Dean's Council Meeting

College of Arts and Sciences

                                                                   January 14, 2009

 

Present: E. Boquet, M. Coleman, N. Dallavalle, D. Keenan, P. Lane, J. McCarthy,

D. McFadden, L. Miners, J. Orman, L. Porter, R. Rodrigues, G. Sauer, J. Simon, J. Shanahan,

M. Sourieau, K. Steffen, D. Winn

 

The meeting convened at 3:30 p.m.

 

Opening Comments

The Dean shared information related to student enrollments based on financial status. There were ninety-two additional financial aid requests. These requests were met resulting in retaining these students. It's difficult to know how many families depend on utilizing home equity loans to fund their portion of tuition. There was a slightly greater net loss of students from fall to spring semester then anticipated—16 more than planned.

 

Dr. Beth Boquet suggested that if anyone has a student expressing financial hardship with an indication that there is a likelihood they may not be able to return to the University, they should be directed to Financial Aid to discuss ways to seek assistance. Enrollment Management heightened the awareness that retaining current students is more cost effective than recruiting new student population .

 

Additional Information that will affect our budget planning will unfold based on the following related deadlines:

• March—Financial aid is negotiated for new students
• June—Strong sense of incoming freshmen class enrollments
• July—Loan decisions are made for continuing financial aid students

 

Admission Activity

Undergraduate

• The University is presently down approximately five percent for regular decision applicants. The deadline for applications has not passed; therefore, this percentage generally drops. This is much better than a national trend of 10%+
• AHANA applications have increased with greater overall numbers and an increase in the proportion of the applicant pool. Also there are students from 41 states and 85 international students in the pool.

Graduate

• Graduate revenues are down from the estimated budget projections, which seemed to have been unrealistic. When there are declining enrollments in certain programs, it is difficult to project an increase in overall enrollments. As well, the larger economic trends are a factor.

 

Due to the decrease in revenues, the Deans were asked to engage in a budgetary reduction exercises. Ms. Jean Daniele is assisting the Dean with a review of the College (including dept and program budgets) to determine where reductions could be made. So far this exercise is hypothetical.

 

Minutes

Approval of Minutes—Dr. Dennis Keenan moved to approve the December 3 minutes and Dr. John Orman seconded the motion. All were in favor with three abstentions. The Dean mentioned that the December minutes were a good resource reflecting the core integration activities of each department. She recommended that chairs utilize these minutes as a reference.

 

Overview and Setup

Both agenda items are relevant to mentoring for Rank and Tenure. While peer review of teaching is more general and relevant to all faculty, it has particular import during the probationary period. As well, the Dean noted that there was a confluence of prioritization that the FDEC, Center of Academic Excellence, and the Dean placed on peer review. The Dean remarked that, after participating in the review of pre-tenure faculty during the spring 2008 with Interim Dean, Raymond Poincelot and the Associate Deans, she noticed there were an enormous variety of approaches to this exercise (both related to mentoring and to classroom observation). The Dean circulated a number of sample letters to illustrate this point, and to assist chairs as they undertake these activities. Letters show a variety of styles and approaches. Chairs were encouraged to consider the relative strengths and weaknesses of those letters.

 

Peer review of Teaching

Dr. Larry Miners, Director of the Center for Academic Excellence, joined the Dean's Council to discuss the topic of peer review of Teaching. The Center offers a service for faculty members by creating parameters where departments could develop a cohesive structure for peer review. They designed 3 workshop series on peer review to assist with developing a more structured process across the University.

 

Workshop I—Introduction to peer review (Spring and Fall 2008)—Generating a ground support. Establishing peer review as a whole package of teaching review included two components—formative/improvement and summative/decision making reviews.

 

Workshop II—Developing a System of peer review (December 12, 2008)—This nuts and bolts style workshop was intended to develop a structure. This workshop will be offered a second time during the spring 2009 semester.

