The UAF Faculty Senate passed the following at its Meeting #70 on
March 10, 1997:
MOTION PASSED (unanimous)
==============
The UAF Faculty Senate moves to amend the Evaluation of
Educational Effectiveness policy as indicated below:
EFFECTIVE: Upon approval by the Chancellor
RATIONALE: The first paragraph of additions offers some
protection to students and faculty from the misuse of
the outcomes assessment process. The second paragraph
provides a means of recognition for involvement in this
process. The third and fourth additional paragraphs
identify department heads and the core review
committee as the responsible parties for preparing
outcomes assessment reports, identifies the required
committee as the responsible parties for preparing
outcomes assessment reports, identifies the required
content of those reports, identifies the timing of such
required reports, and identifies the housing of these
reports.
If there is no practical reason for the chairs of each
department (or equivalent as identified by the Dean or
Director) to prepare a report every 3 years, there is no
reason to do it more often than every 4 years.
CAPS = Additions
[[ ]] = Deletions
UAF
EVALUATION OF EDUCATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
POLICY
In accordance with its mission, the ÌÀÄ·ÊÓƵ
has a continuing responsibility to review and improve performance
of its students, faculty, and programs. The UAF therefore
establishes the Educational Effectiveness Evaluation to describe the
effects of curriculum, instruction, and other institutional programs.
The process will be useful for curricular and institutional reform
and will be consistent with UA Board of Regents Policy and
institutional and specialized accreditation standards.
The university shall ensure the academic freedom of the academic
community in the development and maintenance of this process.
THE DATA GATHERED AND SUMMARIZED AS PART OF THE EDUCATIONAL
EFFECTIVENESS EVALUATION PROCESS SHALL NOT BE USED FOR
EVALUATING INDIVIDUAL FACULTY. FURTHERMORE, NO STUDENT SHALL
BE DENIED GRADUATION BASED SOLELY UPON INFORMATION GATHERED
FOR THE EDUCATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS EVALUATION PROCESS.
EACH FACULTY MEMBER'S ACTIVITIES IN DEVELOPING AND/OR
IMPLEMENTING PROGRAMMATIC AND INSTITUTIONAL EDUCATIONAL
EFFECTIVENESS EFFORTS MAY BE SUMMARIZED IN THE INSTRUCTIONAL
SECTION OF ANNUAL EVALUATIONS AND PROMOTION AND TENURE
FILES.
Evaluations shall be conducted with regard to the following:
1) Student Information
Students shall be assessed upon entry to the university
for purposes of course advising and placement,
especially in mathematics and English, and for describing
the gender, age, ethnicity, and previous education of
students recruited, retained, and graduated over time.
2) Evaluation of the CORE Curriculum
Evaluation of the CORE curriculum shall include course
assessment embedded within CORE courses as well as
the assessment of students within upper division
courses, especially oral and writing intensive courses.
the assessment of students within upper division
courses, especially oral and writing intensive courses.
3) Programmatic assessment
Each degree and certificate program shall establish and
maintain a student outcomes assessment process useful
for curricular reform and consistent with institutional
and specialized accreditation standards.
4) Evaluation of Out of Class Learning
An important element of a student's overall education is
learning that occurs outside of classes. Therefore, an
evaluation of activities and student support services
will be conducted.
The chair of each department (or equivalent as identified by the Dean
or Director) shall prepare a report at least every FOUR [[three]] years
summarizing the Educational Effectiveness program for each
certificate and degree program offered by that department. The
report shall include a summary of the following:
A. STUDENT OUTCOME GOALS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE
PROGRAM,
B. THE METHODS AND CRITERIA USED TO EVALUATE WHETHER
THE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES ARE BEING MET,
C. A DESCRIPTION OF WHAT INFORMATION IS COLLECTED
ANNUALLY, AND
D. HOW THE RESULTS OF SUCH INFORMATION ARE BEING USED
TO IMPROVE THE CURRICULUM.
THE REPORT SHALL BE PRESENTED TO THE DEAN OR DIRECTOR'S
OFFICE DURING THE MONTH OF MAY. AT LEAST SOME INFORMATION
GATHERING FOR THIS PROCESS SHALL OCCUR ANNUALLY.
