Faculty Assembly Minutes

Feb.15, 2007

 

  1. The meeting was called to order at 3:05 p.m. by Jim van Speybroeck
  2. There was a moment of silent prayer and remembrance for three members of community who died: Robin Lund, Paul Vortriede, and Jim Resnik.
  3. Motion to accept the minutes of the Nov. 16 meeting by Paul Koch and seconded by Regina Stevens. Motion carried for 2007 – 08
  4. Tim Phillips: Welcome week will be initiated on the bFriday before classes begin. to the Friday before classes start. He believed this was enough time to acclimate the students to SAU. The faculty voiced no opposition.
  5. The first reading of Section VI of the revised handbook was presented by Jon Stauff. Discussion was minimal. Motion to accept by Lynn Frank; seconded by Tom Burns. Motion passed.
  6. There was a first reading of the academic integrity policy. It was presented by Nancy Hayes. Motion to accept by Mara Adams and second was Bea Jacobson.

Discussion centered about the need for precise interpretation of ‘cheating.”

Brad Theissen: using parts of papers in other classes does not necessarily mean cheating. If a student writes a paper and uses part of it in another class, that is not cheating. It is only cheating when the entire paper is used with no change except for the title.

Aron Aji:Ironically,  self-plagiarism is also not acceptable in academic circles.

Nanny Hayes: researched several schools and the general consensus is that recycling of papers is not accepted. Motion to approve the second reading by Andy Axup;seconded by Bea Jacobsob. Motion passed.

  1. The chair asked for volunteers to work with the chair-elect in soliciting nominees for the chair-elect, 2007-08 Ryan Dye and Wayne Oberle agreed to serve on the nomination committee.
  2. Faculty Evaluation Committee report by Ryan Dye. Ryan talked on the 3 roles of assessment:

a. Teaching 50-75%

b. Scholarship and service 10—30%

c. University service 10-30 %.

This year the committee had sub-committees to address various roles/definitions; to determine sources for assessing each role; to determine component weights of each role.

Question: Are we asking for department weights or university weights?

Paul Koch: Institutional weights and ranges were established based on departmental input.  We will be working on individual component weights for each faculty role model definition.

Aron Aji: SAU colleges should discuss these weights.

Question: Could a faculty member have different weights on a given year. .Paul Koch: Yes depending teaching load, committee work, etc.

The committee has gathered several national standardized forms. All roles and role components will be measured by some type of assessment scale

Andy Axup: Are some services missing from the evaluation?

Paul Koch:

And Axup: What about community service?

Paul Koch: Professional development/service can be broad enough to include such service.

K. Trujillo: We encourage service for faculty and students, but we discourage service in our disciplines. This is how we are assessed not evaluation on  

Aron Aji: The focus is on professional performance evaluation – not evaluating the person, but evaluating the performance.

Paul Koch: If the faculty chooses to decide that community service is important then it will be part of the roles. However, that means it has top be evaluated. Also, some forms of service are more personal than others. Privacy then becomes an issue.

Regina Stephens: Is the sole purpose of the evaluation for PTS review?

Ryan Dye: Yes; PTS wants a comprehensive, objective process

Paul Koch: We have always said that scholarship is important, but we have never really used it as part of assessment.

Judy Correa-Kaiser: PTS is cautious of student ratings. Letters indicate faculty work, but there is no objective way to measure some of these things.

Father Bud: Is the committee confident that this proposal will encourage and reward excellence?

Ryan. Yes and yes. Equity salary/merit pay are all ways to encourage excellence.

Pau Koch: Report to the Board of Directors in April. The exact weights for each department/faculty have yet to be determined.

Tom Yang: How do you evaluate scholarship?

Paul Koch: Not yet defined, but generally accepted view might be peer review of faculty work.

Judy Correa-Kaiser: Will instruments be shared?

Paul Koch: Yes.

Judy Correa-Kaiser: Standardized time frame for administering?

Paul Koch: Yes, ideally. A national instrument gives national norms to use for assessment.

Father Bud. It would be good to have evaluations readily available.

Paul Koch: faculty can always use the IDEA form.

Ryan Dye: Information also available on the web,

The discussion concluded and the committee will continue to refine the process.

 

Motion to adjourn: Tom Burns; second Regina Stephens. Motion passed.