Agenda for the Faculty Senate Meeting
April 1, 2009
Room B-113
Robinson Hall
3:00-4:15 p.m.
I.
Call to Order
President
Merten
II. Approval of the Minutes of March 4, 2009
III.
Announcements
IV.
Unfinished Business
Organization
& Operations
Motions from the committee Attachment A
Attachment
B
Report on Campus Bookstore
V. New Business - Committee Reports
A. Senate
Standing Committees
Executive
Committee
Academic
Policies
Budget
& Resources
Faculty
Matters
Motion from
the committee Attachment
C
Nominations
Organization
& Operations
B. Other Committees
Effective
Teaching Committee
Report from the committee Attachment D
Task
Force to Revise the Teacher/Course Evaluation Form
Motion
from the committee Attachment E
VI. Other New
Business
VII. Remarks for
the Good of the General Faculty
Ms. Betty Jolly, Director of State Government Relations
VIII. Adjournment
ATTACHMENT A
Changes to the Charge
of General Education Committee
Recommended by
Faculty Senate Committee on Operations and Organization (0&0)
Original Charge
B. For all foundation, core, and synthesis general education requirements, the Committee will approve courses to fulfill these requirements. The Committee will develop procedures for the measurement of “satisfactory skills in oral and written presentations” for the synthesis requirement, and work with the Office of the Provost to develop procedures for the demonstration of these skills before a faculty panel.
0 & 0
recommendation: delete “before a faculty
panel.”
Rationale: Such panels are rarely convened.
New Charge:
B. For all foundation, core, and synthesis general education requirements, the Committee will approve courses to fulfill these requirements. The Committee will develop procedures for the measurement of “satisfactory skills in oral and written presentations” for the synthesis requirement, and work with the Office of the Provost to develop procedures for the demonstration of these skills.
Change in Charge:
E. becomes F.
Original Charge
F. The Committee will provide an annual report to the Faculty senate. The report shall include:
a. the number of students taking and passing proficiency examinations
b. Changes in the criteria for general education
c. The process and timetable of implementation of the general education requirements.
More frequent reports to the Faculty Senate might take place as adjustments to the general education program may warrant.
Change in Charge
under F
delete (c) The process and timetable of implementation of the general education requirements.
Rationale: This charge was put in place when the formation of the current general education program was still in process.
New Charge
E. The Committee will confer with the Faculty Senate Committee on Academic Policies when changes to General Education requirements impact the entire university and/or would be a change to the university catalog.
Rationale: Consistent with the role of faculty in matters of curriculum as set out in the Faculty Handbook , it is important for the General Education Committee to work in tandem with the Faculty Senate Committee on Academic Policies when major changes, for example, a change in university wide general education requirements, are proposed for implementation.
ATTACHMENT B
Motion for a Standing
Committee to Review Curriculum and Faculty Matters in Current and Future
Campuses, Academic Programs and Activities of George Mason University
Whereas George Mason University is continuing to support and expand learning centers and academic programs and activities beyond the Commonwealth of Virginia campuses in Fairfax, Prince William and Arlington; and
Whereas the Faculty Handbook of the University specifies that control over curriculum matters resides with the faculty of the University; and
Whereas the Southern Association of Colleges and Universities (SACS) requires a thorough evaluation of all branch campuses within the first six months of operation, yet there exists no internal process for ongoing faculty review of the curriculum, faculty hiring, progress or effectiveness of these campuses, academic programs or activities;
Be it resolved that the Faculty Senate should establish a Standing Committee to review critical aspects of the development and ongoing operations of George Mason University learning centers and academic programs and services beyond the primary campuses of Fairfax, Prince William and Arlington.
