Faculty Council Agenda by DaronMackey

VIEWS: 0 PAGES: 5

									Faculty Council meeting – January 28th, 2008                               MINUTES

Present:
Julie Posey           President, Liberal Arts Representative
Duncan Snyder         Vice President, Representative-At-Large
Kris Schramer         Recording Secretary, Fine Arts Representative
Alice Frenz           Foundation Studies Representative
Brooke Hannan         Visual Communications Representative
John Fergus-Jean      Media Studies Representative
Judy Doll             Industrial Design Representative
Jeannine Kraft        Representative-At-Large
Kim Burghy            Adjunct Representative
Mike Houghton         Adjunct Representative


Meeting convened at 11:03 AM in the Canzani Multi-Purpose Room

A. Spring 2008 meeting dates, times and locations are as follows:
       • 1/28/08 Canzani second floor 11-12:20
       • 2/11/08 Canzani second floor 11-12:20
       • 2/25/08 Crane Multipurpose room 11-12:20
       • 3/10/08 Canzani second floor 11-12:20
       • 3/24/08 Canzani second floor 11-12:20
       • 4/7/08 Canzani second floor 11-12:20
       • 4/21/08 Canzani second floor 11-12:20
       • 5/5/08 (if necessary) Canzani second floor 11-12:20

B. ADJUNCT DOCUMENT submitted to Anedith Nash and Jeff Fisher on Jan 16. The
   initial response is favorable but Nash has asked for more time to meet with Fisher and
   go over more carefully. JP has requested a meeting with Nash before the document is
   presented to Deans Council on February 13, so that FC has chance to make a final
   revision if necessary.

C. Deans Council to discuss College Net (course evaluations, to be implemented this fall)
   and Goal Quest (recruitment and retention) software at January 30th meeting. Jeannine
   Kraft will represent FC concerns at this meeting. JP passed out copies of College Net
   and Goal Quest handouts, and FC brainstormed concerns:

           a. COLLEGE NET:
                 • how will students be prevented from evaluating courses in which
                    they were not enrolled? Is system is password-protected?
                 • Will students be able to evaluate (or revise a previously completed
                    evaluation) after they have received their final grade in a course?
                 • because evaluation process will be voluntary, evaluations may
                    only be completed by students who are either very happy or very
          unhappy with course, and this may skew statistical results. (JP said
          students will be sent a reminder e-mail when it is time to fill out
          course evaluations, but they will not be required to fill them out.
          Instructors may wish to take classes to a computer lab and give
          them time to complete.)
      •   Will faculty be able to customize evaluations by adding questions
          specific to their own course?
      •   If not, will teachers be allowed to give a different evaluation form
          in class, in order to collect information that is more specifically
          relevant to their course?
      •   will results be accessible over the long term, so that instructors
          will be able to gather necessary information to complete their self-
          evaluations once every year or three years?
      •   Info sheet says that other institutions have implemented incentives
          to encourage student participation. What are these?
      •   Will program allow faculty to ask and analyze statistical questions
          beyond the ones that are standard?
      •   Will evaluations clearly show the evaluating student’s grade and
          attendance history, so that their results can be interpreted
          appropriately?
      •   how many questions will be on evaluations?
      •   Will faculty or FC be able to preview system before CCAD
          finalizes purchase?
      •   Administration may not fully understand that teachers use
          evaluations primarily as a way to receive feedback on and improve
          their classes, whereas Administration uses evaluations as a method
          for evaluating teachers’ performance. These two goals may be
          conflicting. Teachers may become afraid to get honest, negative
          feedback about their classes if they think it will affect their
          performance review. JP said that teachers are supposed to be
          evaluated by peers and supervisors sitting in on classes, not by
          student evaluations. All agreed that currently, this form of peer
          review is not being performed in any division.
      •   How much will College Net cost the college? (JK said she thought
          we just pay a subscription to use the service, which is already
          online. AF said she thought CCAD was already a client of this
          company - this is how Dwayne Todd has been getting stats about
          student satisfaction and retention.)
      •   What are the program’s privacy practices? Who has access to data,
          who can get it in future? The software company will learn LOTS
          of info about CCAD through this, and will that info be “mined”
          and sold to other art colleges, or in any way used against us later?

b. GOAL QUEST:
                    •   What is it? AF said all faculty are invited to info sessions Tue,
                        Wed, Thurs 4:00-5:00 in boardroom downstairs. Is already being
                        used this year with freshmen in attempt to increase retention, but
                        will be used this fall by Admissions for recruiting. AF said it’s a
                        communication tool: allows college to communicate with students,
                        students to communicate with each other. It’s like an internal
                        Facebook. A supplement to our current website. All content
                        written by the company but it looks like our website. It is separate,
                        though -- students will know it as “GoalQuest”.
                    •   What does it do? Tracks names of people who have attended
                        events, contacted CCAD in the past… Helps us put together lots
                        of little pieces of information to identify which candidates are
                        most interested, so we know how to focus our recruiting. It could,
                        for example, go to MySpace, look up all people interested in art
                        (or sort by geography, GPA, athletic achievement, anything…),
                        and “invite” them to be our “friend” and visit our “page”. Current
                        students will be paid to blog. Freshmen will declare their majors
                        on GoalQuest this year. It is supposed to save us money and help
                        us increase admissions standards.
                    •   This Wednesday it will be presented for first time to Deans – JP
                        will be present. AF will forward an e-mail to us with a link to the
                        site. We don’t really have any concerns yet because we don’t
                        understand it!
                    •   KB mentioned that this will be difficult for less computer-literate
                        faculty. DS recommended an episode of Frontline last week that
                        addressed issue of how educators have to adapt to the computer
                        literacy of current student generation.