ONCE AN EDUCATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS EVALUATION PROGRAM HAS
BEEN IMPLEMENTED FOR THE CORE, THE CORE REVIEW COMMITTEE OF
THE FACULTY SENATE SHALL PREPARE A REPORT, AT LEAST
BIANNUALLY, SUMMARIZING THE EDUCATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS OF THE
COMPONENTS OF THE CORE CURRICULUM. THIS REPORT SHALL BE
SIMILAR IN CONTENT TO THE REPORT DESCRIBED ABOVE FOR
INDIVIDUAL PROGRAMS BUT SHALL PROVIDE A SUMMARY FOR THE
COMPONENTS OF THE CORE CURRICULUM. THE COMPONENTS OF THE
CORE MAY BE SUMMARIZED IN THE REPORT ON A ROTATIONAL BASIS,
BUT AT LEAST SOME INFORMATION SHOULD BE GATHERED ANNUALLY.
The UAF Faculty Senate passed the following at its Meeting #70 on
March 10, 1997:
MOTION PASSED (unanimous)
==============
The UAF Faculty Senate moves to amend Section 3 (ARTICLE V:
Committees, Permanent) of the Bylaws as follows:
(( )) = Deletion
CAPS = Addition
9. THE CURRICULUM REVIEW COMMITTEE EVALUATES
PROPOSED SUBSTANTIVE UNDERGRADUATE COURSE AND
PROGRAM ADDITIONS, CHANGES, AND DELETIONS
SUBMITTED BY THE APPROPRIATE SCHOOL/COLLEGE
CURRICULUM COMMITTEES. AMONG THE TOPICS OF ITS
REVIEW ARE NUMBER AND DUPLICATION OF COURSES,
CREDIT ASSIGNMENT, ESTABLISHMENT OF NEED FOR NEW
PROGRAMS, AND RESOURCE IMPACTS OF CURRICULAR
CHANGES. DECISIONS OF THE CURRICULUM REVIEW
COMMITTEE MAY BE APPEALED TO CURRICULAR AFFAIRS
BY THE DEPARTMENT SUBMITTING THE PROPOSAL. THE
COMMITTEE SHALL BE COMPOSED OF THE CHAIRS OF THE
COLLEGE/SCHOOL CURRICULUM COUNCILS, THE CHAIR OF
THE DEVELOPMENTAL STUDIES COMMITTEE, THE
UNIVERSITY REGISTRAR OR THE REGISTRAR'S DESIGNEE,
AND SHALL BE CHAIRED BY A MEMBER OF CURRICULAR
AFFAIRS.
EFFECTIVE: Immediately
Upon Chancellor�s Approval
RATIONALE: The purpose of this proposed change is
to delineate the differences between the functions
of the college/school curriculum councils and that
of the Curriculum Review Committee. The
college/school curriculum councils are the sole
judge of the substantive content of proposed new
courses, programs. The Curriculum Review
Committee is responsible for coordinating the
proposals to insure against needless duplication,
proper assignment of course levels against
university-wide criteria, etc.
The Core Review Committee is responsible for
reviewing and approving courses for inclusion in
the Core.
There is no reason why a course should go to both
the Curriculum Review and Core Review
Committees if it is to be included in the Core.
The only exception to this might be Written and
Oral Intensive Courses.
The UAF Faculty Senate passed the following at its Meeting #70 on
March 10, 1997:
MOTION PASSED (unanimous)
==============
The UAF Faculty Senate moves to amend Section 3 (ARTICLE V:
Committees, Permanent) of the Bylaws as follows:
(( )) = Deletion
CAPS = Addition
10. THE CORE REVIEW COMMITTEE REVIEWS AND APPROVES
COURSES SUBMITTED BY THE APPROPRIATE SCHOOL/
COLLEGE CURRICULUM COUNCILS FOR THEIR INCLUSION IN
THE CORE CURRICULUM AT UAF. THE CORE REVIEW
COMMITTEE COORDINATES AND RECOMMENDS CHANGES TO
THE CORE CURRICULUM, DEVELOPS THE PROCESS FOR
ASSESSMENT OF THE CORE CURRICULUM, REGULARLY
REPORTS ON ASSESSMENT OF THE CORE CURRICULUM,
MONITORS TRANSFER GUIDELINES FOR CORE COURSES,
ACTS ON PETITIONS FOR CORE CREDIT, AND EVALUATES
GUIDELINES IN LIGHT OF THE TOTAL CORE EXPERIENCE.
