Dean's Council Meeting
College of Arts and Sciences
January 18, 2006
Not Present: F. Hannafey, S.J., K. Schlichting
The meeting convened at 3:30 p.m.
Introductory Remarks
Student Emotions—The Dean expressed the importance
of
faculty awareness on supporting a student who is experiencing emotional
difficulties. Faculty should be
aware of the on-campus facilities available to these students. Counseling Services offers professional
support for these students, therefore the protocol should be to refer
the
student to the Counseling Services, not the Dean's Office, so that
students
receive proper professional help as soon as possible.
Course Syllabi—Procedures and requirements for reporting course syllabi are not uniform. Previously, the College required faculty to forward a copy of their course syllabi to the Dean's Office. Only on rare occasions does the Dean's Office reference a course syllabus, e.g., while addressing student complaints concerning faculty non-compliance with their syllabus. Having a copy on-hand can be beneficial; however, with such limited scenarios, the effort placed on collecting and storing these syllabi does not necessitate the need.
The Dean shared the Faculty Instructional Handbook's policy and suggestions relative to course syllabi. The Handbook guidelines authorize instructors to distribute a course syllabus to each student enrolled in their course, but only recommend they submit a copy of their syllabus to the department chair and/or the collection development librarian in the University library. Even though the Handbook does not mandate submission to the department chairs, Dr. David McFadden articulated the importance of having a copy of the syllabi for monitoring purposes. Having an accessible copy offers the chairs the ability to determine if there is a problem, allowing them to address their concerns to both the faculty and the Dean.
Dr. Curt Naser created a program for the Dolan School of Business, which allowed instructors to submit their syllabi electronically into a web-based form. These syllabi are easily accessible, and the system eliminates the excessive amount of paper storage for the instructor, the chair, and the Dean's Office. Naser explained that his system offers an upload form for each course, which easily accesses archived syllabi for referencing purposes. This accessibility would allow the Dean's Office and chairs to obtain syllabi upon necessity, eliminating the paper circulation and storage issues. It would also make tasks easier for faculty members. Dr. Raymond Poincelot commented that this system could be a beneficial tool during the accreditation process.
The Dean suggested that procedures for submission of syllabi be determined at the discretion of the chairs, along with the use of the Naser Web-based tool available for recording of the syllabi, as an on-line procedural option. The key component in monitoring syllabi is to ensure that colleagues have created a syllabus, in concert with sound instructional practice and in remaining compliant with the Faculty Instructional Handbook. McFadden motioned the Dean's suggestion, and Dr. Robbin Crabtree seconded the motion, with a majority vote in favor.
Communication Program—Crabtree briefed the chairs on the program proposal for a Masters in Communication Corporate Cohort Program, which is an off-site contracted masters program. Crabtree will present this proposal to the College faculty on Wednesday, January 25, for approval. Dr. Susan Rakowitz, College Faculty Secretary, will distribute an electronic copy of the narrative portion of the proposal, as well as the Arts and Sciences Curriculum Committee minutes, at which the proposal was approved.
A full proposal, which includes all of the appendices, is available for review by visiting the College Dean's Office, CNS 100; Dolores McCluckie, DMH 130; or Crabtree, DMH 227. Two copies are also on reserve at the University Library. This proposal will continue to follow the proper routing system—moving from the approval of the Arts and Sciences Curriculum Committee, to seeking approvals from the Arts and Sciences Faculty, EPC, and Academic Council.
Compliance of Final Exam Schedule—In compliance to the final exam policy, the Dean created a list of faculty who did not follow the policy and/or faculty who were excused from the policy. This is a publicized list available upon request. Lane reviewed this list, finding that the execution of exams was not consistent with the Dean's list of excused deviances. Lane mentioned that deviation from the traditional style of final exams is not an issue. The problem exist with the members of the College faculty who are not administering final exams and/or final assessments, at all, or who are changing the designated time and date appointed by the Registrar's Office. Violation of the policy short-changes the students; therefore, it is the duty of the faculty to comply with the policy, and the responsibility of the Dean and chairs to enforce the policy. Lane suggested that non-compliance on the part of the faculty should result in non-eligibility for merit. Crabtree stated that final exam schedules are a good link to course syllabi. If chairs collect syllabi, the final assessment listed should be in compliance with the Instructional Handbook.
Submission of Grades—There are faculty who are not submitting their grades on time or are eliminating a few grades from their class roster, causing a cascade of critical problems. The University Banner system records a blank grade as an "F." Many repercussions result from late submissions or elimination of a submission—student probations, student dismissals, and loss of housing—causing unnecessary stress for students and parents, and significant work for the administration. Faculty compliance to the grade submission policy is critical. The Dean asked the chairs to communicate to their faculty the necessity of submitting grades on time, informing them that non-compliance will result in an unnecessary conversation with the Dean.