 

Workshop III—Meetings with Individual Departments (Spring 2009)—Recognizing that each department operates differently in regards to peer review—a difference in consideration of parameters, artifacts, methods, subcommittees—Dr. Miners encouraged the chairs to meet with the CAE in preparation for phase III of peer review. Miners mentioned peer review is a job not only for the chair, but for the department at large. The chair should not be solely responsible for classroom visits; these reviews should consist of other colleagues within the department. The CAE learned that peer review across departments is very uneven. This lends a disadvantage to individual faculty members as well as to the Rank and Tenure Committee, because they have no uniform basis for reviewing the materials they receive. There is a great advantage to having outside members visit other departments for peer review of teaching. There needs to be some structure across the University, so moving towards building a new culture for peer review is beneficial.

 

Miners shared one of the activities from Workshop II with the department chairs asking them to review a syllabus from General Psychology I (not from Fairfield University) for discussion in terms of strengths and weaknesses of the outline of the syllabus. Some comments were as follows:

• Over emphasis on grades and negotiations
• No indication of weeks, times, and dates—no schedule/deadlines
• No goals and objectives
• No grading breakdown

 

Other Comments:

• Conversation with colleagues about decisions made related to their syllabi can be an important piece for peer review of teaching as they lead to discussions on many fronts—what is acceptable, what is the department culture around teaching, what do we know about best practices, and what is the level of flexibility?
• Syllabi are reviewed through departments as they move through the approval process for new courses. The ASCC will return a course approval if they do not articulate course objectives and learning goals.
• Once a course is approved and is taught regularly, the course is rarely reviewed again. There may be a difference among departments in terms of whether a course rotates among faculty.

 

Miners mentioned that peer review of teaching goes beyond visiting in the classroom. It involves the following steps:

• A conversation with faculty before hand to discuss goals and their syllabus
• Self evaluation of teaching and own portfolio
• Structured follow up meeting offering feedback

 

CAE makes a distinction between formative review and summative review. The CAE handles their assessment on a formative basis. Formative reviews are best first steps for peer review of teaching. Faculty members should be reviewed several times by various colleagues in a non threatening atmosphere. After a series of informative assessments, a summative evaluation is appropriate.

Miners felt that if departments had a clearer distinction about what is formative and what is summative there would be a stronger culture of openness to peer review. There cannot be an effective summative review without a series of formative reviews.

 

The Dean commented that being on the receiving end of this process is a great experience. She shared her experience relative to her first peer observation at Fairfield, from a colleague of the same rank, from another department. It was conducted in a similar manner as the CAE's structure.

• Review of the syllabus

• Classroom observation
• peer reviewer participated in the class; listening to group discussions, and reflecting on the quality of the students contribution
• Write up of descriptive details and questions
• Final conversation about what happened, what was observed, what issues developed when trying a certain type of pedagogy.
• This structure provided a benchmark. It was an opportunity to figure out the culture of the University and what students were familiar with.
• The colleague revisited prior to next promotion giving an opportunity to reconsider changes made, and discuss how they were working.

 

Miners distributed a book to each chair offering information pertaining to peer review.

 

What works well in terms of peer review within the department?

