Faculty Senate Meeting
91自拍论坛
December 6, 2017
Spindletop Room Mary and John Gray Library
Presiding: Vivek Natarajan, President Faculty Senate
Attending: Arts and Sciences: Judy Smith, Christian Bahrim, Tom Sowers, Sanaz Alasti, Garrick Harden, Stacey Knight, Gina Hale, Gretchen Johnson, Pat Heinzelman, Yasuko Sato, Ozge Gunaydin-Sen, J.P. Nelson, Jennifer Daniel, Joseph Kruger, Maryam Vasefi, Cheng-Hsien Lin, Ted Mahavier; Business: Tim McCoy, James Slaydon, Purnendu Mandal, Seokyon Hwang; Education: Connie Ruiz, Anna Nguyen, Vanessa Villate, Belinda Lopez, Engineering: Nicholas Brake, John Gossage, Fine Arts and Communication: Zanthia Smith, Vinaya Manchaiah, Nicki Michalski, Cheri Acosta, Bryan Proksch, Library: Michael Saar, Mark Asteris College Readiness: Melissa Riley, Lamar State College Port Arthur: Mavis Triebel
Absent: Arts and Sciences: Kami Makki, Lisa Donnelly, Michael Beard, George Irwin, Martha Rinker, Business: Karyn Neuhauser, Education: Ken Young, Dorothy Sisk, Janice Kimmons, Isreal Msengi, Engineering: Mien Jao, Gleb Tcheslavski, James Curry, Xuejun Fan, Communications and Fine Arts: Nandu Radhakirshnan,Sherry Freyermuth,
Call to Order: 3:30 pm
Recognition of Past President: Sarah Tusa was recognized with a plaque for her many dedicated years to the Faculty Senate in which she assumed many roles including President from 2015-2017.
Guest Speaker:
- James Marquart, Provost and VP Academic Affairs
- Over the past few semesters there has been a decline in the International Student Population. The College of Engineering has experienced the greatest decrease especially in relation to Graduate Students in 2016.
- As a result some changes have been made: the International Student Admissions office has moved from the Global Diversity and Inclusion Building to the main admissions office.
- Two to four international recruiting agencies have been contracted with to help recruit more international students for all of the Colleges within the University.
- Currently there is no model available to trend international student applications.
- Also looking at developing an English as a Second Language program.
- Currently there is a search underway for an International Coordinator of international recruitment
- Normal Bellard, Interim Athletic Director and Assistant to the President for Community Relations.
- Spearheads the South Park Re-development initiative which now encompasses 57 total members.
- Meetings are the second Wednesday of every month from 3:30 to 4:30 pm.
- Major goals include:
- Safety and Security in the area.
- Improving the infrastructure such as 61 of 80 structures of abandoned and unsafe housing have been demolished in the area.
- Improve Community Engagement: Sponsoring a Day in the Park at Alice Keith Park on April 1, 2018
- Improve Communication within the area: 91自拍论坛 Police Department working closely with the Beaumont City Police Department
- Have developed a Community Garden
- Sponsors Community Clean up days
- Have gotten street repairs approved with the City
- Many lighting improvements are to occur
- Entergy is downsizing the campus sub-station to improve the campus esthetics.
- Have initiated the PJ Couch tutoring project
- A pep rally was recently held at Pietzsch MacArthur Elementary. Dr. and Mrs. Evans donated 500 t-shirts for students in the 3rd to the 5th grade that had the words “Headed to LU” on them.
- Contractors working on the Setzer Center have been putting together 12 Bicycles to be given away to worthy 5th grade students at Pietzsch MacArthur Elementary.
- Also discussed various aspects of his role as the Interim Athletic Director including areas for improvement as well as areas of success.
Approval of Minutes: November 1, 2017
- Asteris made a motion to approve the minutes as written
- Slaydon Seconded
- Unanimously approved.
Faculty Senate President Report
- Kumar Das, Interim Director Office of Research and Sponsored Projects will be the guest speaker at the February 7, 2018 meeting
- Old Business:
- The F2.08 committee brought forth their final recommendations regarding the F2.08 process that has been in flux for many years.
- Evans forwarded the proposal for further input from the Council of Instructional Departments (CID) and F2.08 meeting
- A rubric has been proposed for the F2.08 to help guide Chairs in doing annual evaluations.
- The Deans were also contacted regarding the proposed rubric for evaluations.
- Each department is strongly encouraged to develop their own rubrics with the suggestions attached to the proposal to be voted on.
- Prokosh moved to approve the F2.08 recommendations as written
- Slaydon Seconded
- Motion Approved to accept the F2.08 recommendations.
