MONROE COMMUNITY COLLEGE
FACULTY SENATE
February 27, 2003
PRESENT: J.Avery, I.Benz, W.Brewer, D.Brown, S.Cable, S.Callan, L.Chrzan-Williams, T.Cuby, J.Downer, K.Farrell, M.Filozof, K.Fox, T.Gilbert, E.Grissing, M.Harris, K.Humphrey, J.Kaufman, E.Laidlaw, E.Lewis, K.Marhatta, J.McCauley, A.McIntyre, M.McKinzie, E.Mellas, D.Mohr, P.Peterson, B.Robinson, S.Ruckert, L.Sanger, C.Sardone, C.Schwartzott, R.Shea, L.Silvers, B.Smith, J.Smith, G.Toth, H.Wheeler (on behalf of L.Bartholome) STUDENT REPRESENATIVE: D.O'Hanlon ABSENT: G.Anderson, P.Bates, T.DiGiacomo, J.Ekis, T.Keys, R.Kuempel GUESTS: S.Blacklaw, K.Canfield, D.Cecero, B.Connolly, C.Cooper, K.Doyle, G.Egan, B.Gizzi, S.Ison, H.Murphy, C.Rogalski
Meeting called to order: 3:38 p.m.
1. Guest Speakers: Gary Egan - Student Opinions of Course and Faculty
Egan stated that the ad hoc committee has been working for over a year. Egan gave a brief history of the survey. The survey was started in 1969 with students interested in reviewing the opinions of faculty and courses. It was student initiated and the results were distributed to student folders. The faculty became involved soon after and developed a better instrument and process, which has evolved and changed over the years. However, it has been a long time since the process was reviewed. An ad-hoc committee was charged by the Faculty Senate Academic Policies Committee to examine the survey instrument, review the current process of administering the survey, evaluate past use of the survey, and address any cost increases that result from the recommendation.
During the process, the ad hoc committee investigated methods at other colleges and universities (some use professionally developed surveys while others use surveys designed in-house). Egan stated that the ad hoc committee decided to develop an instrument that addresses MCC's unique needs. The ad hoc committee also reviewed research, attended a conference on creating student surveys, and talked to the student government and departments. During the process, the ad hoc committee also contacted the Faculty Association, MCC Legal Counsel, Diane Cecero, and the Faculty Senate Executive Committee.
Egan stated that the Draft Faculty Senate Resolution 1.11 is the result of the ad hoc committee's work. The Vision statement in the resolution has changed. The reason for the whole process produced lengthy discussions in the ad hoc committee. The process is not for faculty evaluation purposes but for students to voice their opinions on the quality of courses and instruction. Egan stated that the ad hoc committee is not trying to create a system to be used for faculty evaluation. Egan reviewed each section and its changes.
1.11.1 Restates the vision.
1.11.2 Separates the narrative response from the bubbled questionnaire. The academic department will administer their own narrative response sheets as it suites their needs.
1.11.3 Frequency of the survey - Past practice was every other year in each department. After input from faculty and students the ad hoc committee would recommend it done every year, alternating between the fall and spring semesters, with specific timing to be determined by the department and faculty.
1.11.4 No changes to original resolution.
1.11.5 No changes to original resolution.
1.11.6 This is completely new - Suggestions for use of survey results.
1.11.7 Describes the format of the results that will go to faculty, department chairs and students. There was significant input from student representative on the committee. Students wanted to see results of more than just one question. There are four basic themes for the questions on the survey: instructor presentation skills, course management skills, course design and student outcomes. These themes came from a faculty survey that was sent out.
1.11.8 Narrative response sheets are now a departmental responsibility
Discussions:
Will it be mandatory for faculty to participate? This resolution doesn't speak to that but the contract says that the results can be included in faculty evaluations (the faculty member can choose to include the results in a promotion package). It is possible that the academic department can make it mandatory.
This needs further investigation into Article 54 of the Faculty Contract. This process was not intended as a punitive tool for the faculty.
What kind of reports will go to the student government? Egan stated that the ad hoc committee recommends that the report contain a summary of the questions in the four theme areas addressed in 1.11.7. Currently students only receive the results of one question. If the students received details of all 16 questions, it may be too long a report so it wouldn't be useful to students. The survey instrument will be reviewed by the Faculty Senate in the near future.
Egan stated that there would be a pilot project, which will have six questions in each of the four areas. After further review, it will probably be reduced to four questions in each of the four areas.
There was significant discussion on item 1.11.6. Issues centered on whether this item will be interpreted as a "must do" item for each department chair, thereby adding to the department chair's workload. Some senators expressed opinions that 1.11.6 ties the student opinions survey to faculty evaluation. The ad hoc committee's view on this item was to open a venue for faculty to discuss results of the survey in a non-threatening manner. It was felt that these types of discussions do not always occur within the departments. The survey results can be used as a tool in the faculty member's self-evaluation. It is not intended to be used as a departmental faculty evaluation tool.