Lane mentioned that the 48-hour grade submission policy is not practical for faculty who are administering their finals on December 23. The policy warrants grade submissions on Christmas Day. The Dean informed the chairs that the Academic Support Group are in the process of discussing ways in which the University could avoid a December 23 final exam schedule. They are considering the possibility of reducing the number of Reading Days, which have been noted to be some of the lowest attended days at the Library. Because the University is closed for one week between Christmas and New Year's Day, Dr. John McCarthy recommended that faculty have a one week extension to submit grades. The Dean suggested that faculty, rather than not turn in grades, request a reasonable extension, upon necessity, and wait until the Academic Support Group finalizes a more reasonable calendar. Upon further discussion, the Dean agreed to ask about an "ultimate" deadline, especially for those whose exams fall at the edge of Christmas Day.
Dr. David Winn mentioned that some faculty experienced technical difficulty in submitting grades electronically. The Dean asked Mrs. Susan Peterson, who is a member of the Banner Committee, to reiterate the importance of having the system up and running during this time. Ms. Peterson reminded the group that Stagweb required login every three months in order to stay active, which may have caused difficulty for some.
Martin Luther King Convocation—The Dean conveyed the importance of the upcoming Martin Luther King Convocation. Given the interest in Diversity among the faculty, he expressed disappointment in low attendance during the previous years. A strong College presence is important. The Dean asked the department chairs to encourage their colleagues to demonstrate to their students the significance of this event. Dr. Ellen Umansky asked the chairs to encourage their students to attend the Interfaith Service in celebration of diversity. This service is on Wednesday, January 25, from 6:00 p.m. – 7:00 p.m. in the Chapel, and is followed by the Multicultural Festival.
Pass-around Information—The Dean circulated opportunities consisting of a student scholarship opportunity for Graduate Study and a number of job announcements for academic administrative positions.
The February agenda will consist of selected topics including the Merit process, Internships, and the Strategic Plan.
Approval of Minutes
Dr. Leo O'Connor motioned to approve the minutes of the December 7 meeting, and Crabtree seconded the motion. Goldfield asked for a minor amendment to the minutes. All chairs present were in favor of the minutes subject to the amendments stated, with three abstentions.
Chairs Selection Proposal:
Dr. Richard DeWitt distributed a revised version of the newly proposed language concerning the election of chairs, for the College Governance Document. During the January Dean's Council meeting, the chairs agreed that if there was a conflict of interest during the electing process, the decisions should remain within the College. There were two suggestions to facilitate the decision making process—an appointed College Committee, known as the CCC (College Chairs Committee) or the College members of the existing Academic Council. McFadden thought that the existing members of the Academic Council would be a good choice. DeWitt commented that the proposal to utilize the College members of the Academic Council resulted from some concerns that members of the Academic Council would be more independent then the chairs in their decisions. For example, chairs rely on the Dean for the likes of new position authorizations. Dr. John McCarthy felt that the department chairs would be more effective based on their knowledge of how the departments function and survive. He motioned that the College Chairs Committee consist of chairs from the Dean's Council. Dr. Leo O'Connor seconded the motion—ten were in favor, two opposed, and three abstentions. DeWitt followed with a motion to carry the Dean's Council's proposed amendments to the College faculty for approval. Crabtree seconded the motion—eleven were in favor and three opposed.
Assessment and Accreditation
The College is due for accreditation visits during Fall 2007 by NEASC, the New England Associations of Schools and Colleges. Academic Vice President Orin Grossman appointed
Dr. Curt Naser as the faculty chair to work on facilitating the assessment and accreditation, along with Dr. Mary Frances Malone, who facilitates the University's self studies. The Dean explained to the College that NEASC has eleven standards that an institution must meet in order to be accredited. There are two reporting options in identifying these standards—a longer report showing how each of the eleven standards are met; or a concise description of how standards are met, followed by the exploration of a small set of initiatives important to the institution. The University is contemplating the use of the latter approach—exploring deeply the three components of the Strategic Plan, along with a brief summary of the eleven standards.
The Dean noted that he had asked, as the accreditation was being
considered,
that the University be mindful of previous work done related to the
Core
Curriculum (including the work by Paul Lakeland's team, roughly five
years ago,
and the Natural Sciences, more recently); the Strategic Plan; and the
time
constraints of faculty and administrative colleagues.
Through this process, the University must build an effective method of assessment of student learning outcomes into their institutional structure. This can be utilized as a resource to increase the quality of teaching.
Naser shared a draft of an initiative to sustain an assessment plan for the College of Arts and Sciences. The assessment of student learning outcomes will examine students' work—analyzing their performance and evaluating their work in terms of clearly defined objectives. Each department should develop departmental rubrics for selected objectives, and then evaluate their work based on how effective the department is in meeting those objectives.
In order for the College to work effectively, Naser suggested that a College Steering Committee be appointed to organize and oversee its assessment efforts. This committee would consist of one member from each of the humanities, natural sciences and social and behavioral sciences, along with Dr. Larry Miners, Naser, and the Dean. In addition, representatives from each department will be assigned to implement a departmental assessment program. They will participate in training seminars to develop knowledge of the methods used to assess student learning outcomes. They will be responsible for organizing and overseeing the assessment project within their department. A two-day seminar with Doug Eder, a specialist in assessment who is sensitive to teaching-and time-related challenges, is scheduled for April 28 and 29. The number of members of a department who will be involved in the training seminars will be determined as those dates approach.
