---

agenda status: approved

Agenda:

AGENDA
University Committee on Academic Policy

Meeting of Thursday, February 22, 2001
10:15 a.m., Board Room, Administration Building


1. Approval of Agenda

2. Approval of Minutes of the February 8, 2001 Meeting

3. Comments from the Chairperson

4. Comments from the Assistant Provost

5. SOCT: Preliminary Evaluation Approach ... (see Prof. Jacob's document)

6. Teaching Evaluation Discussion .....(see for dimensions of the discussion)

7. Copyright Discussion .... (for statement of proposed policy see http://www.msu.edu/unit/provost/copyrightdraft.html)

8. Roundtable



Attachment: February 8, 2001 Draft Minutes


Please phone or E-Mail Robin Pline (353-5380; pline@msu.edu) if you cannot be present.


2.22.01UCAPagenda.doc

---

---

minutes status: approved

approved at meeting of

UCAP Minutes for meeting held on 02/22/2001

Present: Harry Beckmeyer, J. Roy Black, Joe Chartkoff, Cindy Gibbons, Fred Jacobs,

Jon Sticklen, Winston Wilkinson

Others: Barbara Steidle (Assistant Provost)

1. Because a quorum was lacking, the Committee was not able to conduct formal business. The proposed agenda was not able to be approved, nor were the minutes of the meeting of February 8, 2001, able to be formally approved. Since no formal decisions could be made, those Committee members present elected to discuss a limited number of current topics informally.

2. Jon Sticklen suggested that, at the meeting of March 15, 2001, a motion be made to amend the draft minutes from the February 8, 2001, meeting with respect to Item 6, concerning the charge given to him as Co-Chair by the Committee in regard to UCAP response to the proposed University Copyright Policy. The minutes as presently drafted reflect only half the Committee's charge: that he invite Melissa Crimp of the Faculty Affairs Committee to attend the upcoming UCAP meeting to address questions on the issue. The draft minutes should also state that Sticklen also was asked to send a letter to the Executive Committee of Academic Council (ECAC) to present UCAP's concerns and wish to have a voice in the matter because of its connection with academic policy.

3. The bulk of the informal discussion concerned Item 5 of the proposed agenda: SOCT: Preliminary Evaluation Approach. The discussion was led by Assistant Provost Steidle, Jon Sticklen and Fred Jacobs. Cindy Gibbons was asked to summarize four areas of concern about SOCT analysis and implementation that she had expressed in a memo to Jon Sticklen. They included:
a. Survey--either comprehensive or random--of students, faculty and administrators as three separate populations, to find out what their responses were after the first administering of SOCT.
b. Data analysis: some evaluation needs to be done.
c. UCAP should informally set up meetings with colleges to discuss the SOCT results and implications.
d. There should be some analysis of e-mails and other feedback sent to Dr. Steidle and Provost Simon following the first SOCT administration.

Steidle noted that there isn't time to use such feedback to make any revisions in the SOCT design, because the next set must be printed for distribution within a month. Of the four areas noted above, the data analysis is the only part that could probably be completed before the next administering of the SOCT.

Winston Wilkinson suggested that UCAP members contact their college constituents by e-mail and request feedback via e-mail on the first SOCT experience. Steidle suggested that student representatives to UCAP make a similar request to students through ASMSU.

Cindy Gibbons noted there should be some consideration of differing impacts of SOCT and how to assess them. For students, the impact would be in terms of choices of classes. For faculty, there is concern as to whether SOCT results were used supportively or to punish low-ranked faculty.

Fred Jacobs asked what the form of the output would likely be. Steidle said it is still to be determined. Faculty should be asked if they think the responses to SOCT have been consistent with the responses to SIRS, though all faculty have not yet received copies of the SOCT results yet, so this can't be determined yet. Jon Sticklen suggested that the data be put up first on the Web and then responses could be requested.

Questions were asked about the time line for processing SOCT results. Steidle noted that the commitment was to show something to students in time for the Fall 2002 registration, which would be February of 2002. For the present, a mock-up could be posted, but not actual results. It was planned to do two sets of the forms (Fall, 2000, and Spring, 2001) before a posting of actual results was begun.

Jacobs' subcommittee has already provided UCAP with a draft recommendation for the SOCT screen display. This recommendation is not policy, but UCAP voted to adopt it, according to Steidle. The recommendation suggested that units could define their own benchmarks for displaying results. Questions have arisen, however, as to what will get reported and what students will be able to use from SOCT results. Subsequent questions concerned format. They included concern about whether reported results would be limited to courses with 5 or more sections; whether students could call up individual sections of different courses to compare options. Wilkinson suggested it be made possible for students to call up four courses at a time for comparison. Sticklen suggested a prototype be built for early evaluation, as early as this Spring. Roy Black suggested it would help to look at the nature of the statistics from the SOCT surveys, such as how the standard deviation would be defined.

4. Jon Sticklen briefly discussed the University Copyright Policy situation, noting that Melissa Crimp could not attend this meeting (Feb. 22nd) because of a schedule conflict. Sticklen indicated he would ask Vice Provost Paul Hunt to join the upcoming UCAP meeting for a policy discussion. This would give UCAP members more time to draft questions on the impact of copyright policy on undergraduate education. Because the draft of copyright policy reviewed by the University Committee on Faculty Affairs (UCFA) is going to ECAC at its next meeting, Sticklen also was asked to send his letter to ECAC reflecting UCAP's concerns prior to the next ECAC meeting, which would occur before UCAP could meet with Paul Hunt. Sticklen urged all UCAP members to visit the UCAP Web site before the March 15th meeting to review the proposed copyright policy draft's text.


The meeting was ended at 12:05 p.m.

Minutes submitted by Joe Chartkoff

---