Agenda/Minutes‎ > ‎2001-2002‎ > ‎

2001 - 11/08

UCAP Meeting of 11/08/2001


agenda status: not approved

University Committee on Academic Policy

Meeting of Thursday, November 8, 2001
10:15 a.m., Board Room, Administration Building

1. Approval of Agenda

2. Approval of Minutes of the October 25, 2001 meeting (Attachment)

3. Comments from the Chairperson

4. Comments from the Assistant Provost

5. SOCT Follow-Up

6. Request for Minimum Grades in Courses: Family Community Services (Attachment)
Family and Consumer Sciences

7. Group Work Sub-Committee Draft Celia Wills (Attachment)

8. Brief Introduction to Use of Sub-Committee Discussion Area Jon Sticklen

9. Roundtable

Attachment: October 25, 2001 Draft Minutes
FCS Materials
Group Work Sub-Committee Draft

Please phone or E-Mail Robin Pline (353-5380; if you cannot be present.

minutes status: approved

approved at meeting of

UCAP Minutes for meeting held on 11/08/2001

    Approved 11/29/01
University Committee on Academic Policy
November 8, 2001

Members Present: Henry Beckmeyer, Bridget Behe, George Cornell, Howard Bossen, James Gallagher, Joe Mignano, Rod Phillips, Shaun Phillips, Jon Sticklen, Juli Wade, Jeanne Wald, Winston Wilkinson, Celia Wills, Cameron Wooley, and Maija Zile.

Others Present: Barbara Steidle (Assistant Provost), Patricia Croom (Administration Information Services).

1. Approval of Agenda: The agenda was approved as presented.

2. Approval of Minutes of the October 25, 2001 Meeting: The minutes were approved as presented.

3. Comments from the Chairperson: Jon Sticklen suggested that the committee consider discussing possible alternatives that might be suggested to faculty who may want to be prepared in the event that a disruption occurred during final exams. Should the committee consider the academic consequences of such a disruption? There was some discomfort with the idea that we might publicize approaches that would stimulate rather than respond to disruption. Hence, this discussion will be reserved for roundtable discussion.

4. Comments from the Assistant Provost: Barbara Steidle had no comments for the committee.

5. SOCT Follow-up: Patricia Croom distributed a draft for UCAP discussion of the development of the website for “Student Opinion of Courses and Teaching” (SOCT) reporting.

A. The most pressing decision was to establish a set of options for the basis of comparison. Although the final decision for the basis of comparison SOCT results rests with individual departments, UCAP needed to recommend the range of comparison options from which departments could select. The motion was approved to implement three options for comparison of course evaluations:

            (i) comparison among lower division [100 level + 200 level] courses and upper division courses [300 level + 400 level],

            (ii) comparison among all courses within the same number range [100’s, 200’s, etc.], and

            (iii) comparison among courses within the same subject code and course number when a course was taught by at least 5 different instructors.
          The committee decided to not include a comparison of all courses in the department or all courses in the same subject code among the options for comparison. Individual departments will select which of the three comparisons is most appropriate for courses taught in their department and subject areas under their administration.

B. A second pressing decision was the selection of default comparison. This would be the SOCT comparison score reported in the event a department did not make a selection for the basis of comparison from the options denoted above. The motion, which was approved, showed the initial default would be option “iii ”. However, if there were less than 5 sections, or less than 5 different instructors, then option “iii” would not be implemented and option “ii” would be used as the default. In the event there were less than 5 courses in the same number range, option “ii” would not be implemented and option “i” would serve as the default. The default would generate the comparison at the lowest level possible.

C. It was further suggested that these guidelines be revisited in Fall 2002 after earnestly seeking feedback from students, faculty, and staff. This is in keeping with UCAP’s role vis a vie SOCT of regular monitoring with option to make change recommendations. UCAP needs a mechanism by which to collect feedback. Feedback may be derived from web-page access, but Barbara Steidle reported that a general e-mail from the Provost’s office is not a likely avenue, given the constraints against mass e-mail.
          Student representatives present expressed the desire to simply obtain access to the SOCT data and develop their own on-the-fly comparisons. It was recalled that the committee had publicly indicated that the results would be conveyed in a comparative mode, and we needed to proceed in accordance with the earlier work of UCAP.

          Academic units need to be aware that UCAP recommended that SOCT scores should not be used for salary, promotion and tenure decisions; rather, the SIRS form adopted by the department should be used for those purposes. Barbara Steidle indicated that a memo stating that position would be distributed to the Associate Deans. As part of the continuing discussion, it was also noted that the SIRS policy gives departments the ability to use either the University-developed form or a locally-approved form. In effect, then, a department could designate the SOCT forms as their choice. (Such units would need to assure that regular SIRS forms were used by graduate teaching assistants, who are included in the SIRS policy that gives the expectation of privacy, but are distinctly excluded from the SOCT policy, where results are expected to be public.)

6. A request for minimum grades in two courses (Family Community Services and Family and Consumer Sciences) was deferred until the next meeting.

7. Discussion of the sub-committee draft on group work was deferred until the next meeting. The Chair noted the swiftness of the draft generation and commended the members of the Subcommittee on Group Work.

8. Robin Pline has asked committee members to notify her if they prefer to utilize the electronic UCAP information in lieu of receiving hard copies in campus mail. Please e-mail or telephone her immediately if you no longer wish to receive the hard copies.

9. The Chair requested that the Subcommittee on Departmental Organization Changes be convened soon to begin the work of this subcommittee. Further, Winston Wilkinson was asked to act as point to bring the subcommittee together.

The meeting was adjourned at noon.
                          Respectfully submitted,

                          Bridget K. Behe
                          Associate Professor
                          Dept. of Horticulture
                          College of Agriculture and Natural Resources

UCAP MINUTES 11.8.01.doc