines (such as anonymity) with regard to the on-line
evaluation process. He also argued that the university should try this
evaluation process with the understanding that we could always return to the
paper process. Many members of the council thought that the on-line
evaluation experiment should be enlarged – if not totally adopted - and
then evaluated after using it for two years.
Councilor
Brunsfeld said that using an on-line evaluation form would allow a
considerable amount of flexibility in the construction of the actual
evaluation form. Most faculty members consider the current form to be in
need of improvement. The on-line evaluation system would allow instructors
to build evaluation forms designed specifically for their own courses.
Provost Pitcher urged the task force to go ahead with the redesign of the
evaluation forms no matter what the decision was on on-line evaluations.
Provost
Pitcher complimented the task force on the excellent work that they
had done on this assignment. He projected that we would eventually have to
do some serious rewriting of Faculty-Staff Handbook section 2700.
Chair
McKeever told the council that they should study this matter during the
next week and come prepared at the next meeting to act on the
recommendation of the task force.
She
also reminded the council that they would be continuing the discussion on
tenure review and development next week and that they should be
prepared to give specific directives to the Faculty Affairs Committee
regarding reviews beyond the annual review and on a reward system.
Adjournment.
It was moved and seconded (Chun, Goble) to adjourn the meeting. Chair
McKeever adjourned the meeting at 5:05 pm.
Respectfully
submitted,
Peter A. Haggart
Secretary of the
Faculty Council
Return
to the Faculty Council Home Page 
