Minutes for the 2/17/2012 Faculty Congress Meeting
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,
II. Chair’s Report
a. Professional Development Fund: both proposals submitted by
Congress have been accepted—the 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 faculty—especially 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
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.
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 occur—GCC—is 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 programs—students 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:
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.
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