Minutes of the Faculty Senate

Regular meeting held in Reynolds 205

November 17, 2022

Present: Senators Oden, Petty, Pfannenstiel, T. Schroeder, Tucker, , White, Fanning, Paulson, Overholser, Nelson, Samples, Logan, Djiguimde, Valenzuela, Coppersmith, Hudgens, Schneiderwind, Almotairi

Ex-officio and guests: David Lanoue, Donna Allen, Deborah Wilson,  Gerald Plumlee, Karen Landry, Robin Sronce, Connie Wilson, Vanda McLelland, Vanda McLellan, Sheryl Edwards (left at 4:15pm), Deborah Wilson, Jesse Filbrun

Call to order: 3:40 pm

Reading of Proxies: Pfannenstiel proxy for White starting at 4:20pm

• Approval of Minutes

Minutes from October 20, 2022 were approved (motion – Fanning, second – Samples)

• Reports of Committees

Report from the Faculty Senate Handbook Committee (Senator Djiguimde)

Senator Djiguimde provided a report (Attachment One) regarding elections to standing committees in the University. The Faculty Assembly will be asked to vote on the measure in the future. 

Report from the Faculty Senate Budget Committee (Senator Tucker)

Senator Tucker shared that the budget forum with the administration in October went very well. He thanked Provost Lanoue and VP of Finance Shawana Reed for the presentation.  Provost Lanoue mentioned at this time a one-time payment of 1,200 will be provided for all full-time SAU employees.   

Report from the Faculty Senate Parking, Facilities and Grounds Committee (Senator Hudgens)

Senator Hudgens did not have a report for the committee.

Report from the Ad Hoc Committee on NC Grades (Senator Coppersmith)

Senator Coppersmith referenced the NC policy recommendations noted on the handout (Attachment Two).  The committee met October 26th and recommend not continuing the NC policy created in response to the pandemic. The committee recommended continuing use of the NC policy that exists in the Faculty Handbook and encouraging faculty to use the WN option as necessary.  

Provost Lanoue completed a data analysis regarding past use of the NC grade during the pandemic and found the NC policy created during the pandemic had no significant effect on student retention. 

Report from Ad Hoc Committee on Student Evaluations (Senator Schroeder)

Senator Schroeder shared the original evaluation and a draft copy of revised version of the evaluation (Attachment Three). He shared several changes including; the evaluation draft is now broken into live/online versions, the number of questions have been lessened, and neutral response options have been taken out. Additional changes might include changing the evaluation modality and providing data in an Excel sheet for faculty data analysis.

Schroeder asked Senators to send in recommendations for revising the evaluation.  Guest Filbrun discussed the option for faculty to proctor each other’s student evaluations. Senator Fanning requested the Student Government Association be asked to provide feedback on the revised evaluation.  General Counsel Giles recommended keeping the evaluation short and noted the earliest option for implementation of the revised evaluations would be Fall 2023.

Provost Lanoue asked the Committee to consider whether multiple forms e.g. for online and in-person, are necessary and suggested one evaluation would allow for all measurements to be the same regardless of modality.  

Senator Tucker shared his suggested revisions to the evaluation (Attachment Four) with those present. 

• Liaisons from other Standing and University Committees

General Education Committee

Senator Schneiderwind reported the Committee met recently and there is an ongoing discussion regarding data collected over the last 5 years and if that data accurately reflects student success.

Academic Integrity Committee

Senator Schroeder reported the Committee recently met to review one case, the Dean’s decision was upheld.

Online Education Committee 

President Oden reported that two working groups were created to produce guidelines for regular and substantive student interactions (RSI) and create an accessible syllabus template that meets accessibility standards 

Research Committee

Guest Filbrun reported the Research Committee reviewed 15 applications for the first cycle of funding.  Most applications were funded and there is approximately $10,000 left for future funding cycles. 

Faculty Appeals Committee 

Senator Nelson noted the committee has not met. 

• Old Business

General Counsel Giles stated the SAU now (October 1st) have contraceptives on the health plan.

• New Business

President Oden reminded those present that meetings are open for guests to attend, they just cannot vote or bring a motion up for consideration of a vote. 

6. Special orders of the day

Provost Lanoue reported that the Social Work program has been reaccredited. He clarified that the signatures the HLC visiting team collected during their visit were an HLC requirement, and were not shared withnor required by SAU.  Lanoue shared his thanks to the leadership team; Jennifer Rowsam, Brian Logan, Kim Bloss, and Gerald Plumlee and the staff/faculty who were involved in the visit. 

Lanoue reported the HLC team will send their report for errors of fact back in one month and after SAU returns the report they can expect a final response to come later on in 2023.

Questions for the Administration

1. Is there a reason why the final exam schedule for each semester cannot be finalized before the start of the semester? Many faculty include a detailed calendar of each meeting time in their syllabi. When the final exam schedule is not available, there is a gap in those calendars that must then be clarified later once the schedule is released. This can cause some confusion for students when it appears that I am changing my course calendar. 
   1. Provost Lanoue reported the administration will begin sending out the final exam schedule two weeks before the beginning of the semester so faculty can incorporate exam schedules into their syllabi.
2. Has an effort been made to incentivize or encourage students to complete course evaluations? (e.g., Students not having access to their final grades until all their course evaluations are completed?)
   1. Provost Lanoue encouraged Senators to be thoughtful of trade-offs that may occur due to incentivizing the completion of evaluations.  
      1. Senator Schroeder discussed the difficulty of utilizing incentives while still respecting student anonymity
      2. Additional discussion took place regarding the use of hard copy evaluations and their inapplicability to online courses. 

President Oden thanked everyone for their involvement in the HLC visit and reminded everyone to send Senator Schroeder their corrections/notes regarding student evaluations. 

