---

agenda status: approved

Agenda:

AGENDA

University Committee on Academic Policy

Meeting of Thursday, November 30, 2000
10:15 a.m., Board Room, Administration Building




1. Approval of Agenda

2. Approval of Minutes of the October 26, 2000 and November 9, 2000 meetings

3. Comments from the Chairperson

4. Comments from the Assistant Provost

5. Proposal for Scholars Program

6. Issues Regarding Modes of Evaluating Teaching

7. Administration of Final Exams Outside of Finals Week

8. Roundtable



Attachments: October 26, 2000 Informally Amended Draft Minutes
November 9, 2000 Draft Minutes
Draft Proposed Academic Scholars Program and
Academic Enhancement Program for Accomplished Students



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





11.30.00UCAPagenda.doc

---

---

minutes status: approved

approved at meeting of 01/11/2001

UCAP Minutes for meeting held on 11/30/2000

Present: Henry Beckmeyer, Howard Bossen, Joseph Chartkoff, Cynthia Gibbons,
David Imig, Fred Jacobs, Shaun Phillips, Latonya Riddle, Jon Sticklen, Jeanne Wald, Winston Wilkinson

Others: Barbara Steidle, Assistant Provost

Minutes Prepared by Henry Beckmeyer

1. Meeting was called to order at 10:25 a.m.

2. Agenda was approved

3. Minutes from the November 9 meeting were approved with the following correction: Item #7, line 2 and 3, “it” was changed to UCAP. Minutes of the October 26 meeting were approved.

4. Comments from the Chairperson: Chairperson Wald discussed the progress of the joint UCAP-ITCT committee and a potential survey as to what skills students entering the University should have on arrival.

5. Comments from the Assistant Provost: Assistant Provost Steidle discussed SOCT forms that are now printed and available from the scoring office. Issues of locating and utilizing the form on the web arose in the context of courses offered through the Virtual University. There was also concern expressed that the forms may take the place of SIRS and be utilized in promotion and tenure issues. It was underscored that the SOCT forms are intended to be used for student informational purposes only, not peer review. The forms should be used this semester. How these forms may relate to faculty development was debated and there was support expressed for a place where faculty can receive feedback for their performance.

6. Proposal for a “Scholars Program”: Chairperson Wald discussed the Scholars Program and the support the program has engendered via e-mail and direct comments. Questions concerning the potential for resource allocation as well as Honors College options were also voiced. Demographics on students involved in the scholars program may also be an important issue. Assistant Provost Steidle said that the phase-in of this program would be limited to 200 students that meet specified criteria. She also commented on the intent to increase the number of this caliber of student who apply to Michigan State University. Upon recommendation by Wald, UCAP supported initiating a two-year pilot project, encouraged provision of sufficient resources, and recommended a program evaluation upon completion of the program. She also recommended feedback to UCAP after year one.

7. Issues regarding modes of evaluating teaching: Assistant Provost Steidle commented that Provost Simon would be meeting with UCAP at the next scheduled meeting, January 11. Discussion ensued relative to issues to discuss with the Provost. It was felt that the evaluation practices and policy regarding teaching and research are of the utmost importance and specifically, that support for improvement in the teaching arena has been ignored. Steidle discussed presently available programs for faculty in search of increased teaching effectiveness. The issue of fairness relative to productivity of individuals and units was also discussed as well as the difficulty encountered for individuals and/or units determining the relative weighting of teaching, research, and service. Steidle summarized the issues that had surfaced for discussion with the Provost. These include program resources, what evaluation occurs beyond SIRS, outcomes measurement of SIRS, teaching effectiveness, merit awards for effective teaching and research, and how whether Michigan State University is willing to challenge existing market standards.

8. Finals outside of finals week: This involved discussion of the University policy which mandates that final exams be administered according to the established schedule and that faculty be available to meet with their students during that time, in the absence of a regular final. While it was felt that there was incremental creep, many of the complaints about exam time/date changes are anecdotal but may underscore the overall impact of finals scheduling upon the student population. It was felt by the committee that the faculty must adhere to the present University policy as it relates to finals week and that it is incumbent upon department chairs to enforce the policy.

9. The meeting was adjourned at 11:55 a.m.

---