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.
Pages to are hidden for
"Faculty Council Agenda"Please download to view full document