The University's first Strategic goal focuses on the integration of the core; therefore, the first College initiative will concentrate on the core curriculum. Once the assessment of the core is perfected, the College will turn to the majors and the programs for assessment. It is impossible to assess all student work, so the following outline was designed to help in developing an assessment plan:
A group of two or three faculty will be assigned to read, score, and compile the data to assess how the College is performing. The University has not determined if these evaluators will be a College-wide group, a University-wide group, a divisional group, or a departmental group. McFadden felt a crucial need to have the preliminary work, on assessing the core, performed within the departments. He also wondered what would happen in the event a few departments did not cooperate. Miners indicated that, should departments not engage in the process, it will have failed. He mentioned that the beginning stages will not be polished, but sustainability must be evident. Planting the seed will encounter the involvement of individual faculty members and staff within the departments.
Gogol asked Naser to explain a timeline for the assessment. Naser hoped to initiate the training process through the spring, allowing the departments sufficient time to think about and understand the process. The departments will begin the data collection necessary to assess the core. There are two parts to this task—organizing the department, collecting and archiving the student work; and the next step is establishing clearly what the core objectives are, and how they apply into the departments.
Dr. Jesús Escobar shared with the Council the Visual and Performing Arts experience with Faith-Anne Dohm from the School of Education and Allied Professions. The Department worked with a team of Prof. Dohm's graduate students who interviewed VPA faculty and helped the department formulate a preparatory assessment document that meets the requirements of NEASC. Prof. Dohm was very helpful in working with the Department.
Major segments on the development of the College's core objectives are already established. These initiatives are found in the 1999 document on the Mission of the Core, which was established by an effort chaired by Dr. Paul Lakeland, and will be used during the assessment process. The self-study focused on the integration of the core, which offers another dimension in building on the assessment of the core project and moving it forward. The Dean mentioned some additional helpful reviews that the College either engaged in or plans to initiate —the existing Science Cohort Review, and review in Physics by the Research Corporation, along with the upcoming Department of Modern Languages and interdisciplinary programs reviews. These elements can be resources for the assessment process.
The College will need a procedure in place and some data to show the accreditors by the Fall 2007 semester. The idea is to build an institutional structure that will live on after the accreditation.
A University-wide institutional effectiveness committee (Self-Study Committee) will be appointed to oversee the process—members from Finance, Information Systems, academics, faculty members. Information pertaining to the University's plans for the accreditation process eventually will be accessible through the University's website.
College Staff
The Dean noted that the growth and responsibilities of the College staff, along with communication patterns and expectations of and by the staff, had evolved accretively over the years, without any systematic review of the role, talents, and responsibilities of staff colleagues. The Dean expressed the importance of defining staff responsibilities, in order to articulate clearly their obligations and priorities related to the faculty, departments, chairs, and programs and to determine both routine and specialized needs within each department and program. With this in mind, Ms. Benedetta Maguire was appointed as the College liaison for staff members; she has worked closely with Ms. Rita Duda, Associate Director of Human Resources. Meanwhile, there have been requests for additional staff, along with complaints that some departments are overstaffed.
A generic job description for the College's program assistance was established to reflect core responsibilities and required skill sets for a typical staff position. This generic description can be a helpful starting point to guide the chairs, program directors, and staff members in developing an individualized description, which should be dependent on the departmental needs. The purpose of this practice is to gain a clear notion where we need more or fewer staff, a clear communication to staff what they are responsible for, whom they should report to, and what their priorities should be.
Ms. Maguire noted that she reviewed the individual job descriptions for each department support staff and found that each description was very similar in nature. Specific needs of departments and programs were not articulated within these descriptions. It was determined that some of the departments may not be utilizing their staff to their fullest potential, and/or some departmental needs were not being met. Over the years, as departmental needs evolved, the position descriptions were not consistently re-evaluated and revised.
Ms. Betty Garvin will meet with each program assistant to determine more specifically the roles with which they are involved. Ms. Maguire will then follow up by meeting with chairs and program directors to establish their needs. These responsibilities will be incorporated into the job descriptions—accurately addressing the needs and actual tasks performed within each department and program. After the job descriptions are updated, we can determine whether a staff member is in need of additional training, how much work load each department facilitates, and evaluate the shared job positions to make sure that the work load is equally divided.
The Dean communicated to the chairs that the purpose of the staff evaluations is not to eliminate positions, but to service the College better. Staff may be reassigned, but this will be done with transparent community knowledge, with members of the College being aware of each other's needs. The Dean asked the chairs to assist in determining whether a small committee should be developed to enforce this initiative. The outcome of the evaluation may warrant some of the additional staff requests expressed, though the Dean's initial sense is that, overall, the College has an appropriate number of staff that can, following a careful analysis and, possibly, adjustments, meet its needs.
The meeting adjourned at 5:00 p.m.