Academic Affairs Committee Meeting

November 12, 2002

Present: David Blankenship, Leslie Couse, Glenn Geher(Chair), Yoav Kaddar,

Cindy McCormick, Debra Miller, Robin Smith and Chih-Yang Tsai.

Minutes from 10/212/02 were unanimously approved

I Announcements: Introduction of new members Leslie Couse (Education),

Cindy McCormick (Communication Disorders) and

Chih-Yang Tsi (Business).

II Discussion Board Summary: Glen urges the committee to review the discussion

board summary and comments. This will allow for lengthy discussion prior to the

meetings. This is extremely important given the time restraints for our committee

meetings.

III Academic Senate / Calendar Status: Glen announced that the Senate passed the

2003-2004 calendar. Comments were made regarding the exclusion of

some religious holidays. We need to consider an asterisk identifying

other religious holidays when reviewing upcoming calendars.

Glen will present the calendar at the faculty meeting scheduled for Friday,

November 15, 2002.

Our standing committees are: Academic Appeals Committee, Academic Standing

and the Scholarship committee. The by-laws are clear on the role of each standing

committee. Glen suggested that the chairs of each committee begin reporting to us

on a scheduled basis.

IV Student Initiative SEI Proposal: The Student Association proposed motion regarding

the publication of SEI information was passed out to the members. Members

discussed the addendum to the proposal. During discussion David Blankenship

provided the members with some history regarding the SEI.

The present form was made many years ago and this committee participated in the

design of the form. Recently there were conversations about redesigning the form.

Questionnaires were sent out and results compiled and given to Academic

Affairs. It seems that the project was dropped. There has been ongoing conversation

the LA&S Senate. It seems to be a problem for many.

Discussion continued and committee members commented on the following

- The confidentiality of the document was raised.

- Are the evaluations used as Administrative tools for the Department Chairs and Central Committees.

- The form is not utilized equitably across campus. It has been suggested that tenured faculty do not like the form but those candidates who are interested in Promotion Reappointment Tenure and Merit use it.

- We must be sure not to imply that the form produces useful results.

- By publicizing parts rather that the whole is there a suggestion that it is reliable information regarding the teaching of the course.

- There are serious implications with the interpretation of the data. Will faculty change the way a course is being taught to obtain better results? There are those who believe this is true. Does the research suggest a

Correlation?

The fact that the students are asking us deserves respectful consideration and a response. We should continue discussion and possibly recommend a modified version.

Perhaps we should also consider inviting Kelli Parmley from Institutional Research to be included in our discussion.

The meeting was adjourned at 12:30pm

Respectfully submitted,

Debra Miller