• The Philosophy Department recognized the importance of peer review. Keenan mentioned that the department was open to the ideas, and they are working on developing a process. They are considering a structure where colleagues are paired up into six groups of two (total of 12 faculty) to visit each others' class. This minimizes the amount of work to two meetings per year. A visit again in the spring offers an opportunity to discuss changes. The following year these pairs would be changed to mix up the peer evaluators. Miners suggested that groups consist of three people offering opportunity for greater opinions. In principle everyone will have the opportunity to visit everyone's class over the course of a few years.
• Dr. Marie-Agnes Sourieau mentioned that with a very large department, she finds peer review of teaching a very time consuming task. Sharing responsibilities is important for this reason.
• The Math Department has a voluntary teaching club within the department with approximate nine of their fourteen faculty participating (inclusive of all non-tenure faculty).Each semester someone visits their colleague's classroom. This process offers an opportunity for junior faculty to observe senior colleagues. The Dean mentioned that it also offers great pedagogical variety—disciplinary and generational. Having the opportunity to visit all kinds of pedagogy opens conversations as to why a particular approach is used on certain content areas, pros and cons, gains and losses to these approaches.
• Dr. Simon asked if there was a way to build a process into expectation within the department. He finds that there are good citizens within his department that are always willing to participate in peer review, while others seek compensation for their efforts and question if it is a good use of their time. It was recommended that creating a culture would be helpful. For example bringing research presentations together with some discussions about primacy of teaching and how it reflects ways we teach each other and ways we engage around research questions and teaching opportunities.
• Dr. Orman commented that the present peer review system is primarily top down (senior colleagues reviewing junior level faculty). In order to have peer review for the quality of teaching, the model should be peer to peer.
• The present system requires that junior faculty, over the period of their probationary years; obtain a peer review every year by the chair and at least once by every other colleague within the department. This is a very evaluative system. People would benefit greatly by having colleagues from outside of their departments observe their teaching, developing peer to peer teaching relationships with colleagues outside of the department. Openness within the classroom and the ability to produce a dialogue with colleagues outside of the department over time will produce a culture of formative improvement, as well as provide the basis for a persuasive teaching portfolio.
• Chairs should be aware of colleagues whose courses are not routinely enrolling or not rolling over, or consistently generate complaints from students. These are colleagues who might find the MAT a good resource for getting some feedback to help them think about their teaching and to learn from the students what was not clear. These should be viewed as useful resources to help renew teaching for all faculty.
• The Dean noted that these types of discussions are also great opportunities in continuing to engage with core integration. The more you learn about each others teaching within the department and across departments, the more opportunities there are for integration, an important component as the College works towards program reviews and building an understanding of the curriculum.

 

Mentoring for Rank and Tenure

The Dean met with junior faculty in late October to discuss the planning for Rank and Tenure Review. This will be an annual gathering with junior faculty to open up conversation about procedures and/or concerns.

 

She shared a handout with the department chairs relative to the information covered in the meeting with junior faculty and encouraged them to use this resource to talk to their junior faculty, and to bring it to the department for discussion. The Dean commented that Junior Faculty finds the tenure process mystifying. Chairs and senior faculty should assist them in becoming more productive by participating in modeling and engaging in conversations with them. The Dean gave the chairs the opportunity to articulate feedback relative to her handout on Planning for Rank and Tenure Review. The deadline for this feedback is February 4; therefore, this resource should not be circulated before this deadline. (handout attached)

This resource references areas of review during the Rank and Tenure process and other useful tips—teaching, research, service, preparing the dossier and application, general comments, and steps to take in the case of a poor annual performance evaluation.

 

Sauer recommended that all faculty receive the handout. The Dean thought it would be more effective for the chairs to share this resource, once revised, with their faculty engaging in conversation within a department meeting.

 

Dr. Kraig Steffen showed concern with the language written under the topic of developing a portfolio of peer evaluations. It was recommended that the reference to the MAT reports be removed. It was agreed that this language would be replaced with a bullet point—Utilize CAE Resources.

 

Dr. Shanahan mentioned that the Rank and Tenure Committee offered an information session in the spring for faculty who were applying. How consistent are they with their message to individuals from year to year? The Dean commented that this was dependant on what type of questions were asked at the sessions. Dr. Dave McFadden mentioned that the Faculty Handbook offers the definitive information pertaining to the Rank and Tenure process. He felt that the emphasis placed on leadership and service for full professor has grown over the past several years. It has always been listed in the handbook, but the amount of emphasis placed on it is the varying factor. He felt that the Dean's handout was a useful resource in that faculty applying for rank and tenure must build their own case at the early stages of their tenure process. This resource offered helpful steps starting from the beginning of the faculty's tenure years. The Dean reiterated the importance of reviewing the tenure guidelines annually. Her experience indicated that some tenure track faculty, in their third year of their tenure clock, had not reviewed the R&T guidelines. The tenure process should be a developmental process throughout the course of the junior faculty's tenure track years.

 

McFadden commented on the importance of having a system of peer review for Associate Professors. The Rank and Tenure Committee struggles annually with the gap in the Associate Professors lack of peer review. Associate Professors need to demonstrate that they are an engaged teacher, who cares about continual improvement. They mentor junior colleagues, so it is important they demonstrate effective teaching and leadership.

