DOC

Minutes - Office of the Chancellor

By Wanda Arnold,2014-09-03 14:21
8 views 0
Minutes - Office of the Chancellor

Minutes for the 2/17/2012 Faculty Congress Meeting

3:00pm

K124

    Members Present: Julie Adrian, Jonathan Awaya, Jim Beets, Todd Belt, Emmeline dePillis, Kanoe Elvema, Kekoa Harman, Aaron Jacobs, Yiquing Li, Eileen Lovell, Seri Luangphinith, Sarah Marusek, Fiona McCormack, Mark Panek, Cheryl Ramos, Amy Saxton, Michael Shintaku, Kathleen Stacey, Norm Stahl

Others Present: Marcia Sakai, Don Straney

Members Absent: Drew Martin,

3:05: Chair Jim Beets convened the meeting.

    I. Approval of minutes from January Meeting

    Motion to approve as amended: Norm Stahl, seconded by Mike Shintaku,

    passed unanimously.

    II. Chair’s Report

    a. Professional Development Fund: both proposals submitted by

    Congress have been acceptedthe statistics workshop, and the

    writing assistance overload (description appended below).

    b. Congress is planning a 2-hour faculty forum for sometime in April.

    Jim Beets asked that members solicit ideas for the forum. Two

    tentative ideas for the form’s focus are related to active and

    engaged learning techniques (Congress is considering an outside

    speaker), and developing grant applications. Jim noted that we are

    trying to give the faculty what they asked for in the Fall survey. He

    also underscored what he envisioned as the interactive round-

    table nature of the event.

    c. Jim noted that last year’s faculty survey clearly asked for a faculty

    lounge. He announced that the Faculty and Staff Lanai, part of the

    library lanai, will be open after spring break. He solicited further

    input on the lanai’s design should anyone have concerns.

    d. Luoluo Hong has taken the responsibility to host a repository for

    spouses/partners/family members so their resumes can be

    accessed by potential employers. This comes in response to

    several requests from facultyespecially junior faculty.

    e. The Chancellor indicated in Monday’s meeting with the Executive

    Committee that the faculty ‘Ohana list will be revived, and

    maintained and monitored here on campus.

    f. Julie Adrian has compiled the numerical data on how

    representation for each college has been affected by last year’s

    motion to include Instructors for representation on Congress, and

    will share that data. Julie asked for clarification on whether

    “junior specialists” and non-tenure-track assistant professors

    would be included. They will.

    g. Jim circulated a draft of guidelines on evaluating instructors for

    contract renewal. He assigned HOMEWORK to review the draft

    and share it with our constituents, as Congress will vote on

    whether or not to approve/amend the draft next meeting. Cheryl

    requested an electronic copy, and Jim agreed to circulate one.

    h. Jim noted the gift of a box of Redbooks from the AAUP. After a

    brief overview on the value of the book as a guide for faculty

    governance, he invited faculty to sign out the seven copies and

    return them next meeting so that other members could familiarize

    themselves with the value and roles of faculty in administering the

    university.

    i.

    III. Committee Reports:

    Assessment: Seri Luangphinith presented in detail the results of her attendance, along with Todd Belt and Mark Panek, at the AACU conference (report appended below). Seri then reported on the Honolulu WASC retreat and asked some of the participants to share their experiences. Johnathan Awaya and Fioana McCormack said they were pleased with what they learned, but wondered where the time would come from to implement assessment. Mark Panek echoed the retreat’s

    message that assessment should be an incremental project, and that it involved “sampling” the work of a small number of students to gauge a program’s effectiveness rather than delving through the work of everyone, and that hiring yet another administrator to perform what should be a faculty responsibility was less preferable than controlling the process ourselves. Todd Belt announced the impending visit of Jill Ferguson from WASC, and invited everyone to attend her presentations on 2/27. Todd then emphasized that assessment should be seen as something that should help us and help our teaching rather than as some kind of burden.

Academic Policy: Aaron Jacobs discussed three agenda items his

    committee is addressing. He expects to have a revised T and P document at the March meeting. The committee also discussed the issue of students repeating courses they’ve already passed in order to boost their GPAs.

    20% of students in F2011 were doing so. The committee is examining this practice. The committee is also looking at the APC flowchart in conjunction with the Graduate Council, and hopes to bring more details to the March meeting.

Admission/EMIT:

    Jim Beets noted that the Executive Committee discussed the idea of reinstituting the Admissions Committee and redefining its roll, and perhaps renaming it a “Student Success” committee.

