Well, welcome to the faculty. The October Faculty Senate meeting and a special welcome. >> We have first time in my memory for awhile, we actually have two undergraduate representatives here. So welcome to the two of you and to graduate representatives here, I believe are 111 graduate represented here to to graduate. >> So around around and welcome for our first item of business is the adoption of adoption of the agenda. >> Entertain a motion in that regard. >> Second. >> All in favor, please raise your cards and emotion passes. >> Any questions on the minutes? >> Hearing? None. I'll entertain a motion for the approval of the minutes. >> Second. >> And all in favor, please raise your cards. And we have remarks from Provost Apple. >> Thank you, Jeff. >> You know, every now and then something happens here at the university. It makes me incredibly excited. And last year it was that one of our faculty won the Nobel Prize this year. It was some data that I got from one of our faculty members showing the performance of our students in the educational proficiency profile. So let me give you a little background, and I'm not an educational researcher, but I'll tell you that we took, we did an exam with our students using when I'm told were representative numbers and representative makeups of our freshmen and seniors last December. The test was administered by Educational Testing Services and it's called the educational proficiency profile. And it measures our students abilities and four general areas. >> Reading, writing, quantitative reasoning, and critical thinking. >> And there are various proficiency levels in each of these four areas. >> There are three in each, except for the reading where there's only two. So there's 11 total levels of proficiency. Level one being the, let's say the easiest level to harder and level three, hardest of all. And what I'm going to show you is to slide. The first is the performance of our freshman in this test against we're comparing ourselves. Where in the yellow and the blue is the average of research one universities across the country. Again, this was administered by ETS and a compared us to all the other research one universities. >> And as you can see, for our freshmen, we do pretty well, but it's kinda mixed or better in general at level one attainment. >> So almost 60% of our freshman attain Level one In reading. 23% reach level two and so on. >> And we tend to be, we do pretty well in the level ones. >> We're little bit bind and the quantitative reasoning but do pretty well. >> But we're, we're below in level two there in writing. >> This was good to see our freshmen write better than The average at other research one universities, we're a little behind in level three on both math and critical thinking, little behind. >> And level two, what we perform probably a little bit better. >> We grayed out at that may be a B at the freshman level. Now, well, I'm going to show you is and also random statistically relevant sample of our seniors against that same research one, group k. So you've seen this, look what happens if I can get to the next slide. This to me is nothing short of stunning. We're better in every single level. And by the way, there's a lot of space. >> And these bars, Think about that. >> By the way, this isn't showing that our students learn a lot here just as a baseline, it shows they learn a lot more, a lot more in comparison to the learning that happens at research one universities on average. This is stunning. I wish the editor of the New York Times, We're here, to be honest. I wish I'd like to and I'm going to think about seeing if we can put this on the front page of our our website in the admissions site, come to Udi and learn. And it's amazing. >> And by the way, what they're measuring in things like this is some pretty higher level math and some pretty high level critical thinking. So they're checking writing abilities at a pretty high level. >> We're getting like a fifth of our students getting up to level three. >> And it's like 105th, two-fifths and four-fifths in general in these things. >> And you know, there's some pretty good schools in here. >> There's some IVs in here. There's some major schools of the UC system and everything. This is research, one university average, and this is our students compared to that average. So this is pretty amazing. I should tell you that we're also using AAC and new data to look at absolute gains in various, what they call meter rubrics of quantitative reasoning, critical thinking, and so on. Well, we don't have, there's a control group, but the learning gains there was impressive. That work is ongoing and it actually is going to be published because it's part of a research study here. It's also impressive the learning. But we don't have a, a standard to measure against yet because we're one of the few schools doing that. But I just had to show you their site. I am just this made my, It'll make my year. This is amazing. And guess who's doing this? You guys are doing this. This is really something, something we have some special sauce here at the University of Delaware. I, I tend to think it's the great engagement of our students, whether it's in doing problem-based learning or haven't great discussion sections, we do know we have a lot more smaller classes. We've looked at that in comparison to some of our peer and aspirin groups like Maryland, Penn State, Rutgers, UVA, UNC Chapel Hill, and places like that. But we're doing something that's really good. >> You know, I can't tell you exactly what the, what the magic is. >> Is it the fact that we have so much study abroad? >> Undergrad research, service learning >> We do a lot of writing. We're doing