Charge:
A. To fulfill faculty responsibilities for curriculum oversight within the University:
1) Gather accurate information from the Provost’s Office to review
a) Initial, current and projected course and program enrollment;
b)Any Memorandum of Understanding or similar governing document or contract specifying arrangements between George Mason University and the host government, state, or responsible organization;
c) Reports presented to any created governance structure such as a Board of Governors between George Mason University and any host government, state, or responsible organization;
d) Vetting and approval processes for faculty hiring and course offerings through Schools, Colleges and Departments and other local academic units, including negotiated “rights of refusal” and other practices directly affecting the curriculum offered on campuses beyond Fairfax, Arlington and Prince William;
e) Information about resources, pay scales and other financial information relevant to faculty support, faculty and staff hiring, and curriculum development.
2) Provide a regular report to the Faculty Senate every semester; should the above access not be granted, such resistance will be documented and included in the Committee’s regular report.
B. Function as a liaison on related issues with global education academic programs and activities.
C. Engage in the creation of any new campuses, academic programs and activities, and any processes for developing additional Memorandums of Understanding or similar governing documents or contracts, including access to information specified above in A-1.
D. Create sub-committees as necessary within the Committee to ensure adequate attention is paid to the variety of satellite campus locations and opportunities.
E. Committee representation of elected faculty from no less than five different academic units to serve staggered two-year terms.
ATTACHMENT C
Purpose
The guidance below is designed to assist Mason’s tenured faculty in transitioning from full-time active service to retirement. The Faculty Retirement Transition Leave guidance should be utilized by academic units as a management tool and a strategic opportunity to address staffing needs within the academic unit and by faculty in their retirement planning. The utilization of the process outlined below will be based on available funding at the academic unit and staffing resources.
Eligibility for Participation:
Participants must:
2. be a tenured full-time faculty member and have worked (prior to the transitional leave) at George Mason University for at least a total of either
(Full-time service may include periods of leave with full or partial pay, but not periods of leave without pay);
3. agree to retire at the conclusion of this transition leave period from active membership in the Virginia Retirement System (VRS) or Optional Retirement Plan (ORP). Mason will cease to make payments to VRS or ORP.
4. voluntarily participate in the program
5. have the approval of both the Dean or Director of their academic unit and the Provost. Transition leave is funded by the faculty member’s academic unit. Timing of transition leave must be approved by the Dean or Director of the academic unit in consultation with the Provost in order to prevent overtaxing teaching capacity in any given year. The Dean or Director may limit the number of faculty who can participate in any particular year.
Tier 1: 15 Years of Service:
|
Transition Option |
Impact |
|
One year, at full pay, teaching a
total of one course, with no expected service activities. The faculty member may select to teach the
course during fall or spring
semester. If the transitional leave is
scheduled for spring-fall and with approval of the dean/director, the course
may be taught during summer of the transitional year. If taught in the summer, the faculty member
will not be paid the additional 10% summer salary. In addition to teaching the course, the
faculty member must work at least 20% of normal work duties in the semester
immediately prior to retirement. This
work may involve research, internal or professional external committee work,
advising, or a special project approved by the faculty member’s supervisor. |
Faculty will receive full benefits. |
Tier 2: 25 Years of service:
|
Transition Option |
Impact |
|
Two years, at full pay, teaching a
total of two courses during the first year, plus a reduction of expected
service activities by 50% in the first year and no expected service
activities in the second. The faculty
member may choose to teach a 2:0, 1:1, or 0:2 load the first year. With approval of the dean/director, one of
the courses may be taught in summer(s) of the transitional years. If taught in the summer, the faculty member
will not be paid the additional 10% summer salary. In the semester immediately prior to
retirement, the faculty member must also work at least 20% of normal work duties. This work may involve research, internal or
professional external committee work, advising, or a special project approved
by the faculty member’s supervisor.
|
Faculty will receive full benefits. |
|
OR |
|
|
One year at full pay, with no
expected service activities. In the
semester immediately preceding retirement, the faculty member must work at
least 20% of normal duties This work
may involve research, internal or professional external committee work,
advising, or a special project approved by the faculty member’s supervisor.