    Budget: Norm Stahl deferred to Marcia Sakai and her scheduled presentation later in the meeting.

Curriculum Review Committee: Mike Shintaku indicated that Pila

    Wilson met with the committee regarding perceived overlap with many of the certificate programs. He and April Scazzola are examining the idea

    of limiting the amount of overlap a student could have with a major, or a minor, or other certificate programs. Ed Fisher and John Pezzuto also discussed their proposed Doctor of Physical Therapy program with the committee. Some concerns were raised, but most of the committee members are now okay with the program. Mike doesn’t think the

    committee can approve the DPT without looking at and approving the courses first. Jim Beets suggested raising this issue in the next Executive ommittee meeting. C

    General Education: Todd Belt reported the results of the modeling of the GE supply and demand he ran with Brendan Hennessey. He explained that the number of currently offered GE courses matches up well with demand. He said that thanks to Elizabeth Stacey’s work as the prior GE

    chair, the one place where a backlog might occurGCCis soon coming

    online with more GE courses. He also provided another reminder for everyone to attend Jill Ferguson’s 2/27 visit, and to bring a friend,

    emphasizing that we should come up with our own assessment tool so it isn’t done for us.

    IV. Graduate Council Report:

    Aaron Jacobs reported that the GC has been working with the APC on the flowcharts for policy modifications and hopes to have results at the March meeting. The GC is also drafting guidelines for provisional acceptees into graduate programsstudents who are accepted with

    GPAs between 2.7 and 3.0. They have sent these guidelines forward to the VCAA for review.

    V. Research Council: Jim Beets had no new business to report.

    VI. Budget Information Session Sponsored by Congress: Marcia Sakai Marcia recognized Norm Stahl, Brian Bays, and Norman Arancon for their help on the long-range budget committee that helped lead to her power point presentation, available here:

    http://lrbpc.uhh.hawaii.edu/documents/FinancialManagementBudget101021712.pdf

    Em dePillis and Mark Panek both wanted to know how much of the athletics budget is restricted” funding, and how much is not. Marcia said

    she would find out and let Congress know.

    VII. Other Business

    Mark Panek and Todd Belt offered to postpone their other business

    listed on the agenda until the March Congress meeting.

    Jim Beets asked for nominations for a new Congress Vice Chair. Mark

    Panek nominated Julie Adrian.

    Motion by Norm Stahl to close nominations was seconded by Todd

    Belt and passed unanimously.

    Julie Adrian was elected as Vice Chair by a unanimous vote.

    Motion to adjourn by Norm Stahl was seconded by Kathleen Stacey

    and passed unanimously.

    5:12: meeting adjourned.

    Respectfully Submitted,

    Mark Panek

    Congress Secretary

Appendix A:

    Professional Development Fund Project Proposal: Enhancing Delivery of Writing Assignments

To: Professional Development Committee,

    From: Faculty Congress Executive Committee

    Re: Proposal for Professional Development Fund Project

    Purpose: The proposed project aims directly at UHH’s writing crisis in a practical way that incentivizes faculty to make use of UHH’s underused Writing in the Disciplines specialist, Dr.

    Matt Haslam. Specifically, we are hoping that overload pay ranging from one-to-three credits will encourage faculty to take the first step towards engaging in a type of pedagogical reform that may seem overwhelming in the context of all they are currently being asked to do, but that is in fact a simple process when done with semester-long assistance and mentoring from someone with expertise in the kind of “write-to-learn” techniques that promote student

    engagement and retention.

    Our proposal comes in part as a result of a faculty survey conducted by the Executive Committee requesting feedback for ideas on how the FSDF could be used. Among other questions, the Executive Committee’s survey asked, “If you suggested TEACHING as a priority

    for Faculty Development Fund programs, which of the following areas would be helpful (check all that apply).” This question generated the following response rates in the areas where Dr. Haslam’s assistance would be most relevant:

    ; Effective ‘actively engaged learning’ techniques: 63.9%

    ; Effective in-class group work 42.6%

    ; Teaching General Education courses with writing requirements 27.8%

    ; Learning Assessment within courses 47.2%

    ; Learning Assessment within departments 38.9%

    While workshops on Writing Across the Curriculum and Writing Intensive are routinely offered on campus, the above concerns persist at least in part because the initial act of integrating writing into one’s classroom can mean a move far out of one’s comfort zone—an

    act often so intimidating that many of us walk out of such workshops and then do not follow through on their suggestions. Four years ago UHH hired a Writing in the Disciplines specialist with a proven record of helping faculty overcome such fears by working closely with faculty on identifying where write-to-learn activities can take the place of lectures, how to link writing assignments to a course’s overall goals, and how to link writing activities within a department’s sequence of courses. To date, the Faculty Development fund represents the best

    opportunity to encourage many faculty to finally take advantage of what Dr. Haslam has to offer.

