Dean's Council Meeting

College of Arts and Sciences

February 1, 2006

Present: M. Coleman, R. Crabtree, R. DeWitt, J. Escobar, J. Garvey, M. Gogol, D. Greenberg, F. Hannafey, S.J., P. Lane, J. McCarthy, D. McFadden, C. Naser, E. O'Connell, S. Peterson,

R. Poincelot, S. Rakowitz, G. Sauer, K. Schlichting, E. Umansky, D. Winn

Not Present: J. Goldfield

The meeting convened at 3:30 p.m.

Introductory Remarks

Copying Codes—Several departments have experienced overcharges or anomalies in their budget for photocopying. The Dean recommended that chairs request a report from Printing and Graphics to assure that their departments are being charged correctly. Dr. Kurt Schlichting mentioned that the Sociology Department's budget deduction for photocopying is $2,500, which absorbs a large portion of their operating budget. He is concerned with Printing and Graphics process for determining these charges. The Dean's understanding is that they calculate deductions by averaging departmental usage over a multi-year window. If departmental usage is under the estimation, the department receives a credit. There is, however, a timing issue with Printing and Graphics credit process. Departments are receiving credits in late June, which is too late to utilize funds and keep in compliance with the University's budgetary deadlines. Dr. John McCarthy will forward an appropriate memo to the Dean's Council with these concerns for their review.

Conference—A conference is scheduled for October 27-29, 2006, entitled "Jesuit and Feminist Education: Transformative Discourses for Teaching & Learning"—the work of Drs. Jocelyn Boryczka and Elizabeth Petrino.

Travel Policy—The Dean continues to receive travel requests from faculty. These requests should be directed to the chairs to determine whether the department budget can support them. The chairs were asked to go over the College travel policy with their colleagues.

Governance Document—The Steering Committee reviewed the College Governance Document and proposed changes to the chairs selection portion of the document, which was discussed during the January 18 Dean's Council meeting. Dr. Richard DeWitt noticed that the Rank and Tenure section of the Governance Document required some minor changes—one relative to the duties of the Dean, which is inconsistent with the procedures listed in the Faculty Handbook. The Health Sciences Committee amended their section of the Governance Document. All of these changes will be addressed to the College faculty at a coming meeting for approval. Dr. Robbin Crabtree requested these changes be forwarded to Dr. Susan Rakowitz for distribution to College faculty prior to the next Arts and Sciences faculty meeting for consideration.

Adjuncts Teaching Full Load—The Dean reminded the chairs that the institution should not employ adjuncts beyond a two-course load, except under unusual circumstances. When the College stretches beyond institutional guidelines for adjunct teaching, we compromise the value of our profession. Our normal full-time teaching load is three courses. An adjunct faculty working a full-time course load at part time pay is inappropriate. The College should operate consistently with the AAUP recommendations, and departmental decisions should be part of this operation.

Scholars Day—Kristen Newmark, from the Office of Admission, is still requesting assistance for the two Scholars Day events, which are scheduled on Friday, February 10 and 17. This is an important Admissions event; which defines the intellectual character of our student body. The students at these events are the types that can raise the intellectual environment within a given course, as it proceeds.

Final Grade Submission—During the January Dean's Council meeting, the Dean agreed to obtain, from the Registrar's Office, an "ultimate" deadline date for the submission of grades. The purpose was to accommodate faculty with final exam scheduled at the edge of Christmas Day. The Registrar's Office agreed to a final deadline of December 30 for faculty who administer an exam on December 22 or 23 (the adjusted deadline applies only to these dates). The Dean asked the chairs to share these changes with their faculty, including adjuncts. It seems that the majority of noncompliance is from our adjunct faculty. The Registrar's Office does work the week between Christmas and New Years Day. They spend part of this time e-mailing faculty who have not yet submitted grades. Incompliance can create significant problems.

Student Diversity Grant Opportunity—The Dean shared information submitted by Dr. Elizabeth Gardner regarding Student Diversity Grant Opportunities. These initiatives offer student teams an opportunity to apply for a Student Diversity Grant in areas relative to academics, community life, and faith. To underscore the importance of this initiative, student proposals will be submitted to Fr. von Arx. So far, Gardner obtained approximately $13,000 for diversity courses and other activities from the Brinkman Foundation, along with $8,500 from the Humanities Institute for these projects.