Adjournment at 4:50pm Senator Schroeder gave the first motion, Nelson seconded the motion. 

Attachment One

Faculty Senate Handbook Committee Report:  Nov 17, 2022

Committee Members:  Senators Jennifer Logan, Clinton Petty, Mamadou Djiguimde, Scott White. 

This committee report is offered as only a report at this time, not as a motion to approve changes to the faculty handbook.   We intend to bring these proposed changes as a motion to the senate at a future regular meeting. 

The Handbook Committee of the SAU Faculty Senate met on November 10th to consider the clarification of information regarding elections in the section:  Standing Committees of the University. 

Language to be deleted is in bold-strike-out. 

Language to be added is indented and in bold underline. 

Standing Committees of the University

The Faculty Senate will provide a list of committee openings to the dean of each college no later than the day of the opening General Faculty meeting for the fall semester. Each college will have ten (10) days to conduct elections for all committee openings and will forward all election results to the Faculty Senate by the 2nd Friday after the first day of class of the fall semester. Unless otherwise noted, election is for staggered two-year terms with half of the committee membership elected each year.

Elections shall be conducted in an open and inclusive nomination process followed by a college faculty vote within the guidelines provided by Robert’s Rules of Order (Newly Revised).  The dean of each college (or designee) shall be in charge of the college elections under the supervision of the Faculty Senate Committee on Committees.  

Following is a description of the mission and membership profile of each standing committee.

Attachment Two

2022-2023 SAU Faculty Senate

ad-hoc committee on the exceptional NC grade policy

Wednesday October 26, 2022

 Committee Members: 

Dr. Jennifer Logan

Mr. Keith Pfannenstiel

Mr. Kurt Coppersmith

Dr. Scott White

————————————————————————————————————

This ad-hoc committee intends to report the following at the Nov 17, 2022, meeting of the SAU Faculty Senate

 Recommend the following to the Academic VPAA/Provost: 

• Discontinue the current exceptional policy regarding NC grades for all courses for Fall 2022. 
• Continue to uphold and apply the grading policy that is currently in the approved catalog, which includes an NC option for specific courses.   
• Communicate to faculty their option to utilize the WN policy as long as the notification is submitted within current policy prior to the 10-day-notification-deadline for Final Grades (e.g. Friday Dec 2nd for Fall 2022).   Submitting the WN notification does not obligate the faculty to submit the WN grade.   The notification merely communicates intent. 
• Continue to uphold adopted shared governance policies and procedures in the event that the official NC-grade option in the academic catalog is to be modified. 

Attachment Three

Face to Face Course Evaluation Questions

Student Questions

1. I attended class regularly and punctually.
2. I participated in this course at a consistently high level.
3. I am satisfied that I did my best to succeed in the course.
4. My current grade in this course accurately reflects the work I have done.

Assessment Questions

1. Deadlines for completing assigned work were clearly stated.
2. The assigned work and/or exams accurately reflect the course content covered in class.
3. The assigned work and/or exams were graded fairly.
4. The assigned work and/or exams were graded and returned in a timely manner.

What are one or two changes that can be made to assigned work and/or exams that will make this course better? (open response)

Teaching/Instruction Questions

1. The instructor was enthusiastic in presenting the course and established an environment that was conducive to learning.
2. The instructor presented materials in a clear and well-organized manner.
3. The instructor was concerned about helping students succeed in the course and assisted me when I had questions regarding course content during the semester.
4. The instructor provided feedback on my work that was helpful to my learning.
5. The instructor’s teaching style was professional.
6. Overall, the instructor was highly effective in teaching the course.

What was the best aspect of this course? (open response)

What are one or two things that the instructor can do to improve the instruction in this course? (open response)

What are one or two things that the instructor does well that you would like for them to know? (open response)

Online Course Evaluation Questions

Student Questions

1. I logged in regularly to attend class.
2. I devoted enough time per week to ensure I met course objectives.
3. I am satisfied that I did my best to succeed in the course.
4. My current grade in this course accurately reflects the work I have done.

Assessment Questions

1. Deadlines for completing assigned work were clearly stated.
2. The assigned work and/or exams accurately reflected the course content covered in class.
3. The assigned work and/or exams were graded fairly.
4. The assigned work and/or exams were graded and returned in a timely manner.

What are one or two changes that can be made to assigned work and/or exams that will make this course better? (open response)

Teaching/Instruction Questions

1. The instructor made clear the goals and objectives of the course.
2. The instructor’s presentations and materials were clear and well-organized. 
3. The instructor provided timely evaluation of student work. 
4. The instructor was available to students for help and support. 
5. The instructor was highly effective in teaching the course.

What are one or two things that the instructor can do to improve the instruction in this course? (open response)

What are one or two things that the instructor does well that you would like for them to know? (open response)

Course Design Questions

1. The course was easy to navigate and use. 
2. Opportunities to connect with other learners in the course were available. 
3. Resources for the course were available and easily accessible. 

What was the best aspect of this course? (open response)

What technical problems did you encounter during the course? Please explain. (open response)

Attachment Four

Provided by Senate VP Abe Tucker 

Course Evaluation Questions

Assessment Questions

1. The goals and objectives of the course were made clear by the instructor.
2. Deadlines for completing assigned work were clearly stated.
3. Coursework and/or exams were graded and returned in a timely manner.
4. Resources for the course were easily accessible.

Teaching/Instruction Questions

1. The instructor established an environment that was conducive to learning.
2. The instructor presented materials in a clear and well-organized manner.
3. The instructor was available to help students succeed in the course.
4. The instructor provided helpful  feedback on coursework.
5. Overall, the instructor was highly effective in teaching the course.

What  are  some things you like about the course? (open response)

What  can  the  instructor   do  to  improve  the  course? (open response)