Executive Committee Meeting
Boulder Faculty Assembly
Minutes
September 29, 2003
Attending:
Barbara Bintliff, BFA Chair
Stein Sture, Vice Chair
Bill Waite, Academic Affairs Committee
Andy Cowell, BFA Academic Technology Committee Chair
Jerry Peterson, At-Large Board Member
Uriel Nauenberg, former BFA chair
David Guenther, BFA Administrative Services Committee Chair
Bob Hohlfelder, Budget and Planning Committee Chair
Dipankar Chakravarti, Minority Affairs Committee Chair
Cathy Comstock, BFA AAP Committee Chair
Lori Seward, BFA Committee on Women Chair
Gail Ramsberger, Arts and Sciences Council Chair
Bill Kaempfer, Assoc. VC for Budget and Planning
Stephanie Martin, UGGS/UCSU Legislative Council
Guest Speakers:
Martha Hanna
Lori Seward
Susan Kent
Mary Ann Shea
Mary Klages
Media:
Jeff Dodge, Silver and Gold Record
Sarah Jane Wilton, Colorado Daily
Not Attending:
Greg Carey, Secretary
Mel Branch, BFA Faculty Affairs Committee Chair
Martin Walter, BFA Student Affairs Cmte Chair
Rodney Taylor, At-Large Board Member
Mark Dubin, BFA Libraries Committee Chair
Tom Mayer, Communications Committee Chair
Marguerite Moritz, BFA GLB Affairs Committee Chair
Mike Preston, BFA Intercollegiate Athletics Cmte Chair
Clayton Lewis, Faculty Compensation and Benefits Cmte Chair
A meeting of the Boulder Faculty Assembly Executive Committee was held on Monday, September 29, 2003 in UMC room 425. Chair Barbara Bintliff presided. The meeting convened at 3:30 p.m. and adjourned at 5:00 p.m.
A. Approval of Minutes
MOVED by Bill Waite and seconded by Stein Sture that the minutes of September 15, 2003 be approved. Andy Cowell asked that an addition be made to the minutes under Special Report, third paragraph, as follows:
Burns asserted that if the University of Colorado were to participate in research in conjunction with the Department of Homeland Security it would look, in contrast to the kind of research being done at Los Alamos or Livermore, more like a technology transfer exercise, e.g., researchers from CU could collaborate with private industry to begin projects that would create products for use by the general public. He added that these Homeland Security research projects were not about classified research and would not be restricted to the sciences and may include projects in social, economic, legal, environmental, historical, and behavioral science areas. Involvement by faculty is a matter of choice, Burns explained, and he offered to keep the faculty informed as the research projects evolved over time.
The motion to approve the minutes as corrected was carried without dissent.
B. Chair's Report
Chair Bintliff reminded everyone that President Hoffman would be delivering her Fall Forum presentation on Monday, October 13, 3:00 to 5:00 p.m. The Executive Committee meeting has been cancelled for that day. The chair urged committee members to attend the forum and to bring good questions and thoughtful comments.
The Boulder Daily Camera featured a guest editorial written by a student over the weekend which confused the continuance of the course forgiveness policy with the uniform grading policy. The faculty will be voting this fall on the uniform grading policy which the Academic Affairs Committee will report on under “Committee Reports.” As part of the uniform grading policy amendment, each campus is allowed to develop a course forgiveness policy if it wishes to do so. Clarification as to what the faculty will be voting on this fall is in progress; the merits of the course forgiveness policy should not be confused with the merits of the uniform grading policy.
On Monday, October 6 the committee will host Jack Burns and Michel Dahlin. Dahlin will speak about dealing with CCHE from the technical perspective, including compliance with CCHE policies and regulations, and Burns will speak about the political side of the CCHE.
C. Special Report
Bintliff introduced Martha Hanna and her task force member Lori Seward. LETTS (Learning, Education, and Technology Teaching Committee) members Susan Kent, Mary Klages, and Mary Ann Shea were also introduced to the group.
Hanna began by outlining the origins of the committee, its procedures, conclusions and report findings, and directed the attention of the committee to the three motions presented as attachments to the report. The three motions articulate what the task force wants to see happen as a result of their findings in an effort to move toward a more effective faculty evaluation system.
As a result of many hours spent in committee meetings beginning last spring, it was clear that the fundamental problem with the form currently used by CU is that it does not ask the right kinds of questions. Specifically, the grading system employed by the form, which currently leads to a perception that grade inflation may exist, could be replaced with “agree, disagree” as a more effective evaluation possible responses to questions. Secondly, there was evidence to suggest that some students used the FCQ to express hostile and inappropriate remarks rather than constructive criticism as to how to improve their classes. In conclusion, Hanna stated, the current FCQ system is not working in the way the Regents originally intended.