THIS COMMITTEE WILL ALSO REVIEW COURSES FOR ORAL,
WRITTEN, AND NATURAL SCIENCE CORE CLASSIFICATION.
THE COMMITTEE SHALL BE COMPOSED OF ONE FACULTY
FROM THE FOLLOWING CORE COMPONENT AREAS:
BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES, BUSINESS/ENGINEERING,
ENGLISH, HUMANITIES, MATHEMATICS, NATURAL
SCIENCES, AND COMMUNICATION. MEMBERSHIP ON THE
COMMITTEE WILL INCLUDE AN UNDERGRADUATE STUDENT.
EFFECTIVE: Immediately
Upon Chancellor's Approval
RATIONALE: The status of the Core Review
Committee should be raised to that of a Permanent
Committee. The nature and amount of work
accomplished regularly by this committee
indicates the need for its recognition in the
bylaws.
The UAF Faculty Senate passed the following at its Meeting #70 on
March 10, 1997:
MOTION PASSED (1 nay)
==============
The UAF Faculty Senate moves to include the following statement in
the new class schedule and in the Catalog.
Course Prerequisites
Course prerequisites indicate the previous preparation that a
student must have in order to enter a course. An instructor has the
right to drop from the course any student not meeting the course
prerequisites. Permission of the instructor to enter a class may be
granted to a student not meeting prerequisites under special
circumstances.
EFFECTIVE: Immediately
RATIONALE: Prerequisites will become an even more
important issue now because of the new option that
allows faculty to drop students from their classes.
The issue of prerequisites will become even more
important for distance delivered courses.
The UAF Faculty Senate passed the following at its Meeting #70 on
March 10, 1997:
MOTION PASSED (unanimous)
==============
The UAF Faculty Senate moves to approve the M.S. & Ph.D. in
Environmental Chemistry.
EFFECTIVE: Upon Board of Regents� Approval
RATIONALE: See full program proposal #44 on file in the
Governance Office, 312 Signers� Hall.
**
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
For more than a decade UAF has provided graduate training in
environmental chemistry through the Chemistry and Biochemistry
Department MS Program and the Interdisciplinary Ph.D. Program. In
recent years this activity has expanded substantially because of
increasing student demand and the recruitment of new chemistry
faculty with environmental research interests. The ÌÀÄ·ÊÓƵ Chemistry
and Biochemistry Department believes that further development of
this effort can now be accomplished without commitment of
additional resources by providing increased visibility through
establishment of a Graduate Program in Environmental Chemistry
leading to Ph.D. and MS degrees.
The goal of the Graduate Program in Environmental Chemistry
will be to train scientists for research, teaching and other
professional positions in atmospheric chemistry, environmental
chemical measurement, marine chemistry, chemical aspects of
global change and related fields with emphasis on northern
environments. These skills are in high demand in Alaska and around
the world as societies turn away from preoccupations of the cold
war era and focus on issues of sustainable development and
environmental quality.
The Graduate Program in Environmental Chemistry will
enhance the educational opportunities at UAF, not only at the
graduate level, but also for undergraduates by attracting high
quality graduate students, some of whom will become teaching
assistants in undergraduate classes. This program will also
contribute to UAF�s research focus on the northern environment. In
addition, it will expand links between the university and private
sector and governmental organizations in Alaska and throughout the
north by means of internships and exchanges.