    Faculty who apply to work with Dr. Haslam will be accountable for earning their overloads. More than likely, an “internship” model will be drawn up, where the participating faculty

    member would submit a portfolio of their progress at the end of the semester, along with a report from Dr. Haslam, that expresses some commitment to continued use of the techniques through which they have been mentored. Given the main goals of the proposal, some combination of GE and Assessment Committee members would evaluate the portfolios on a pass/fail basis. Other evaluation criteria will be discussed with potential awardees.

    Since Dr. Haslam is already being paid to engage in activities such as these, none of the FSDF would be needed to pay him. Given the parameters of his unique duties, he would be able to mentor between 3 and perhaps 10 faculty members, depending upon which of the options (detailed below) interested faculty choose. Under such a scenario, the budget we are requesting from the FSDF would be the equivalent of a 9-credit overload, or around $15,000.

    Requirements for Overload Pay from the Professional Development Fund

    1-Credit Option: Developing Writing Assignments for GE Courses

    With help from the writing & learning consultant, the faculty member will do the

    following:

    • Develop appropriate writing assignment(s) that take the place of lectures

    • Identify evaluation/grading criteria, and potentially develop an easy-to-use

    rubric

    • Learn how to quickly and effectively respond to the student work

    • Read a set of papers along with the writing consultant

    • Evaluate the assignment and determine what changes could/should be made

    for the next time the course is taught

    • Submit a report to X committee reflecting on and evaluating the work done

    • Commit to using the assignment in future semesters

    2-Credit Option: Course Redesign

    With help from the writing & learning consultant, the faculty member will do the

    following:

    Prior to the Semester in Question

    • Evaluate the course: conduct an initial needs assessment

    • Identify ways to replace lectures with other active/engaged learning activities

    in the course, including using effective in-class group work

    • Make substantive changes to course assignments, use of in-class time, and

    means of evaluating students

    During the Semester

    • Evaluate the changes made by means of in-class observation, assessment of

    student work, and interviews with students conducted by the writing and

    learning consultant

    At the End of the Semester

    • Identify what changes could/should be made for the next time the course is

    taught, as well as how similar changes could be made in other courses

    • Submit a report to X committee reflecting and evaluating the work done

    3-Credit Option: Course Redesign with the Development of a Significant

    Writing Component

    With help from the writing & learning consultant, the faculty member will meet

    all of the requirements for the 2-credit course overload as well as develop a

    significant writing component for the course as follows:

    • Develop appropriate writing assignment(s)

    • Identify evaluation/grading criteria, and potentially develop an easy-to-use

    rubric

    • Learn how to quickly and effectively respond to the student work

    • Read a set of papers along with the writing consultant

    • Evaluate the assignment and determine what changes could/should be made

    for the next time the course is taught

    Appendix B: Assessment Chair’s Report

TO: UHH Faculty Congress

FROM: Seri Luangphinith

     Chair, Assessment Support Committee

CC: Don Straney, Chancellor

     Kenith Simmons, Interim VCAA

     April Komenaka, Accreditation Liaison Officer

     Jim Beets, Chair, Faculty Congress

RE: Report of the Assessment Support Committee

DATE: February 17, 2012

As Chair of the Assessment Support Committee and as the lead in two important initiatives, I thhereby submit the following report on the important information gleaned from the recent 98

    Annual Meeting of the Association of American Colleges and Universities (AAC&U). Information and progress resulting from the Assessment 101 Workshop and 2-day Program Review Retreat of WASC in February will be reported at a later time.

    My personal observations are highlighted in blue to help the reader differentiate between objective reporting and my own personal evaluation of the information gleaned. Action items that are the result of this conference are highlighted in red.

AAC&U

    The Chairs of Assessment and General Education, along with the Congress Secretary, were sent to the AAC&U. Due to the stacking of important sessions at the same time, we duly split our times. This report details the sessions the Chair of Assessment attended.

    1. Roundtable Action Dialogues: Civic Learning for a Diverse and Global Age

    The discussion centered around the 2012 report by the National Task Force on Civic Learning and Democratic EngagementA Crucible Moment, College Learning &

    Democracy’s Future. The report includes a Foreword by Martha Kanter, Under Secretary of the US Department of Education, and Eduardo Ochoa, Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary Education of the US Department of Education.

