Faculty Senate Meeting
February 19, 2013
2:00 pm – 4:00 pm. EB 162
Meeting called to order at 2:05.
· Thank you for your work, particularly in support of Homecoming
· Strategic Plan
o Inclusion of Academic Freedom language
o Invite the senators to continue to discuss the plan as it moves into its implementation phase.
o There is funding tied to it: performance model
· Budget issues
o Issues tied to sequestration have been taken care of
· Faculty invited to join community in sharing their comments about Athletic Review process
President of the Senate Lugo.
· Thank you for your work on resolution tied to Strategic Plan
· Faculty Assembly update
o Final version of GA Strategic Plan
o CAA under revision
o Fostering Student Success (Policy 400.1.5)
§ Concern about language related to third bullet point about possible “seamless” transfer policies between UNC campuses and other educational entities.
· SACS [Floor ceded to Martin Posey]
o Latest SACS visit went very favorably
o Tuesday Feb 12, Preliminary visit with compliance members to discuss March review.
· US/QEP position update
o At least one applicant noted.
o Search process will be open.
· S&B building renovations committee formed
o Displacement of nearly 65 faculty members
o There will be certain amount of discomfort involved in temporary relocations
· Coming up on March – SPOT proposal – Adopt IDEA
o Yes or no vote coming: “Yes” will signify moving forward with new instrument. “No” means that we will have to rapidly come up with an alternative solution, as current instrument will crash this summer
· Coming up on March – RPT proposal
o Proposed changes will be presented in edited draft of RPT document. As we approve changes, the edits will be accepted, and then final vote on entire document will take place.
o This process will take place in parts and over multiple meetings as necessary.
o Process then goes through Academic Affairs, then Board of Trustees, and the Board of Governors. (Typical duration is 1-2 years)
· Grievance/Hearing primer (draft)
o Faculty Assembly has expressed concern that faculty UNC-system wide do not have sufficient knowledge of grievance/hearing processes.
o Campuses are badly in need of an Ombudsman.
§ There is one at UNC-CH
The Steering Committee offers
the following motion:
[Motion 2013-02-M01] Transfer Patch
To extend the “patch” for transfer credit that was brought to the senate by Steering on October 02, 2012 for one more year, through June 2014.
Students entering UNCW in Fall 2012, Spring 2013, Summer I and II 2013, Fall 2013, Spring 2014, and Summer I and II 2014 who receive credit for previous coursework will also receive credit for all University Studies competencies attached to the equivalent University Studies courses.
Be careful about negative implications for curriculum
[Motion 2013-02-M01 passes unanimously]
No old business noted
No new business noted
For the Good of the Order
Topic: Student Evaluation of Teaching Instruments
· What is proposal? To implement IDEA
· What are implications for faculty? How will the instrument be used for faculty evaluation?
· The instrument and its implementation are separate issues.
· Comment from IDEA pilot member: I liked using the instrument.
§ There’s formative and evaluative feedback.
§ It is harder to boil down evaluations to one, global question.
§ Online aspect less intrusive regarding delivery of classroom content
· Query of other UNC schools. ECU has crafted an instrument that avoids problems of reductive, global question.
· Another Pilot member: I second first pilot members comments. In addition, we have different classes, and different SLOs.
· Student participation is good using IDEA
· How will costs of implementation be handled? Sent to AA. Direct cost around $55,000.
· All changes will have to be reflected in related documents, such as policy manuals.
· If we change instrument, we’ll need some type of amnesty before we implement it.
· 3rd Pilot Member: There is, in fact, a core set of questions available. I also found the instrument superior to current SPOT instrument.
· Another set of items include raw and scaled scores. Implications for obligatory vs. elective courses.
· We’ve said for year after year that we’re not supposed to only use Question 16, yet we always use it.
· Q 16 is used reductively for a number of reasons, including at departmental level.
· Diana Ashe will post names of pilot members of Faculty Senate site.
· Evaluation Committee is asked to put proposal forward as soon as possible, so that senators have ample time to study and discuss it before the March meeting.
· Janine Iamunno, Director of University Relations: Please take a look at new faculty and staff newsletter, SWOOP, and send in your suggestions: http://uncw.edu/swoop/ .
· Academic Freedom Forum on Thursday Feb. 21st, 12:30 p.m., Azalea Coast Room, Fisher University Union
· JohnsonAkinleye: New academic partnerships recently signed. More information coming soon.
· President Ross might be visiting UNCW in the upcoming months.
Meeting adjourned at 3:03.