The UAF Faculty Senate passed the following at its Meeting #70 on
March 10, 1997:
MOTION PASSED (unanimous)
==============
The UAF Faculty Senate moves to amend the UAF Regulations for the
Evaluation of Faculty: Initial Appointment, Annual Review,
Reappointment, Promotion, Tenure, and Sabbatical Leave, IV.B.3.d. as
follows:
[[ ]] = Deletions
CAPS = Additions
IV. CONSIDERATION OF FACULTY FOR PROMOTION AND TENURE
B. Faculty with Academic Rank
3. d. Constitution and Operation of University-wide Promotion and
Tenure Committee. The University-wide Promotion and Tenure
committee will be composed of [[one representative from each
college or school in existence at the beginning of each
academic year.]] TWELVE REPRESENTATIVES: THREE FROM THE
COLLEGE OF LIBERAL ARTS (ONE EACH FROM EDUCATION,
HUMANITIES, AND SOCIAL SCIENCES); THREE FROM THE COLLEGE
OF SCIENCE, ENGINEERING, AND MATHEMATICS (ONE FROM EACH
AREA); THREE FROM THE COLLEGE OF RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT
AND MANAGEMENT (ONE EACH FROM THE SCHOOLS OF
MANAGEMENT, AGRICULTURE AND LAND RESOURCES
MANAGEMENT, AND MINERAL ENGINEERING); AND ONE EACH FROM
THE SCHOOL OF FISHERIES AND OCEAN SCIENCES, ALASKA
COOPERATIVE EXTENSION, AND COLLEGE OF RURAL ALASKA.
EFFECTIVE: Immediately
Upon Chancellor's Approval
RATIONALE:
1. The current definition of the committee makeup is not
consistent with the new "mega-colleges" planned or in
existence. The motion essentially maintains the status
quo, but adds one representative each in CLA and CSEM.
2. A new definition of the committee makeup must be in
place so that timely elections may be held this Spring
for next year.
3. Five committee members (CLA-Education, SOM, SFOS,
ACE, and SALRM) and five alternates [CLA (2), SOM, SFOS,
and SALRM] will return next year. Thus elections would
be necessary in CSEM (3 rep and 3 alternates), CLA
(2 reps and 1 alternate), SME (rep and alternate), ACE
(alternate) and CRA (rep and alternate).
4. During the past several years the overall composition and
size of the P/T committee has been satisfactory. The
P/T committee traditionally has included
representatives from a variety of academic disciplines
in order to provide expertise and understanding of the
mores and standards within the vastly different
disciplines present on this campus.
5. Some consideration, however, should be made for the
number of tenure track faculty (assistant, associate, and
full professors, or research versions thereof) within the
different units and disciplines. We have counted these in
two sources: the 95-96 faculty senate reapportionment
census and the 96-97 telephone book. They agree
closely, with the former source yielding 428 faculty, the
latter 442. The difference was essentially due to the
(apparent) exclusion of Geophysical Institute research
faculty in the former compilation. Two promotion files
from that unit were considered by the P/T committee
this year, suggesting that these faculty should be
counted in any P/T committee representation list.
6. The numbers show that basically CLA and CSEM have been
underrepresented on the committee, and that this could
be redressed by adding a rep from each college. Logical
divisions exist in both colleges: mathematics is a large
department that has noticeably different standards and
working conditions compared to scientists and engineers,
and in CLA there are approximately equal numbers of
faculty in humanities and social sciences, again with
these two groups having noticeably different scholarly
standards and working conditions.
7. Increasing the size of the committee by two members
actually would be a good thing. Even with alternates,
there is usually one member and sometimes two out for
sickness or conflict of interest. This has decreased the
actual voting members to 8 in the past, which may be too
small. A larger committee will make organizing slightly
more difficult, but on the other hand will ease the task
of drafting letters. Two more members can easily be
accommodated in any of common meeting rooms.
The UAF Faculty Senate passed the following at its Meeting #70 on
March 10, 1997:
RESOLUTION
===========
WHEREAS, Provost Jack Keating has supported the idea of a Faculty
Seminar Series from its inception early this year; and
WHEREAS, Dr. Keating responded quickly and appropriately to a
request for financial support to provide for a reception
following the inaugural and two other faculty seminars, to
help start the seminar series on its way;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED That the Faculty Senate recognizes,
applauds, and thanks the Provost for his support of the Faculty
Seminar Series in keeping with the intent of the series to
reach a wide audience and demonstrate to the University and
Fairbanks communities, the contribution that faculty make to
our community life.
UA