Of particular note is what the report calls “A Framework for Twenty-First Century Civic

    Learning and Democratic Engagement,” which gives an overarching and detailed description of four key areasKnowledge, Skills, Values, and Collective Action:

CIVIC ETHOS governing campus life

    The infusion of democratic values into the customs and habits of everyday

    practices, structures, and interactions; the defining character of the institution

    and those in it that emphasizes open-mindedness, civility, the worth of each

    person, ethical behaviors, and concern for the well-being of others; a spirit of

    public-mindedness that influences the goals of the institution and its

    engagement with local and global communities.

CIVIC LITERACY as a goal for every student

    The cultivation of foundational knowledge about fundamental principles and

    debates about democracy expressed over time, both within the United States

    and in other countries; familiarity with several key historical struggles,

    campaigns, and social movements undertaken to achieve the full promise of

    democracy; the ability to think critically about complex issues and to seek and

    evaluate information about issues that have public consequences.

CIVIC INQUIRY integrated within the majors and general education

    The practice of inquiring about the civic dimensions and public consequences of

    a subject of study; the exploration of the impact of choices on different

    constituencies and entities, including the planet; the deliberate consideration of

    differing points of views; the ability to describe and analyze civic intellectual

    debates within one’s major or areas of study.

CIVIC ACTION as lifelong practice

    The capacity and commitment both to participate constructively with diverse

    others and to work collectively to address common problems; the practice of

    working in a pluralistic society and world to improve the quality of people’s lives

    and the sustainability of the planet; the ability to analyze systems in order to

    plan and engage in public action; the moral and political courage to take risks to

    achieve a greater public good. (p. 15)

The report can be accessed at

    http://www.civiclearning.org/SupportDocs/Crucible_508F.pdf.

    From an assessment standpoint, the conflation of multiculturalism as a realm of study versus multiculturalism as values fully embraced by students and faculty is problematic. The simply study of African American history does not automatically guarantee empathy nor do indirect assessments (which seem to be the predominant method of “testing” student values such as open-mindedness and respect) are not always valid. As it stands, only the CIRP and NSSE provide some data on these outcomes, but “multiple measures are needed to capture students’ ability to demonstrate civic competencies” (Finley, p.3).

More troubling is the call by the report for institutions to “practice civic inquiry across all

    fields,” specifically, the report details the practice of civic inquiry across *ALL* fields of study and gives a sample institutional outcome: “Define within departments, programs,

    and disciplines the public purposes of their respective fields, the civic inquiries most urgent to explore, and the best way to infuse civic learning outcomes progressively across the major” (p. 32). This suggests that the emphasis may translate into pressures

    placed on whole departments to demonstrate such competencies at graduation.

    2. Defining the Public Purposes of Faculty Scholarship and Teaching

Due to the increased scrutiny of universities as educators of “citizens,” the one uptick to

    this momentum towards civic engagement is the rethinking of faculty publications. Given the pressure on faculty to publish in peer-reviewed journal articles, very little faculty research actually has any direct impact in the communities we serve, which the panelists observed as the fundamental obstacle we need to overcome if we want to ensure that universities become places of civic engagement.

    These questions were posed at the forum: (1) What is public scholarship? (2) How do we promote and reward it? (3) What individuals and groups need to be talking about or working on promotion policies for engaged faculty members?

The debate soon centered on the “value” of a peer-reviewed article on alcohol

    consumption during pregnancy versus a community pamphlet that informs the public on the dangers of drinking while being pregnant. For someone in a academic discipline of nursing, more emphasis may be given for the first while the second would be totally dismissed, and yet the public engagement is far more apparent in the latter. This contradiction is what lies at the heart of the current disconnect in theory and practice of civic engagement in higher education.

    3. Reclaiming Democracy: Facing the Consequences of Contingent Employment in Higher Education

    This all-day “summit” was hosted by the New Faculty Majority Foundation along with the AAC&U.

    The summit opened with remarks by Gary Rhodes, Professor of Higher Education (University of Arizona) and the Director for the Center for the Future in Higher Education. He made note of Vice President Biden’s comments on January 13 at a Pennsylvania high school, where he was purported to have said that one of the problems leading to the increasing cost of education is due to “Salaries for college professors [which] have escalated” because there is “a lot of competition for the finest professors. They all want the Nobel Laureates” (from the article “Faculty Groups Try To Educate Biden on Salaries” at http:insidehighered.com). He is also alleged to have said that the average pay of $100,000 for faculty is “gouging” the system.

