College of Arts and Sciences Fairfield University
MINUTES OF MEETING, DECEMBER 8, 2010
There were 57 faculty members present.
The meeting was called to order by Chair Sally O'Driscoll at 4:10. Dr. O'Driscoll welcomed the faculty to this final CAS meeting of the semester.
I. Minutes of October 27th Meeting
MOVED by Betsy Bowen, and seconded by David Gudelunas, that these minutes be approved as submitted.
Amendment proposed: Tod Osier's name be spelled correctly (Osier instead of Osin). Amended accepted.
Motion PASSED, 45-0-12.
Elections to At-Large Positions on Divisional Merit Review Committee
No nominations for these At-Large positions had been received by the beginning of this meeting. Chair O'Driscoll called for nominations. At length, after considerable cajoling by the Chair and the Dean, the following faculty members were submitted as nominees:
Laura McSweeney – Natural Sciences
Qin Zhang – Social Sciences
Linda Henkel – Social Sciences
Sally O'Driscoll – Humanities.
MOVED by Curt Naser, and seconded by Cecelia Bucki, that these four nominees be voted onto the Divisional Merit Review Committee, and that the election of the two additional Humanities members be tabled.
Motion PASSED, 57-0-0.
Dennis Keenan suggested that each department set up a rotation, so that everyone serves on this DMRC at some point. Angela Biselli suggested that, following the completion of the DMRC's work this year, the DRMC report on how long it took to complete the work, and what the schedule was.
Elizabeth Petrino asked whether the DRMC, after it had completed its work, might produce a statistical report on what percentage of faculty members received which levels of merit pay.
MOVED by Cecelia Bucki and seconded by Jim Simon, that the DMRC make such a report. Discussion:
David Crawford questioned whether we need such a report, when there is no money, and also noted that such a report cannot be made until all the appeals have been dealt with. Cecelia Bucki responded that the report can be made in the late spring.
Joe Dennin suggested that such a report be made University-wide and not just confined to the College; hence it must be requested from the Faculty Salary Committee. Joe stated that there would be less of a confidentiality problem with a University-wide set of statistics as opposed to a College set.
Dennis Keenan agreed with Joe, pointing out that the DMRC only makes recommendations to the Dean; the Dean's decisions may differ, and hence a DMRC report would not necessarily be accurate.
Motion WITHDRAWN by Cecelia Bucki and Jim Simon. Someone will request the Faculty Salary Committee to make such a report.
II. College Award for Assessment and Integration
Dean Crabtree announced that the winner of this year's award for Assessment and Integration is the Department of History.
Bill Abbott and Liz Hohl then gave a presentation on the History Department's assessment and integration procedures, as follows:
We started from modest efforts several years ago in the form of an exit survey of history majors and minors. We still conduct the survey but we have now institutionalized procedures for rigorously assessing our endeavors; the process of integration is well underway. In addition to departmental initiatives, individual assessment projects are ongoing. The award would enable "veterans" to deepen their analysis and help train newer members of the department in procedures and process.
1. Departmental Efforts to Integrate the Curriculum
The department has carefully calibrated course-load demands according to introductory, intermediate and advanced level courses with the purpose of encouraging the logical development of skills. In addition, we formed and met in permanent sub-committees by geographical areas to continuously evaluate sequencing and curriculum. During our annual seminars, we collect, exchange and discuss syllabi; we also share "best practices" information on pedagogy. Moreover, nearly every member of our department brings the unique perspective of their field of expertise as well as a commitment to interdisciplinarity. Each of us serves on an advisory or coordinating committee to interdisciplinary programs: American Studies, Asian Studies, Black Studies, Classical Studies, International Studies, Irish Studies, Judaic Studies, Latin American and Caribbean Studies, Peace and Justice Studies and Russian and East European Studies and Women's Studies. Although there is a certain organic quality to our exchanges, we would like to create more routine opportunities for discussion.
2. Core Learning Outcomes; Major Learning Outcomes
The Core Learning Objectives (or Outcomes) are listed in Appendix I of our application for this award. They are arranged by main categories and then according to the appropriate demands of course level. Each is measured with specific attention to selected areas and bearing in mind our chief outcome of encouraging "the study of history as a process and as a vehicle for understanding the modern world." The emphasis in HI 30: Europe and the World in Transition, for example, is on learning to decipher and interrogate a primary source document. At the next or intermediate level, we work to facilitate students' grasp of secondary sources and the kinds of debates in which historians engage. Finally, in our seminars aimed at minors and majors, we prepare students to do the research necessary to produce a substantial paper. Outcomes are measured by the rubrics we determined. Appendix II of this application, for, example, indicates the questions we believe students should be able to answer in determining a scholar's argument and use of evidence. With regard to the goals for our majors, our plan is to finish the discussion begun at our last department seminar in May of 2011.