more writing. >> I don't know, but this is, this is amazing and I'm really excited about it now. I hope that doesn't make everybody's got, so provost has always up here talking about writing. Looks like we don't need to do anything. We can't rest on our laurels just because we're the best. And I think I can say that right now based on this data, since we're the best if we stay still, people catches. So let's not let him catches. And so now I'm going to try to put up and tell you about our writing contest and encourage you to encourage your students to partake in these. So we're starting at an excellence and writing contest, set of competitions. >> There's four of these. >> We're going to have a deadline that's rapidly approaching, is on the seventh of October. >> We have the no apathy is the theme on the 2012 campaign. >> And this is being sponsored by the Center for political communication, co-sponsored by us also in the Office of the Provost. >> We're trying to build political literacy. >> And we're asking students to do a short essay, something that could be in an op-ed, should be a newspaper style up at, and that'll be, we have a group of faculty and the Center for political communication who is going to judge that competition. And we award some nice prizes and get some notoriety from that. >> We already had Avron is in the audience here. We've already done the first-year experience contest. >> We had 67 submissions, which is a very good number on the, on the book The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks the Rebeca salute. >> The author is going to be her October 13th, and we're hoping to then make the awards at that at that time. >> So there'll be some public recognition of the students when she is here. >> And we also have a, a member of Locke's family, I think. Is it right to where we have another one in mid-July, mid November, we're going to call the shortest for you these brightest. >> This is a quick essay, kind of the equivalent of an elevator, elevator speech, uh, 100 word contest that we're actually going to a judge in the administration building because it's about how can we build the university and make it a more vibrant community? How can we have more civic engagement, those kinds of things? How can we increase intellectual engagement? And then in the Spring, we don't have it on this poster, but in the spring we're going to have a contest about writing about science and engineering details to come. But that's going to be one focused on, on stem and writing in the, in the sciences. So I hope you're all excited by that to go to u del.edu slash writing. >> There'll be links there that it'll get you around to, to all the others. >> But please direct your students to that and encourage them to submit their their writing. >> I think We can try to, what we're trying to do with this is get students really interested in writing and understand how important communication is. >> And in anticipation of your, of your questions, I'd also like to add, as we go and do this and future years, start to think about presentations and oral communication as well. And for my friends in the art department to visual communication as well. So I'm very excited about this, but I wanted to share those two things with you. I think we're really doing something amazing here at the university. And I thank you for that because it's the faculty who do that. And with that, I'll answer any questions. And by the way, they can be about anything, anything even President Harker spoke about. >> John. >> Yeah. Thank you. >> I was really impressed with the bar graphs. And I have a question and a suggestion. >> One, The question is, when in the freshman year presents tests given both are given into some in December yesterday. So we're measuring some combination than they've been here a few months or and, and, and then three years later as Sr. Alright? >> Okay, and the other comment is it would be good to look not just at averages, but at similar bar graphs for our neighboring institutions, which we regard as our primary competitors and indeed our aspirational peers. And those data are certainly worth looking at. And they, such specific peer-to-peer comparisons might be worth posting on the website. >> And I assume again that we're we've access to that from ETFs, but I don't know that for sure. >> Would would I don't know if our data is shared, for example, with other universities or not, or whether we can just see in average, I don't know that, but I'll fund it. >> It's a good idea. >> Okay. Well, thank you. >> Announcements. >> Those are your new this meeting, this last meeting. >> Be sure to check your card there. Any corrections, be sure to turn those in. >> If you're if you're to miss a meeting, be sure to contact Karen on that guiding principles we talked about last time, the important announcement. There'll be an open hearing this week in October. >> The 24th location will be announced, but October 243 to five, probably one of the big smith hall rooms, perhaps the big Cornell room. It'll be on the pilot program beginning fall proposal to begin Fall of 2013, modifying the Monday, Wednesday, Friday cycle to a Monday, Wednesday 75 minutes cycle to parallel the Tuesday, Thursday cycle, retaining the option to have 50 minute classes on Monday, Wednesday, Friday in the mornings. But but having Friday afternoons open first common time for department meetings, speakers, laboratories. So we, we anticipate this will generate a lot of interest. >> We're gonna open the meeting up to students as well as faculty. So keep that in mind. I had thought we would do the P and T proposal and Scheduling proposal in the same combine them into one open hearing, but I