The committee drew on many different perspectives, including those of student representatives, as it set out to identify the problems with the current FCQ form. Reviewing 500 questions that students can legitimately use to provide feedback, the committee narrowed the list down to 30.
Hanna’s group also found a widespread skepticism as to the value of the FCQ as currently designed. Most faculty do not believe it is an instrument that helps them with their teaching or promotion efforts, nor does it provide them with the kind of information they can use to make their teaching more effective. Some faculty are reluctant to use the comments at all because of their inappropriate or abusive nature, while a few have given thought to quitting teaching altogether.
Hanna then reviewed proposal number one which states that the current FCQ instrument is flawed. Proposal two recommends the development of a prototype or blueprint that could be taken to the next level of review, and Hanna asked the committee to endorse the prototype for this purpose. Proposal three states that there is no uniform practice as to who has access to the narrative paragraphs on the form. (It is well known that some department chairs read all the narrative responses before giving them to faculty). A uniform policy that sets out that the narrative portion of the questionnaire is confidential and to be read by instructors of record should be considered.
Bob Hohlfelder asked if there are any universities in the country which use a questionnaire form they are happy with, to which Lori Seward replied that there are some forms that are deemed better than others, but ninety percent of those used are considered to be unsatisfactory. Hohlfelder then asked how any form can discourage the use of inappropriate comments, and Hanna replied that they can be taken out altogether, with the form rewritten to bring focus to specific student classroom experiences. In theory, if students are presented with a series of more thoughtful questions, they will respond more thoughtfully.
Bill Kaempfer asked if inappropriate comments are influencing the possible move of the questionnaire to a web-based system which would remove the anonymity of the respondent. Susan Kent replied that without anonymity similar credibility issues would arise. Hanna offered that students may suppress their comments if they feel they will receive recrimination later from their instructors.
Seward told the group that the two most critical questions, from an administrator's perspective,
that must be included on the redesigned FCQ should be how well the instructor taught and how good the student thought the class was. Well-designed course evaluations do NOT compare instructors and courses
across disciplines, core courses vs. electives, or freshman level against senior level. Our current
FCQ is seriously flawed in this regard.
Bintliff asked for any further specific questions and then told the group that the three motions before the Executive Committee do not need a second according to the By-Laws. If approved at the current meeting, they could be brought to the next full assembly meeting October 9.
The first proposal met with no further discussion, did not need a second, and the motion to recommend it to the full assembly Oct 9 was carried unanimously.
Proposal two comes from the committee adopting in principle the set of questions attached to it as models or suggestions. The motion to recommend proposal two met with no objections and was carried unanimously.
Stephanie Martin suggested that student education be added to the third proposal, as students were unaware of how FCQ’s are utilized on behalf of or to the detriment of faculty. Chair Bintliff reminded everyone that process to change the questionnaire was just beginning, and moved that if the committee was currently satisfied with the language of proposal three it needed no second. The motion to put proposal three before the next assembly meeting carried.
The Chair then asked the group to provide a round of applause to Hanna’s committee for their hard work on this issue.
Mary Klages told the group that web-based assessment is a flexible tool useful for providing information to students, information to faculty as to course and teaching effectiveness, and information to administrators about both. An online tool is a more flexible way to gather information as it can also be accessed throughout the semester, providing ongoing feedback rather than one-time data at semester’s end.
The chair asked if the LETTS committee could bring a demonstration of the
technologies available to the Executive Committee and
D. Committee Reports
Hohlfelder stated that there were no pressing financial issues at present before the Budget Committee, but that a return of approximately $1 million from summer school could perhaps be used to enhance summer school salaries and make summer school more effective overall.
Academic Affairs Committee Chair Waite discussed the proposed draft of the uniform grading policy which his group strongly opposed to. The committee was unsure about the language of the proposed policy as written; a written version was not available at the time of this meeting but will be distributed via email and hardcopy for the next Executive Committee meeting on Monday, Oct. 6.
E. Next Meeting
The next regular meeting of the Boulder Faculty Assembly Executive Committee will be Monday, October 6, 3:30 to 5:00 p.m. in UMC room 425. Chair Bintliff reminded the group that any additional agenda items to be previewed by her no later than noon on the Friday preceeding the next Monday’s meet ing.
The Chair thanked everyone for attending and the meeting was adjourned.
Respectfully submitted by Martha Shernick, BFA Administrator
BFA Executive Committee Minutes Archive | BFA