3. Changes in Student Learning Outcomes
The changes we have observed are twofold. First, as a department and as individual instructors, we are more conscious of our learning outcomes. Roughly one third of the department has added new components to our core courses that emphasize document analysis. Specifically, two of us now incorporate exercises on our exams. On the mid-term exam, we use material the students have seen and discussed; on the final, we include one they have never read. At the same time, we have seen improvement in student performance. While it is incremental, we are confident of future dividends especially since we are now much more aware of the areas students find most challenging.
4. Processes Followed in Creating the Model for Assessment
In three successive summer colloquia, for example, our department formulated three sets of questions: one to ask of Hi 30 students, the next for students in our intermediate courses and the last for seminars. As an illustration, the five questions for the History 30 assessment tool dealt with a specific historical document (the 1789 French Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen). Selected faculty were asked to issue these questions as a short exam in their Hi 30 classes, and the resultant artifacts were turned over to a subcommittee of the department (Elizabeth Hohl and William Abbott) for analysis. Using techniques learned in various assessment workshops and committees, as well as in their teaching experience, Hohl and Abbott then formulated a 12-point assessment rubric for the answers to these five questions. (See Appendix III of our application for this award). Hohl and Abbott read the artifacts (bluebooks with the covers removed), applying the rubric to the artifacts. They then tabulated overall scores and scores for each question. They then reported their findings at a department meeting.
We have been able to accomplish as much as we have by scheduling summer colloquia. Along with a specific agenda on assessment, we provide an extensive reading list and allocate time for discussion on pedagogy and assessment (see Appendix IV of our application for this award).
Concerning obstacles to the process, we encountered very few. The History department agreed that assessment offers us the opportunity to focus on a wide range of issues from the nature of teaching to the profile of students attending Fairfield University.
5. Plans
Our plans are fourfold. We will continue our summer seminars, and also hold other talks on the topic of the History major/minor and formulate outcomes at our 2011 summer seminar. Moreover, we hope to work with other departments using a survey on core course learning outcomes to spark discussions and plans for integration across disciplines. Next, we will avail ourselves of IDEA's Group Assessment form for measuring departmental outcomes. Finally, we will develop a peer review template, a rubric, for evaluating teaching. The CAE has recently been helping a number of departments to develop more formal templates and rubrics for peer review, and would welcome requests from other departments for help is such development.
III. Remarks from the Dean
Dean Crabtree made the following remarks:
I. Budget requests, 'FY 12
A. She offered her thanks to Chairs and Directors for careful work to regularize all expenses
B. She said not to expect the budget cuts of two years ago to be restored, as those were meant to be permanent, and not to expect new operating funds.
C. Realignment of existing funds is possible, both within the Academic Division (across the schools), within the College (across departments) and also within department and program budgets (across orgs)
D. The new system created by Tracy Immerso in the SVPAA's office will ensure departments and programs understand better and sooner what was (and was not) approved. VP Julie Dolan is also sensitive to our getting all current and routine expenses properly budgeted.
II. Search Update
A. Three searches should be done before the holidays. The Politics candidate has been made an offer, and has accepted it. Two other offers will be made soon
B. Three searches will unfold this spring
C. The Dean expects to get approval to move forward on searches next year in several departments
III. Rank & Tenure Review
A. Unfolding now, tenures and promotions will be announced at final faculty meeting in April. The Dean expressed that she is:
i. Grateful for careful review of pre-tenure colleagues by chairs and others.
ii. Pleased with growing attention to comprehensive peer review of teaching.
iii. Pleased with the efforts of colleagues in other departments to assess teaching and service contributions.
B. The third annual all pre-tenure faculty meeting with the Dean was held at the end of October. We had a great discussion.
i. Many thanks to Linda Henkel for being there and answering questions.
ii. Many thanks also to Marice Rose and Angela Harkins, two untenured faculty members who are further along on the tenure/promotion process, and who were able to give useful perspectives.
C. The Dean asked if she should have a meeting with all (any) associate professors about planning for promotion? We could get together and share perspectives.