 

The Dean mentioned that effective mentoring of junior faculty is essential to their careers. It is in the faculty member's best interest to offer constructive feedback. Terminating junior faculty after their five year probation period is not in their best interest. It is in everyone's best interest to make these hard decisions by the junior faculty's third year of probation.

 

It was the Dean's understanding that some departments are not sharing their feedback with colleagues after annual reviews. This should be systematic—the candidate should be aware of the chairs' and their colleagues' recommendations. It is an important step towards the tenure process giving them the opportunity to accept these constructive recommendations and work towards their tenure track portfolio. Shanahan asked if chairs received feedback. He mentioned that a process was in place for evaluating the chair in the Communication Department, but he did not receive the department's recommendations. The Dean asked if other departments received feedback. In the History Department members of the Merit Committee reviewed the chair and their feedback was shared with the chair. The Dean offered to have these conversations with chairs if other members of the department did not feel comfortable doing so. Although this is not the practice for all leadership positions, there should be a process where colleagues in leadership roles are systematically reviewed.

 

The Dean's Council agreed that viewing models of letters of recommendation for Tenure Review is helpful in their role as chair and/or a colleague. The Dean recommended a formal conversation among colleagues relative to the progress of their junior faculty including a full department review about the tenure track faculty's annual report. A chair constructing a review without consulting the department is not the best practice. It is in the junior faculty's best interest to have full department knowledge of how they are doing. Knowledge about the department is beneficial when examining what is in the strategic interest at the department level—what do you need to know about each other; about the work that you are engaged in together, and how does it integrate with individual initiatives?

 

Dr. Rose Rodrigues mentioned that the message she is hearing related to recommendations is that the emphasis is on consistency; she felt there was nothing beneficial about consistency. The Dean stated that the message is not about consistency as much as quality of process. The Dean reiterated that, in terms of teaching observation reports, the discussion was about a process that is not being followed. The Dean is more interested in the process of the review rather than the product (i.e., the form of the letters don't need to be consistent). Rodrigues felt that expecting consistency is destructive and is against the interest of faculty members. A good letter does not necessarily reflect how effective a faculty member is in the classroom. Some people tend to be more elaborate in letters than others; therefore a good letter does not mean there is dynamics in the classroom. Boquet commented that focusing on obtaining a fuller picture of colleagues offers a greater opportunity to construct a reasonable evaluation.

 

Announcements

Humanities Institute and Science Institute Grant Opportunities—The Dean reminded the chairs that the call for Humanities Institute and the newly-designed Science Institute was distributed. The deadline for submission for a Humanities Institute proposal is February 15 for summer and fall activities and for the Science Institution is February 1. An original, plus three copies should be submitted to the Dean on or before these deadlines.

 

Spring Registration Period— The registration period for Fall 2009 is shorter, so the Dean reminded the chairs to be attentive to notices from the Registrar's Office. Rodrigues commented on the change in practice for registration of students being written into a class. She did not agree with the policy change where students are now required to obtain the chairs signature, along with the appropriate faculty to be added into a class. Boquet agreed to follow up on this change in procedure.

 

Enrollment Management and Curriculum Planning for the Fall—The Dean suggested that the chairs be more proactive in the early stages of planning courses for the fall. They should be attentive to low enrollments, scheduling an amount of sections relative to the numbers of majors within the discipline. Low enrolled courses will become highly vulnerable in the current budget climate.

 

Commencement—With the new scheduling of two commencements—undergraduate and graduate ceremonies—the Dean suggested that the department chairs have a conversation with their colleagues to see who will participate in each of these ceremonies. For those who are interested in attending both commencements, a luncheon will be available between these programs.

 

Next Dean's Council Meeting—Scheduled for Wednesday, February 4, 2009; Program Review and Assessment. Planning Team: R. Crabtree, J. Simon, D. McFadden, C. Naser, and

R. Torosyan.

 

The meeting adjourned at 5:15.