Pass-around Information—The Dean circulated opportunities consisting of positions available at various institutions, along with information regarding the CEDA Workshops, which highlight "Developing a Comprehensive Faculty Evaluation System." These workshops are co-sponsored by the University of Arizona and are scheduled for March 13 through 14. Issues relative to building and using a comprehensive faculty evaluation system, for assessing faculty performance in the areas of teaching, research, and service, will be discussed. Our evaluation process raises concerns among our faculty, especially related the Merit process; therefore, the Dean encouraged faculty participation.

Approval of Minutes

DeWitt motioned to approve the minutes of the January 18 meeting, and Dr. Phil Lane seconded the motion. All chairs present were in favor of the minutes.

Selling Readers

Concerns with the process of selling course readers to the students have been expressed. The current system is not suitable to the College. The largest concern is collection of money for readers—cash should be handled only through appropriate offices—not those of staff or faculty. Staff are inconvenienced with the distribution and collection process. Faculty have complained about commotion and lines in hallways, interrupting their work. The University Bookstore has facility for handling these transactions; however, they add a 25% charge onto the cost of a given packet. The Dean mentioned that while this increases the cost to the students, it offers the convenience of a "one-stop shopping." Dr. Jesœs Escobar expressed concerns about copyright violations with regards to the Bookstore making a profit. Dr. David McFadden's understanding was that the University policy was to have Printing and Graphics handle photocopying of readers. He expressed his apprehension with the Bookstore handling the sale of readers, because of the increase in price, and because of the inconsistency with the availability of these books. DeWitt's experience was that the initial payment for books was handled through the department; and while the Bookstore collected the money for these purchases, they were very neglectful on reimbursing the departments' initial funding. Rakowitz recommended that the College initiate an arrangement between Printing and Graphics and the University Bookstore where faculty supply the necessary materials to Printing and Graphics, and then the distribution and cost can be handled directly between the two. The Dean offered to communicate these ideas to the Bookstore and Printing and Graphics for possible resolution.

Internships

The Dean introduced Dr. David Sapp, Associate Professor of English, to discuss internships within the College of Arts and Sciences. Sapp initiated a sequence of on-campus events during the Fall 2005 semester, sponsored by the College of Arts and Sciences Curriculum Committee, the Humanities Institute, the Center for Academic Excellence, and the departments of Biology, Communication, English, Sociology & Anthropology, and Visual and Performing Arts, entitled "Learning and Integrity: Looking Towards the Future in College Student Internships." Sapp hosted a public lecture by Dr. Gerald Savage from Illinois State University, whose specialty is with liabilities and legal issues relative to internships. There were two roundtable discussions, student workshops, a faculty workshop, review of internship course syllabi, assignments, policies within departments and textbooks, and an on-going research analysis performed by Sapp and Dr. Savage involving the collection of internship policies from approximately 200 Universities in U.S. and Canada.

Sapp outlined some major concerns and issues for the College associated with internships:

Legal and Liability Issues

á The College does not have a uniform legal and liability policy. The English department utilized a liability waiver that Dr. Savage felt would not hold any significance in case of a legal pursuit. Dr. Poincelot mentioned that there are documents with legal disclaimer statements, which are handled by the Academic Vice President's Office.

á A number of universities require insurance to protect students in case of a potential injury—to and from their internship, or on-site. Security and transportation always seems to be a problem. A loss of company property is another liability issue. A $15 per semester umbrella policy is common amongst a majority of universities to cover for these potential liabilities.

2. Internships: Independent Study or Specialized Course

á Should internships be treated as independent studies or as specialized courses? Sapp explained the importance of understanding that independent studies and internships are different in nature. Some departments treat internships as independent studies where each intern works with a different faculty member within the department. This means that, within the department, students are required to perform different levels of work for the same grading system. There is inconsistency in the way internships are handled across the College and the University. Utilization of syllabi, assignments, textbooks, required group or individual meetings, and grading are issues. The Dolan School of Business uses a pass/fail system, while the College uses a letter grade system. Some departments evaluate student performance on their off-campus experience, exclusively, while other departments administer assignments.

3. Internship Policies and Requirements

á There is a disagreement among the faculty whether students can receive payment, as well as academic credit, for their internships. Most faculty agree that travel stipends are acceptable.

á The minimum/maximum hours required on-site vary among departments. Should a consistent number of off-site hours per credit be set and utilized as a standard across the College?

á Counting internship credit towards a major or minor varies. The English Department factors in one internship towards their 10-course major. While the Communication Department approves credit for an internship, they do not include internships towards their major.

á GPA minimum requirements and eligibility vary among departments. Some departments have pre-requisites, while others do not.