|
Faculty will receive full benefits. |
Eligibility Period:
Each November, eligible faculty may
apply to participate in the Faculty Retirement Transition Leave Program by
completing an election form and submitting the form to his/her Dean or
Director. The Dean or Director will make a recommendation to the Provost based
on student/faculty scheduling needs and finances available to the unit. The
Provost will then forward the form (whether approved, not approved, or delayed
up to a year) to Human Resources. A Dean or Director making the recommendation
not to approve the election will communicate the decision and the reason for
the decision to the faculty member as well as to the Provost. It is understood
that occasionally conditions may require the Provost to delay the implementation
of a transitional leave for a semester or even a year. However, every effort will be made to
accommodate transitional leave requests in timely fashion, and a delay of more
than a year will occur only under extraordinary circumstances. In all cases, the faculty member must agree
in writing to any delay to the requested implementation date. An election form must be received by November
1 in any given year for participation in the Faculty Retirement Transition
Leave Program during the following year.
Notes:
ATTACHMENT D
The Effective Teaching Committee has been working for the past year on a Classroom Environment Survey and results from that survey conducted in the fall of 2009. Survey results are available on the Faculty Senate website at http://www3.gmu.edu/facstaff/senate/Classroom-Environment-Survey.pdf.
Executive Summary
During
the 2007-2008 year, the Effective Teaching Committee determined that a survey
of faculty was needed to provide a broad and deep understanding of the issues
from the perspectives of those who routinely use the classrooms, meet with
students, and plan their instructional environments. In the fall of 2008 the survey instrument was
complete and all full time faculty members were surveyed.
In
all, 174 individuals responded to the survey. In general the committee sought
to gather information on space, rooms, equipment, and general environment. The Effective Teaching Committee analyzed the
results and summarized them in this report.
Based on these results, the
Effective Teaching Committee makes the following overall recommendations:
1. The Provost’s Office should ensure that faculty members
are offered the opportunity to be involved directly in decisions regarding the
design of new classrooms and faculty should be a part of the process that
analyzes future space planning.
2. The Faculty Senate should charge the Learning
Environments Group with investigating
and making specific recommendations in the following areas:
a. Flexible classroom seating design
b. Consistent classroom quality throughout the
campus(es)
c. More fully equipped electronic classrooms for the
future
d. Diverse classroom structures for ultimate flexibility
for instruction
e. Respond to other recommendations based on results
found in this survey.
f.
Re-survey
faculty in Academic Year 09-10 and find an effective way to survey adjunct
faculty and GTAs as well.
3. The Faculty Senate should ask for better
communication from the Academic Support Offices at Mason and ask that they
provide specific training for faculty and students on how to access and
effectively use these services.
4. The Faculty senate should share these results with
the GMU faculty by posting the results on the faculty senate website.
The
summary of the results from the survey are included in pages 2-14 of this
report. The appendix provides a brief
overview of the results of the report on pages 14-15.
ATTACHMENT E
Several years ago, when the current evaluation form was
adopted, many of the faculty in quantitative fields, and faculty who often
taught large lecture sections, thought that some of the items on the course
evaluation form weren't appropriate for the types of courses they taught. (They
thought the wording of some of the items was better suited for classes in which
students typically submitted papers and were expected to participate in class
discussions, as opposed to classes where the vast majority of the class time is
used for formal lectures and class participation does not play a big role, and
assignments are typically problem sets (if anything).)
The changes indicated below were developed by the Task Force in order to make
the items on the form, in a sense, more general. Without going to different
versions of the form for different types of classes, and without making radical
changes to the current form, the Task Force thinks that these suggested changes
may be the best way to improve upon the current form.
The Task Force met with a student focus group and solicited opinions from other
members of the faculty in order to determine what the appropriate changes to
the evaluation form should be. We considered many different ideas, but in the
end concluded that for now some simple changes will be best.