was told to expect a lot of interest in the scheduling, and so it wouldn't make sense to move to a bigger venue and limit talk limit discussion on scheduling to an hour. So we'll spend two hours this month discussing scheduling and talk about P and T revisions, proposed revisions in November. In November, we'll have a report from Tom Vento on the RGB committee will start to see revisions to the handbook compiled by John Madsen in November. Also anticipate these are items we discuss last time. >> Here's where current business stands in the committee structure, the Senate. We had a resolution introduced last spring about 610 rural introduced by centred Morrison that's currently at the Rules Committee. Centered remorse. And also ask for review of drop add policy, whether our dropout policy are where there are drop add date occurred too late in the semester, wanted to move it closer to a semester. And that's that's currently at UTS and and graduate studies. >> In fact, I believe U gs is taking that item up. I think this week even that right. >> We had a resolution by Senator Morgan at the last meeting to amend the UD faculty constitution to increase the number of senators, elected senators to 60 from current. The current number is 50 that's currently at Rules Committee. Professor Morgan had it centered. >> Morgan had a second amendment at the last meeting to amend the Constitution to add certain requirements governing college elections. A Faculty Senate that's also at the Rules Committee. The resolution will have the open hearing on the 24th that's currently in front of you, GS graduate studies and the Coordinating Committee's there's also a resolution from the ad hoc calendar committee on no regularly scheduled Saturday finals during the regular semester. >> This is not winter session nor summer school during the regular semester, it's being discussed at undergrad studies, grad studies, and Coordinating Committee. >> And I expect that will be on you'll see that on the agenda in November, perhaps December finally, of probably in November, we'll have interesting issue whether to allow ASL, American Sign Language, to count for Udi admissions. >> It's currently under discussion at UTS. I expect probably a vote from that committee this week, you think fragments from this Wednesday from there to go to coordinating committee and then to executive committee. Last week we had an open hearing in this room on that issue. >> I expected expected to fill a room. >> Interesting topic. >> We had about 50 I think I had to attend part of my duties. >> And that's the way I looked at it. >> But then I found myself as I sat there and listened to the debate. And it really was a debate. >> It was really interesting. >> And I did not see it as a waste of time. >> We had people from both sides of the issue passionately, informatively arguing, debating. It was actually quite interesting. >> So as senators, I invite you to attend the open hearings. >> We have couple of interesting coming and so keep those in mind. >> We had an issue bubble up in the College of Education concerning some software, believe is perhaps case software, software that's installed for security purposes. In principle, this software can be used for surveillance, remote keystrokes, or valence. >> Concern about this issue, it turns out that we have a Faculty Senate Committee as the veterans among you are aware there are some committees. >> When you get the call, would you like to serve on this committee? >> Not to pick on Fred, but undergrad, that's a committee that really does a lot of work. Three or four years ago, five years ago when I was approached about chairing that committee, it took four or five phone calls before I finally said yes because that when does a lot of work. Some committees don't do a lot of work. >> We actually have a committee entitled The Instructional Computing and research support committee. >> And as far as I know, it typically doesn't do a lot of work. It's actually going to do work this year. >> It's been tasked with investigating this concern about the case software. >> When it first came to my attention a week two weeks ago, I was I was quite interested in it having I don't have all the facts at hand and this committee certainly going to look into it. But it's not at all clear to me that it's a great concern from the investigation, small investigation I've done. >> Finally, I want to thank Fred Hofstetter Hofstetter and Sheldon ******* for the open hearing. >> This, this past month, I thought was quite successful. >> And I thank them for their work on that. >> We have two ports. >> The Chair of our ad hoc committee, and I think I may have just X out instead of minimizing it. >> So you'll need to come down, karen, your Bush will come and give us a report on that. >> And following that, Jack Brody will come and talk to us about the P and T revisions. >> Okay. So let's start for you that are new and maybe not send again reminder what the charge of our committee was. It was to look at classroom utilization and to review weekly and yearly issues, and to consider ways to maximize the use of classroom space, especially during off hours. That was the charge of our committee. Here again, are the members of our committee. And we had the first meeting on May tenth of 2010. And our work consisted in, together with the Office of righteous, try to analyze classroom utilization and propose to new meeting patterns that we call option a and option B. We conducted a faculty survey and administrator survey and a student survey with options a, B, and a current meeting pattern. And we presented the results of the work of our committee three times here so far. So the big problem that we found