á Are students eligible to participate in an internship during the summer for credit? If so, must they register for summer credit through University College, or can they delay and sign up for credit in the fall after their internship is completed? Some departments allow students to work during the summer and receive credit during the fall. Other departments, like the English Department, require students to register for credit during the summer in case a student is injured during a summer internship; a potential liability may exist.

4. Preparing Students for the Workplace

á What are faculty prepared and qualified to do? Faculty specialize in teaching disciplinary skills, but can some of the responsibilities of preparing students for the workplace be shared with Career Planning and/or a College Coordinator? An internship coordinator can be in charge of these bureaucratic issues.

5. Selection of Department Internship Coordinator & Their Role

á How should the selection of an internship coordinator be determined? Are there special qualifications that should be factored into these elections? The English department requires faculty to submit an application to the chair for the position, which lasts three semesters.

á At other universities, the coordinators are responsible for visiting off-campus sites. Sapp mentioned that the English Department has over 200 sites, so this is not feasible for them. Should maintaining contact with the sites, recruiting new sites, and data-base maintenance be the duty of a department internship coordinator, a College representative, or a University coordinator?

6. Faculty Compensation

á How should faculty be compensated for internships, and should an internship count as teaching, advising or service? Are internships counted as part of their teaching load? Sapp mentioned that serving as an internship coordinator should not be reviewed as release time. The English Department turned their internships into a course with a syllabus and assignments; thus, it is considered a course (especially given that 39 students are enrolled in the internship course this semester). McFadden mentioned that the History Department has a small number of internships, and their department did focus on having a coordinator. His concern was with how the compensation would work for faculty involved in these internships. How many students are necessary to count internships as a course, and should there be an enrollment cap? The English Department does not have a cap, and with 39 student interns this semester, they only count it as one course.

7. Oversight of Study Abroad Internships

á Sapp noted that there are increasing numbers of our students who are participating in internships while they study abroad. How should credits (and faculty oversight) for Study Abroad internships be handled? Who is responsible for the supervision of internships (e.g., departments, the College, the University College, or the study-abroad office)? Are there additional liability concerns for Study Abroad internships?

8. The Role of the College

á Sapp asked about the possible role of the College in terms of policies, guidelines, and forms. Can the College take responsibility for faculty development and training? An internship database? Do we need a College internship coordinator (like DSB has) and, if so, what responsibilities would remain in departments?

Dr. Miriam Gogol shared her perspective on the importance of educating the College on different issues involved with internships. This is a growing trend connecting students to the "real world." McFadden agreed with the importance of this connection. He recommended that all of these issues be addressed at the same time—assessment, inconsistency, and levels of compensation. Naser reminded the chairs that internships will be part of the upcoming Assessment project for the College, so these are important issues for discussion. It is noteworthy to have an efficient internship program that offers opportunities to the students and supports the faculty. Internships are good marketing tools for the University.

The Dean mentioned that because of limited resources, the College cannot afford a full-time internship coordinator. The living and learning initiative might be a potential resource, where internships offer academic involvement outside of the classroom. Gogol asked how internship quality is controlled. How do we know that our students are receiving consequential work? Sapp explained that part of the supervisor's responsibility is to develop relationships with outside partners making sure students are receiving meaningful work. He regularly offers a workshop on interactions between students and supervisors. The purpose of the workshop was is to train students on strategies to approach their supervisor and request more meaningful work—an opportunity to build responsibilities. Crabtree mentioned that at all professional levels individuals are faced with some amount of tedious tasks. No matter how menial the responsibilities are, students still achieve a learning experience. Because the intensity between internships varies, it is important to incorporate an academic piece. Sapp informed his students that their final grades will be calculated based on their work as follows: 33% offsite, and 66% on-campus work, with slight fluctuation.

Naser cited huge student demand for internships. These opportunities offer future careers for many of our students. The School of Business operates an active search engine listing many internship opportunities for their students. The College of Arts and Sciences search engine was inactive for a length of time, because the internships listed were not maintained. Sapp presently maintains a substantial number of internship opportunities; therefore, the College's search engine is now actively running.

Naser built a tracking system for the Dolan School of Business for their internships. This system enables them to identify students involved in an internship, and it offers a built-in survey for both the student and the supervisor to evaluate each other. The College could have access to a similar setup; however, the important factor in making the system work is the maintenance issue and the supervision of internships at the College level. McFadden mentioned that in order to have this kind of control, an internship coordinator is needed within each department, too.