[SUBTLE INDICATION OF APPROVAL FROM THE FACULTY PRESENT]
D. She affirmed that, overall, we should work together to ensure better and more consistent mentoring across the college. Peer review tends to drop off after tenure. The Dean wants to support whole career mentoring and success for all of our faculty.
IV. Possible Development of New Graduate Programs in the College
E. Master's in Public Administration
i. Meeting earlier this week
ii. Planning underway for market survey
iii. Group of faculty engaging in program outline ideas (EC, PO, SO, CO, IL, MG)
iv. Anyone who wants to be involved with this should contact me.
v. Dr. Mark LeClair is spearheading collection of thoughts on possible curriculum structures (courses, tracks, etc.), and is organizing a Humanities Institute workshop for summer to develop the program proposal if the market research this spring comes back positive
F. Various Humanities ideas
i. Some interested in Master's in Liberal Studies
ii. Other interested in disciplinary MA programs
iii. First discussion with all those interested will be next week on December 15, 10:30-noon, in CNS 108
iv. Any who want to join this discussion should contact me.
v. Based on faculty interest and points of consensus, a market research plan would result from this discussion and that study would inform possible next steps.
V. University College Update
a. AA program closing (passed through CUC, UCC, EPC, AC)
b. We're discussing alternative administrative structures for UC that would be less administratively heavy (and expensive), separate out the academic programs from the enrichment programs, and hopefully allow for greater incentives in the schools and departments for development of revenue generating programs. We had a combined meeting of CUC, EPC, and AC EC which was helpful to flesh out some of the issues.
c. There are many academic policies related to part-time and other UC students, particularly connected to the core curriculum, and these need to will go to UCC and through the usual committees for review. This may begin in the spring semester.
d. Please bring thoughts on these issues to the attention of:
i. Your chair
ii. CAS committees (ASCC and ASPC)
iii. CUC members (CAS representatives are Ed Deak and Ryan Drake)
iv. Acting-Dean or CAS Dean
VI. General Announcements
a. Enrollment management and course scheduling
i. Thanks for cooperating with chairs and Assistant Dean Sue Peterson
ii. We are being more strict on enrollments, in large part due to budget constraints, but also to justify increase in full-time faculty.
iii. Curricular mapping is important, and a great way to get a sense of how to manage enrollments. Departments need to know when to offer courses less frequently, to avoid cancellation for lack of enrollment.
b. Abatement of CNS Hall
i. Just hallways, no offices or classrooms
ii. Schedule has been sent all affected personnel. First floor abatement begins December 23rd, and should finish up by January 2nd. Each floor has its own schedule.
c. The Comprehensive Campaign
i. No longer using the term "capital"
ii. Goals
1. A few capital projects
2. Endowed professorships (do send proposals to the Dean)
3. Scholarships and financial aid
Dean Crabtree then fielded questions.
Bob Epstein: Are proposals for endowed chairs likely to be more successful if we show that we are already strong in a given area, or if we show that we would like to be more successful in that area. Dean Crabtree: Yes to both, but a little more to the former than to the latter. You must make a case that the proposal would be transformative in some way. We need to give donors lots of options.
Elizabeth Hohl: How are University College enrollments doing? Dean Crabtree: They have been in decline for the past three years, and revenues are down too. The Blackboard-Angel debacle may be partly responsible, but it is hard to tease out all the reasons. We are employing a proactive marketing strategy.
Betsy Bowen: With regard to the abatement: will there be more space for faculty? Dean Crabtree: Yes. An area on the ground floor of Canisius Hall currently housing the family counseling center will be moved to Southwell Hall. There are plans to have a Rank and Tenure space, a conference room to make up for the one lost this year in CNS 100, and some faculty offices. The Dean noted that we have generally been short of faculty office space, but when building renovation takes place it is generally good for the College, as it frees up space in our areas. If the School of Nursing Annex building project is successful (in the comprehensive campaign), for example, it will mean more office space for faculty opens up in Bannow that is currently used by Nursing faculty. There would be more lab space, too. I will be prioritizing the renovation of the College suite. SVPAA Fitzgerald is sympathetic. Re-alignment of funds within the Academic Division favors SON and CAS.
IV. Conclusion
Chair O'Driscoll expressed the thanks of the College to CAS Secretary Bill Abbott, who will be going on sabbatical next semester, and to Susan Rakowitz, who will be replacing him as Secretary for that semester. There was a round of applause.
MOVED by Betsy Bowen and seconded by Marcie Patton, that the meeting be adjourned. PASSED 57-0-0.
The meeting was adjourned at 5:02.
Bill Abbott