was that there is, apart from the fact that rooms are under US during off-peak hours, eight o'clock or in the late afternoon. One of the problems that we found is that there's an imbalance between Monday, Wednesday, Friday, room utilization, and Tuesday, Thursday. >> And this is an example from the fall semester of 2009. >> So usage Monday, Wednesday, Friday, with a 7888% percent on Tuesday, Thursday. Just to remind you of the current meeting pattern here. As the current meeting pattern, we have Monday, Wednesday, Friday for 50 minutes, and then we have Tuesday, Thursday for 75 minutes. Again, the results in the survey for faculty and students were very similar to current mirror meeting pattern was not a popular. The options a and B, we're almost equally popular. There was a slight preference for option B, and the differences between the two options, a and B, are relatively small. The main difference is that in option pay AP classes, we'd start half an hour later. We thought that we could resolve maybe the problem with the eight o'clock in the morning that nobody wants to teach at eight o'clock, if you push it to 830, that might make the first period more appealing. So that was the idea behind it. Otherwise, options a and B are very similar in that they provide 375 minute class Meeting periods on Monday and Wednesday afternoon. As Jeff already you summarized everything I don't have to do and think and you mama so so our committee's recommendation is to implement a modified option, a provisional basis modified option. I'm going to talk about what do we mean little modified compare to the, what we proposed in the surveys? It's only a very small, small modification. So we recommend the adoption of option a for 3-year period. And and then let's see how it worked. >> Maybe in 2015. >> And this is now what we are proposing. >> As you can see, the biggest difference here is that there are on Monday, Wednesday, additional 75 minute periods, and Friday, we are going to be talking about a general classrooms. Friday after 20-30 is open for special events. And we also the the scheduling office, one that a lot of flexibility. What for example, for our department, we have a lot of 50-minute courses, many 100 level language courses. So we could even use Monday, Monday, Wednesday. We use 50 minutes instead of 75 minutes. So we thought that this model would give the scheduling office maximum of flexibility and two additional Tuesday, Thursday spots and makes so to make their life easier. That's the entire thinking. That's the end of my presentation. Please feel free to ask questions subject to this open hearing vote. Right. This will be the topic for the open hearing. So it's not a really a fait accompli until that. Yes, you're right. This body has to bow whether or not to adopt the program implemented? >> Yes. >> You're just briefly describe why the 30 option was not as we thought it would be too much of a hassle to change too two things at the same time to additional additional 75 minutes spots and start later. So we wanted to see if the option a resolves the problem. And we were also afraid that maybe the eighth entity might become the new ate and it wouldn't be accepted even and I know they're contradicting articles about this. There was an article in the student paper, right? Students sign up for eight o'clock classes on what you've got more motivated and whatever pedal, pedal results. Or maybe it's not so bad if we start at eight o'clock. I know it doesn't doesn't like to get up to the other reasons why we decided not to recommend option B initially is that there were strong objections raised by the music department and also the athletic department. >> They felt that this would have some very drastic impact on some of their activities. >> And so we didn't want to cause them acute difficulties if we didn't have to. Thank your John, Yeah, that was a very, very important consideration because in the sea obeys from faculty, it was not just like answer discrete questions, but there was also a space for comments. And we saw that, especially the music department, who is very much opposed to option B because they have a lot of their own rooms and they, they have a very packed schedule for their students and give are afraid that if we start late, I wouldn't run into a lot of problems also with laid our width, rehearsals, concerts, and everything. >> If we push it further in the afternoon back to Coase learner, where typically our classrooms run from six to nine. And a lot of our classrooms are actually taken up by getting outside of the other platform to help, you know, especially in the case we have any consideration given to the fact that at the end that fixed 0.5 when things happen gradually. >> Question held Monday through Thursday from most as well. My suspicion is that the five I will have to be very popular for putting people into certain times. So you have to see what the continents, if they, if they help to spread out more evenly throughout the day by my my, my this spiteful or stolen. >> But I think that raises issues affect apartments into several things there regardless of what common exam that's out at 05:00 PM, complex with every sensor has its independence in some areas. So I guess even if we're documenting these things, do we have any mechanisms to try that? >> Disciplinary unrelated things whenever they see every, every semester that you get as titling office or that understanding offers an important language messages that we have to change our our schedules because they ran out of time times on Tuesday, Thursday. >> So yeah. >> But it's individually, it's it's an IUD tedious process. He doesn't have a lot of personal banana and trying to