Dr. Glenn Sauer asked if an internship coordinator could be assigned one less course for the year. The Dean suggested that we wait until the Arts and Sciences Curriculum Committee created a uniform and equitable policy. Sapp recommended that this Committee also make a differentiation between an independent study and an internship—these are two very different responsibilities. Dr. Kurt Schlichting mentioned that the College previously adopted a set of internship guidelines. He could not recall where the guidelines originated from, but he will research this and inform the Steering Committee of his findings.

Merit Process

The Dean reminded the chairs of the Merit timeline. They will be meeting with him between March 15 and April 15; therefore, their process, including appeals, need to be completed in time for these discussions. The timeline can be found on page 10 of the Merit document previously submitted to the department chairs.

He spoke with Dr. Orin Grossman to obtain the number of levels of Merit and was informed that the likelihood is a maximum of one. The upside of having only one level of Merit is that it allows the College to have a "trial run" of individual departmental programs—collecting data and reviewing their plans for a year without the concern of making distinctions between levels. The Steering Committee suggested that the chairs engage in a collegial discussion subsequent to their reviews—sharing their recommendations for their department. This would involve three discussions—one with the humanities chairs, the natural sciences chairs, and the social sciences chairs, giving them a sense of how their plans are working.

Rakowitz did not agree with the suggested trial run. She felt that the only way to determine equitability would be to review all of the plans and observe where each of these levels are across the departments—all levels A1, A2, and A3 thresholds should be at the same level. Once these plans are lined up equally, the next step would be to assure they are lined up at sensible absolute levels. The Dean mentioned that this is not a trivial exercise, because each plan is so different in nature; so he would like to address this in stages. Rakowitz believed that it would require a committee to make sure the College is accountable for disciplinary differences.

Because teaching evaluations are utilized during the Merit process, it is important how the chairs interpret this data. What sort of measures should be factored into the review? How should they be compared within each discipline—humanities, natural sciences and social sciences—and the College at large? Are there certain metrics that could be developed, or other data that chairs and faculty might need to conduct reviews?

Naser shared with the chairs the data system he originated for analyzing course evaluations. He demonstrated this data by analyzing the Philosophy Department's Fall 2000 through present course evaluations. The on-line system holds a replica of the summary table every instructor receives from SCT. Naser explained that faculty can automatically include evaluation data in their annual reports, or departments as a whole can choose to share identified evaluation data within the department. Data submitted will be available to the Dean and the appropriate department chair. Naser felt that with categorical data, average values are not a statistically appropriate method of analysis; calculating proportions is more appropriate. When there are four columns of data, it is difficult to compare them. Naser mentioned that a few departments were interested in utilizing a method where they would take the sum of the "agree" and "strongly agree" proportions, and utilize that value to make comparisons. This method simplifies the data, but you lose a lot of the distinctions within the data. He suggested another solution where he calculated a weighted sum—valuing each proportion differentially. This method seemed to express the differences in data more efficiently. There are other types of analyses that could be constructed and Naser offered to work with departments and the College to find methods that are the most useful. There also several other analyses that compare evaluation summaries to grades, and several summaries that aggregate three years' worth of data. Another capability is to composite weighted sums combining the proportions of several questions into a single weighted sum.

Dr. Matthew Coleman expressed concern about the equilibration component of the Merit process. He felt that the chairs were under a lot of pressure to perform a fair analysis. He is having a difficult time collecting data with a reasonable cutoff, to differentiate between levels of additional merit that would be acceptable to both his colleagues and the Dean. The Dean reiterated that, if the levels of Merit devolve to one level, it would be beneficial to the chairs, allowing them the opportunity to discuss their outcomes and ways in which their plans can be calibrated.

McFadden expressed his concern with the Merit timeline. It is difficult to meet these deadlines, because they have not received the evaluation data from the previous year. The History department has an actively involved subcommittee, and efficient internal process, but they cannot begin evaluations without this information. SCT still needs to complete the scanning of these forms, and then upon completion, obtain permission from FDEC to release this data. This is not a traditional process; John Milanese from SCT mentioned it is a random process. It was not clearly stated who makes the decision of when approval is needed. The Dean asked Naser to discuss this with Dr. Grossman to move this process along.

McCarthy mentioned that because the chairs are dealing with interrelated issues, he is perplexed with the entire process. The Dean summarized the discussion at hand, explaining that Naser's on-line system was designed to assist the chairs through their evaluation process. The goal is to find a Merit process that admits to departmental independence, and is equitable from department to department across the College. The purpose of the discussions to follow departmental assessments of their faculty is to help equilibrate the plans.

The meeting adjourned at 5:00 p.m.