- Faculty Senate Committee Chair Reports:
- Academic Issues-Melissa Riley and Nicki Michalski
- No meeting was held in November. Plan to have an electronic meeting soon.
- It has been brought to the committee’s attention that the policy on lost laptops needs to be reviewed and updated.
- Budget and Compensation-Tom Sowers
- In the process of trying to schedule a meeting to discuss the impact of lost students on the University bottom line.
- Plans are being made to convene the committee in January.
- Being told the Budget is not good and conservation measures have had to be taken yet concern was raised regarding the high cost of recruiting Deans and Chairs for open positions.
- Distinguished Faculty Lecturer: Mark Asteris
- No meeting is currently scheduled.
- The committee will be working on trying to ensure that there is a good transition between successive committees in the future to ensure continuity and to prevent event issues from being lost, omitted, or being left till the last minute in the planning process due to committee membership changes.
- The Dinner consisted of Chicken which was good but also steak that was not as good.
- Discussed the option of perhaps asking Family and Consumer Science to cater the event in the future. The committee will be working with M. Dahm to see what can be worked out.
- Also discussed the staff luncheon held each spring. Senate needs to work on raising more money to sponsor the event.
- Faculty Issues-Jennifer Daniel and Ken Young
- Piper Nominee will be Dr. Su from Chemical Engineering
- Working on getting a Faculty Ombudsman position developed. The tenure of the appointment would be for three years.
- The Senate will have to approve the final appointment of the person but Dr. Marquart would like to see the position modeled after Texas State University’s position.
- Kevin Smith has been the liaison with the committee. With his retirement in December there will be a delay in completion.
- Research and Development: Faculty Developmental Leave (FDL): Nicholas Brake
- Meetings to review applicants for developmental leave were held on Wednesday November 15 and November 29, 2017. Time and place to be determined.
- Had seven hard copy applications and five on-line applications.
- All applicants were ranked and scored. Final tally sent to Dr. Marquart today.
- Brake will meet with Dr. Marquart next week.
- On-line application process went well and will be used in the future.
- Vivek recognized N. Brake for his hard work and effort in getting the on-line application fully functional.
- Emerging Strategic Issues Task Force- Purnendu Mandal
- Had one meeting last month.
- International Student recruitment has been added as a committee charge.
- A meeting is being planned for next Monday.
New Business:
- Kruegar requested that minutes and the agendas for meetings should be sent out at least 24 hours in advance of meetings
- Smith informed the Senate members of the recent loss of a long term faculty member in the School of Nursing, Donna Wilsker. She will be greatly missed.
Adjournment:
- There being no further business
- Sowers motioned to adjourn
- Slaydon seconded
- Meeting adjourned 4:40 pm.
Dr. Judy Smith
Attachments: F 2.08 approved recommendations
Statement and Recommendations from the F2.08 Revision Task Force
Upon investigation of the current F2.08 process and its implementation, the task force has accrued the following information:
- For the most part, the faculty feel that their work is being satisfactorily represented by the current system.
- The faculty do not support the implementation of an additional committee at the department level for the purpose of peer review of the F2.08 document on an annual basis.
- They believe this is the responsibility of the department chairs.
- They note there is already an appendix attached to the document for the tenured faculty to sign off on the evaluations of untenured faculty members. There are many departments where this portion of the document is not being implemented, and that needs to be addressed rather than adding another layer to the process. Perhaps moving the signature page up with the other signatures will encourage completion of the form.
- There is agreement that the primary issue is a lack of quantifiable criteria for evaluation. While every department is supposed to have clearly delineated guidelines, there are a significant number who either do not have criteria or have not revised them in many years.
- Many faculty members stated that they are not made aware of the spread of the evaluations in their departments despite the fact that such information is supposed to be made available on a yearly basis. They do not want to know names in connection with scores, but the distribution of scores would help them to determine areas for improvement.
- Although some deans were interested in adding new parts to the F2.08 form (e.g. a section wherein a faculty member assesses their impact on their discipline), the faculty did not support this suggestion.
Therefore, the task force makes the following suggestions:
- Each department needs to draft new criteria for evaluation. We recommend a point system wherein faculty members can clearly determine how many points they have accrued during the evaluation period. Each department will establish guidelines to convert these points to the 1-5 ranking system tied to exemplary, high, adequate, marginal or unsatisfactory performance which are used for determining merit.
- Departmental criteria should be reviewed regularly and revised as needed.
- Department chairs should receive training in faculty evaluation.