D. ONLINE SYLLABI: at Dean’s Council on January 16th, it was stated that faculty will
   eventually be required to submit syllabi that can be placed online for CCAD students to
   view. Will probably be a generic format that includes contact info, course goals,
   assessment methods. It is unknown if they will be posted on IQ Web or on the main
   CCAD webpage. We currently have the ability to post syllabi on IQ web and control
   who has access to it. Concerns:
          a. DS concerned Admin might see too much difference between syllabi and
              push faculty to standardize grading practices or course content. JP said that
              this could already happen, since all faculty now give their chairs and deans
              copies of syllabi. JFJ, BH agree with DS – there is danger of being pushed
              into standardization by government grant or accreditation requirements. AF
              pointed out that Foundation Studies was recently criticized by outside
              agency for being TOO standardized. JP said that with such a high
              percentage of adjuncts, having some degree of standardization is probably a
              good thing. AF agreed.
          b. AF said that several schools are currently trying to copy CCAD classes so
              we shouldn’t put too much of our content online.
           c. JFJ asked who owns syllabi – faculty or school? JP answered that
              COURSE belongs to school but CONTENT of course belongs to professor
              (notes, lectures, etc.). JK added that even for online courses, content
              belongs to faculty – to protect this right, courses are not hosted on school’s
              server, but externally.
           d. JP said that the posted syllabi will not contain entire content of course, just
              basic structure-of-class information. Even if the paper syllabus instructors
              give their students the first day contains content, the one online will be more
              basic.
           e. JK said that faculty handbook currently says faculty have to provide syllabi
              to chairs, deans, AND One-Stop. JP and KS said this is outdated and needs
              to be amended, because syllabi now only required to chairs and deans. AF
              said syllabi used to go to Roderick so that he could help disabled students
              select appropriate courses, but this in no longer relevant. JP will have
              handbook changed.
           f. JP will report that FC is generally uneasy about posting syllabi online,
              unless it is in a secure place accessible only to students and other faculty.
              Faculty do not want admin to require standardized syllabi, course design, or
              grading.
           g. Many members of FC stated preference that when online, syllabi be
              organized by course, not by instructor.
           h. BH and DS requested admin provide reasons why syllabi need to be online,
              and what they will be used for, so we can better judge whether it is a good
              idea.
           i. AF warned that this could affect transfer credit – if a student can use online
              syllabi from two different colleges to prove that course content is the same,
              they could pressure CCAD to give them credit for another institution’s
              course.
           j. BH said that online syllabi could be used by students to help them decide
              which instructor to take -- This would be a positive use of online syllabi.


E. WORKSHOPS
     a. Plan spring workshops:
                 i. Dawson interested in doing a glass-blowing 5-week workshop right
                     after school ends
                ii. Forward other ideas to DS
     b. Post winter workshop pictures to website: There is a workshop page on our
        website that is empty right now! DS tried to send pictures to JP, but her inbox
        was full. MH also has some pictures, BH will sent a few as well.
     c. BH said she hasn’t been paid for her winter workshop. DS apologized and will
        look into it.

F. RE: last semester’s discussion of adjunct salary vs. private sector salary -- BH
   reported one of her seniors just accepted a design job in Columbus for salary of
   $47,500 with $3000 signing bonus to begin when she graduates in May.
G. FACULTY EXCELLENCE AWARD advertising: do we need posters around
   campus?
      a. YES – faculty are not comfortable announcing this award to their classes, and
         students do not check their e-mail.

H. FACULTY COUNCIL TO-DO LIST: Should we develop a 2, 3 or 5-year plan to
   establish more long-term goals and guide the work of future councils? BH advised
   against a plan, but advocated a “wish-list” instead.

   Projects for Spring Semester:
       a.       Merit Raises
       b. Full time faculty raise renegotiation – need to prepare for year after next, when
           first raise agreement expires.
       c. Faculty Evaluation procedures
       d. Documentation of sick-time, compensation for substitute teaching
       e. (JFJ and BH suggested internships for students, but JP advised not FC
           jurisdiction.)
       f. JK said that CCAD asks faculty to send announcements and achievements to
           Institutional Advancement, and we do, but the news is never updated online.
       g. Deal with problem of people who volunteer for committees but then never
           attend, and still get credit for committee without doing work. Can FC call for
           new elections if a committee member consistently doesn’t show? DS said that
           one of the local arts councils has a rule: if member can’t attend, they must
           notify 24 hours in advance, rest of committee votes whether absence is excused
           or unexcused. After three absences, member can be voted off.

       JP asked that other ideas be forwarded to her.

Meeting adjourned at 12:22 pm.

								
To top