Next steps:
- The comments shared during this meeting will be discussed by the ad-hoc committee.
- Egan will return to the Faculty Senate with the draft resolution, survey instrument, and formats of reports for faculty and students.
- An open hearing will be scheduled for full faculty participation.
- There will be a Faculty Senate vote on this resolution.
Shea requested that Senators discuss this issue with their constituents and watch for an open hearing for the full faculty. Shea thanked Egan and the ad-hoc committee members for the presentation and for all of their hard work on this sensitive issue. The open hearing will occur sometime in March or April with a vote probably during the May Faculty Senate meeting.
2. Announcements There were no announcements.
3. Approval of Minutes from January Senate Meeting - Approved as written.
4. Action Items
a. Program Deactivation (PD8) - Multimedia Certificate
This program will not be discontinued, just removed from the current master schedule. There are not any students currently enrolled in this certificate program. Approved
5. Standing Committee Reports
Academic Policies (C.Marhatta)
- Marhatta reported that Andy Freeman and Steve Wallace shared with the committee revisions to the placement testing policy with the committee. There will be a presentation to the Senate in March.
- Marhatta reported that the committee continues to work on the college's course waiver substitution policy. The committee is receiving feedback for review.
Curriculum (E.Mellas)
- Mellas reported that the committee met with Dean Rogalski and Renee Rigoni about the proposed General Education Plan. The Curriculum Committee oversees general education issues on the campus as part of its charge. There will be a committee discussion at the next meeting. The General Education Plan proposal will be presented to the Faculty Senate in March. Shea pointed out that the General Education presentation was originally scheduled for today's meeting however, the Executive Committee is assisting with some wording revisions within the proposal.
- Mellas reported that two student representatives have been added to the committee.
- Mellas reported that he met with Char Downing to discuss the Curriculum Office scheduling of sessions on the Curriculum Proposal database and Curriculum Proposal Writing workshops.
NEG (S.Cable)
- Cable announced that the committee is seeking candidates for senate officers. Another announcement will be made in the MCC Daily Tribune next week. Expect an e-mail to encourage all senators to think about possible nominations. The deadline for nominations is March 17. The election will be held April 30 and May 1.
- Cable requested that senators whose terms are expiring start thinking about signing up for another term. Cable pointed out that even if a Senator is in their second term they are permitted to serve another term if there is no other candidate for their seat. Senator elections will be held the first week of May.
- Cable reported that the teaching representative for the MCC Association Board nominations would be announced the third week of March. The election will be held April 30 and May 1.
Planning (L.Chrzan-Williams)
- Chrzan-Williams reported that the Strategic Planning Grant recommendations would be delivered to the Grants Office early next week.
- Chrzan-Williams announced that the vice presidents would present their initiatives in support of the strategic plan with a question and answer period during college hour on March 10 at DCC and March 12 at Brighton.
- Chrzan-Williams announced that a Time in Reflections would be held to discuss possible initiatives relating to the new Student Center and Residence Halls. This will be a brainstorming session, which will result in the formation of an ad hoc committee to continue the discussions. The Time in Reflections session will be scheduled for April. Shea stated that Faculty Senate Executive Committee took a tour of the new student center and the committee was able to see many possibilities. Dan O'Hanlon (Speaker of Student Senate) stated that the students have a video of their recent tour and offered it to the Faculty Senate for viewing. Doug Brown stated that there is a very brief virtual tour on the web but they are working on something a little more in depth. He would like to give a tour to show some of his visions for the space.
Professional Development (W.Brewer)
- Brewer announced that there is one week left to submit an application for a Professional Leaves for the Benefit of the College. All information is on the m-drive.
SCAA (M. Harris)
- Harris reported that department chair elections will be announced soon.
- Harris reported that SCAA has received a request from the Workforce Development/Technical Education division to move some of its chair elections since currently all are held in the same year.
- Harris reported that the search for the Executive Dean of DCC would be reopened for an internal only search. There will be an announcement next week in the MCC Daily Tribune.
- Harris reported that SCAA forwarded a recommendation to Vice President Glocker on the formation of an Education Department. The recommendation was in agreement with all aspects of the original proposal and recommended that the Teacher Prep Advisory Council continue.
6. Old Business
The Faculty Senate Executive Committee reviewed all input from hearings and other sources regarding the Proposed Change of Program Inclusion/Exclusion Policy. The recommendation that was presented at the December Faculty Senate meeting was forwarded to Vice President Glocker and Salvador. Vice President Glocker has received the recommendation and will send a response to the Senate in the future.
7. New Business
There was no new business.
Meeting adjourned at 4:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Raymond Shea, President
Barbara Robinson, Secretary
Minutes approved at the March 27, 2003 Faculty Senate meeting.
Faculty Senate
Faculty Senate Office
04/02/2003 |