- Each department should distribute their criteria to all new faculty members within the first semester after hire.
- The F2.08 form should include, at the end of the research/creative activity section, a running total of amount of research/ creative activity required for tenure and what has been accomplished. This should be based on the departmental criteria (i.e. number of publications, number of shows staged, number of conference presentations, etc.)
- There needs to be a mechanism in place to encourage departments to actually review and revise their standards.
- There needs to be a separate set of criteria for non-tenure track faculty. The committee recognizes that the majority of non-TT faculty are judged only on teaching, but there are some departments where they also do service. This should be honored and they should receive credit for that as well as teaching. Determination of that should be left to the department as with the criteria for TT faculty.
We are attaching examples of potential criteria to which point values or rankings could be assigned. These examples are not intended to be all inclusive. Departments should add or adjust for their own discipline. Departmental faculty should work together to determine point values and/or the relative weight of items.
Example Guidelines for Annual Evaluation of Teaching Effectiveness (point-based system)
ACTIVITY Point value Awarded
Satisfactory completion of assigned course duties
Letters of recommendation
Service on Masters comprehensive exam committees
(Theses and dissertations count in research)
Chairing of Masters comprehensive exams
(Theses and dissertations count in research)
Course/curriculum design or redesign
Collaborative course design or team-teaching
Effective leadership and management of online courses
Continued reflection, innovation, and redesign in courses
Demonstrated improvements in student learning outcomes
Leadership in student learning
Student success resulting from your teaching/advising
Positive Online Course Evaluations
(with narrative contextualization)
Peer observation of teaching with
letter of support or classroom observation instrument
Mid-semester feedback and description of adjustments made
Advisee/student letters and comments about your mentorship
Scholarly teaching
Participation in professional development opportunities (re: teaching)
Investigating and assessing innovative teaching strategies
linked to SoTL research studies
Nomination for or receipt of teaching awards
(receipt of award counts more than nomination)
Teaching philosophy and evidence of implementation
Example Guidelines for Research and Creative Activity Annual Evaluation (point system)
ACTIVITY POINT VALUE AWARDED
Publication in national/international journal (peer reviewed)
Publication in regional journal (peer reviewed)
Publication in state journal (peer reviewed)
Publication in popular press periodical
Publication of book, chapter or essay
Publication in conference proceedings
Due to the length of publication schedules, submissions should also be included/evaluated with higher points being assigned once the piece has been published
Presentation at national/international conference
Presentation at regional conference
Presentation at state conference
Presentation at local conference
Presentation to public interest group
Completion of major creative undertaking
(e.g. film, painting or sculpture series, orchestral score)
Submission to festivals/competitions/etc.
(Acceptance counts more than submission)
Awards won at festivals/competitions/etc.
(placing and honorable mentions also count)
Selection for public presentation of creative work
Grant writing (submission and award count; award counts more)
EXAMPLE GUIDELINES FOR SERVICE ANNUAL EVALUATION POINT SYSTEM
ACTIVITY POINT VALUE POINTS AWARDED
Community activity (volunteer work)
Leadership in community group
Leadership in disciplinary organization
Membership in disciplinary organizations
University committee membership
(Committees which meet frequently awarded
more points)
Office held in university committee
College committee membership
(Committees which meet frequently awarded
more points)
Office held in college committee
Departmental committee membership
(Committees which meet frequently awarded
more points)
Office held in departmental committee
Sponsorship of student groups
Recruiting activity
Representation of department at university events
(Graduations, view day, orientations, etc.)
Sample Criteria for Non Tenure Track Faculty
Teaching Points Possible Points Awarded
- Post and maintain a departmentally set number of office hours
- Follow all guidelines for multi-section courses (assignments, required texts, standardized policies, etc.)
- Facilitate tutoring or learning center activities as needed
- Maintain appropriate presence on Blackboard (upload syllabi, due dates, etc.)
- Nomination for teaching award (college, university, state or national)
- Winning teaching award (more points than the nomination)
- Publish pedagogical research
- Attend training sessions through CTLE or other groups
- Rank in OCE results (different levels receive different points; 5s earn more points that 4s, etc.)
- Serve as faculty mentor through university sponsored programs (TALH, McNair, etc.)
- Develop and maintain supportive relationships with students
- Teach at times that benefit the department
- Innovation in course development
Service
- Advising
- Serve on departmental committees
- Serve on college committees
- Serve on university committees
- Recruiting activities
- Sponsoring student groups
- Representing the department at university functions
Research
- Grant application
- Grant awarded
- Research presented at conference or convention
- Research published in appropriate forum