    The New Faculty majority, a lobbying group that has been formed to tackle issues of contingency faculty, wanted to make clear at the symposium that this myth has been the most problematic challenge in terms of really scrutinizing the cost of education, because that myth overlooks the reality that “Adjunct, contingent faculty members now make up over 1 million of the 1.5 million people teaching in American colleges and universities” (“Among the Majority” at http://insidehighered.com). In fact, Gary

    Rhoades, from the Center for the Study of Higher Education at the University of Arizona, noted at this summit that under 30% of faculty nation-wide are tenured; full-time non-tenurable faculty make up around 19%.

    The fact that instructors, adjuncts and graduate teaching assistants account for the bulk of teaching in lower-level General Education, where essential key skills are taught (but is also the time when many students also fail or drop out) underscores the further irony

    that such faculty often do not have offices, have no voice in faculty governance, are not consulted in curricular or pedagogical issues, are given little if no recourse to professional development, may often teach at several institutions, and on average make less than $25,000 nation-wide. So while the AAC&U and many college administrators have been promoting civic engagement and the values of “respect for freedom and human dignity, empathy, open-mindedness, tolerance, justice, equality, ethical integrity, an responsibility to the larger good,” the challenge is to reform universities so the “business” of exploitation and labor hierarchy gives way to an actual model of the very democracy we want our students to learn and embrace.

    4. Mission-Defined Assessment: Using Institutional Identity to Shape Assessment of Student Learning Outcomes And Decision-Making

    The following are notes taken from the ACAD Workshop on Developing Assessment vis-à-vis Strategic Planning. The paid workshop was advertised as a hands-on session that would allow participants to develop an actual assessment plan. Unfortunately, this turned out to be one of the biggest disappointments of the conference as there was no actual work facilitated. However, the following constitutes the information from the PowerPoint shown to the audience, which does provide some useful contexts for why assessment needs to align with strategic planning and two case studies that provide insight into how other campuses undertake this process:

Why Focus on Mission-Based Assessment?

    ; Resource challenge. We are asked to do more with less. What programs

    should be supported with these fewer resources?

    ; Cost challenge. We are asked to explain why students should pay what

    they are for their education.

    ; Problem. These constraints require institutions to decide what is most

    important concerning these first two questions.

    ; Solution. Mission-statements articulate the highest ideals for graduates.

    They serve as tools to evaluate what fits in mission and thus the

    institution.

Benefits

    ; By highlighting mission-based assessment, provides a principled

    foundation for planning

    ; Fosters dialogues that enhance core educational principles

    ; Helps institutions to emphasize its uniqueness and distinctiveness

    (history, commitments, etc.)

Challenges

    ; Evokes very strong feeling and beliefs about how the institution operates

    now and in the future

    ; Time is required for a stable consensus to emerge and for priorities to

    appear (to guide planning)

    ; Explicit comparisons between like and peer institutions will also occur

    (dangers of over-homogenization)

    Purpose of this workshop

    ; Explore how institutional identity (based on a college’s mission) can guide

    decisions about resources and educating students

    ; Promote assessment as a means of defining and facilitating institutional

    priorities

    ; Encourage dialogues about explicitly using college mission statement.

    Mission-Defined Assessment

    ; Institutional identity = mission-based foundation of aspirations for

    graduates

    ; Assessment = mission-defined tool for evaluating effectiveness and

    continually striving for better expression of institutional identity ; In order for assessment to effectively inform strategic planning decisions

    and communication, four principles should be followed:

    GOALS FOR INSTITUTIONS:

    1. Resist the test or hoop version

    ; Instead, build a healthy culture of assessment that focuses on

    commitment to student learning.

    ; Goal = enable faculty and staff to fully own assessment

    initiatives as a means of fulfilling institutional mission

    ; Keep an eye on the whole (there are always going to be nay-

    sayers), but the change in culture can take place around them.

    2. Coordinate academic and student affairs goals (academic learning and

    student development need to be complementary and coordinated)

    ; Address student learning holistically and not in a

    compartmentalized manner

    ; Tensions will rise between these two entities

    3. Aggregate general education, academic program and co-curricular

    domains of student learning.

    ; All domains of student learning need to intersect with each

    other

    ; Integrate GE, academic major/minor, and co-curricular

    assessment domains together into a coherent, multi-layer

    whole focused on institutional student learning

    ; Requires attention to multiple domains that may be driven by

    different motivations

    4. Communicating with internal and external audience

    ; Ultimate goal should be clear articulation of institution’s

    priorities and how those priorities are achieved

Report this document

For any questions or suggestions please email
cust-service@docsford.com