The Task Force recommends that a new, perhaps larger, task force be formed to
deal with the university's conversion to online course/teaching evaluations,
and to investigate having different evaluation forms for different types of
classes, which is what some other universities have moved to, and would be
possible at GMU with the conversion to online evaluations. (Note: The
conversion to online evaluation is being seriously considered due to budget
concerns, and because online evaluations will allow for department heads and
instructors to get feedback about teaching more quickly.)
MOTION: To approve the proposed changes
to the Current Evaluation Form for implementation in AY 2009-10.
The recommended changes are shown in bold, below.
Item 1 on the current form is: Course requirements were clearly stated
in the syllabus
Recommended change:
Course requirements and
expectations were clear.
Comments:
Some students may not have easy access to the syllabus when they
complete their evaluation, but they may remember a discussion of the
requirements and expectations since many faculty routinely spend time on these
things during the first class meeting. Plus, as the semester progresses, and
more details are added, it's important that requirements and expectations
remain clear.
Item 2 on the current form is: The course was well organized
No change suggested
Item 3 on the current form is: The instructor explained the material
clearly
Recommended change:
The instructor helped me to
better understand the course material
Comments:
The proposed item is more general, reflecting the fact that there are
many ways to help students better understand the course material.
Item 4 on the current form is: Comments and suggestions on returned
material were helpful
Recommended change:
Feedback (comments and
suggestions written on papers, solutions provided, class discussion, etc.) was
helpful
Comments:
With some types of assignments it's not efficient to write a lot of
individual comments on student papers. In some classes, instructors supply the
students with detailed solutions to problem sets, or routinely discuss typical
mistakes in class. There are other ways to supply feedback than to write
"comments and suggestions on returned materials."
Item 5 on the current form is: The instructor showed respect for the
students
No change suggested
Item 6 on the current form is: The instructor was accessible either in
person or electronically
No change suggested
Item 7 on the current form is: The instructor followed the stated course
grading policy
Recommended change:
The course grading policy was
clear
Comments:
Students aren't in a position to know whether or not the stated grading
policy was actually followed, especially since the course evaluations should be
turned in prior to final grades being given. What is important is that students
have information, in advance, as to how grades will be assigned.
Item 8 on the current form is: The exams reflected what was covered in
the course
Recommended change:
Graded work reflected what was
covered in the course
Comments:
Replacing "exams" with graded work makes the item much
more general. Some classes don't have exams, or only have a final exam which
wouldn't have been seen at the time students complete the evaluations.
Item 9 on the current form is:
The assignments (projects, papers, presentations, etc.) helped me learn
the material
No change suggested
Item 10 on the current form is: Readings helped me understand the course
topic
Recommended change:
The textbook and/or assigned
readings helped me understand the material
Comments:
In a lot of quantitative courses, there are no assigned readings other
than the textbook.
Item 11 on the current form is: Assignments and exams were returned
promptly
Recommended change:
Assignments and exams were
returned in a reasonable amount of time
Comments:
Some students may take promptly to mean the next class meeting,
but in some cases it may be unreasonable for students to expect their work to
be graded and returned so quickly (e.g., if the class is very large, or if it
typically takes the instructor a long time to grade a student's paper).
Item 12 on the current form is:
The instructor covered the important aspects of the course as outlined
in the syllabus
No change suggested
Item 13 on the current form is: The instructor made the class
intellectually stimulating
No change suggested
Item 14 on the current form is:
The instructor encouraged the students to be actively involved in the
material through discussion and other activities.
Recommended change:
The instructor encouraged the
students to be actively involved in the material through discussion,
assignments, and other activities.
Comments:
With some classes (e.g., those which cover rather technical material),
many students would much rather listen to the instructor teach them how to work
with the complicated material than listen to other students discuss it, and the
way students get involved with the material is to go home and work on
carefully-designed assignments.
Item 15 on the current form is: My overall rating of the teaching
No change suggested
Item 16 on the current form is: My overall rating of this course
No change suggested