negotiate basically with this happening officers to help them out. >> It helped me. >> Can't you push that force to that time? I still have space at that time. That's that's usually happen for and yeah, discipline from the department. It would probably be much easier if I just had to. This is just a undergraduate courses as well. But again, it has nothing to do with courses. It is poor rooms. Thanks to the way you can start your courses no matter whether they're writing it on a pregnant. >> We in our department, we scheduled courses also during the day when I was a graduate course professional cell. And they go after six regions. These don't fit thing that I think no. >> Yeah. Basically has no. Yes. Yeah. The whole force yesterday with youth at 355 minute or minute slot committee actually considered absolutely. >> I think the wording that the most recent was this sketch for applies only to courses that meet two or three times a week. And if you have courses that meet in the evening One day, we those are just completely separate. >> And as long as you can find a room available, which you should be able to do in the evening. >> You can schedule it whenever you want, right. From 630 to 930 or seven to Dan, or five-day Aid or, you know, whatever suits the schedules of your students who have regular day jobs is fine with us, right? I mean, this is only we're trying we're trying to address here is the heavy congestion in the scheduling of classrooms in the peak periods, like between nine in the morning and three in the afternoon, five days week. >> Thank you, John. It's ideal to reduce the number of 50-minute sessions because there was lower demand and create more 75 minute sessions so that we can take some of the stars and move them early afternoon. And that way you can really pressure. So this has more 75 minutes sessions compared to the typical schedule that we have right now. So that was the plan. I don't think we realized that it doesn't really affect graduate classes because six to nine is what we call low or medium demand period anyway. So I didn't clash. It was to the undergraduate classes. >> That's the baby. >> John, Yeah, I'd like to since the senator from music raised the issue of common exams being scheduled like from five to seven. >> Woodwind say's right. If once teaching these large lecture courses, which typically have enrollments of hundreds of students, I think that it's really essential to have common exams for most of that and yell. And it's very hard to find any time on a Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday, which doesn't conflict with some other course because the university teaches from eight in the morning until ten evening, right? Officially, there are no course is scheduled at university after five o'clock on Fridays. And when I was teaching a large physics course several years ago, I used the five to seven slot or my common exams, which was not popular with my students. Another time that has been used in the past is Saturday morning, which is sometimes used by the chemistry department. >> And I think that at this open hearing we maybe ought to look at the issue of the scheduling of comedy exams and find out whether it we should get away from scheduling them on Wednesdays and Thursdays, the more toward the weekends. >> Because after all, almost everybody taking these courses has taken them because they have to write everything. >> Keep in mind, we'll have an open hearing on this issue on the 24th and we're not we're not acting on it today. >> Second Report, Jeff Brody on continued straight privilege. >> Jeff asked me to take the SAT and where we are in the P and T changes that were probably receive the proposal for the changes last year, last senate meeting. I I'll take responsibility. I misunderstood 1 with the union and the CVA. So we call that we met with the union and with Nancy from the provost's office last week. I believe that we're now fully in agreement with the CBA. >> We're in compliance with the CVA. >> And so Jeff has asked that we do another open hearing just so that can be fully vetted by the fact that they address any questions or concerns. Just 1 that I'll make safe. Ask questions. >> Are they happy answer? >> There's one area that I think will be controversial, that we actually need a lot of input and feedback on the committee that's been rubbed. I've been looking at changes to p and t document as sense in the under the current CBA. And then in the current changes to the handbook promotion on, on excellence in teaching to Chenier of or to full professor with tenure is completely possible. >> And so and are the committee's view, we believe that any claim of excellence, whether it's Excellence in Research for excellence in teaching, should require an external review. So wherever pose initially had external review for a case where there is excellence in teaching claimed we. Now that's controversial. >> So clearly this is the body that's going to make that final determination. So keep that in mind. That's something that we expect to get a lot of feedback on. And as the proposal would actually come to the Senate hopefully in December, the but how we would do it is we would word it has two choices and you can bovine either choice. So they are really what's the will of the senate was to build the faculty unless we have our opinion from having examined a lot of dossiers and, and the passion. >> We saw several people caught up on excellence in teaching. >> And they all had external reviews of their dossier. >> And it was very, it was actually a very thorough review. >> So people have said it's not possible, we suggest it's highly possible, but we understand some people disagree and that's what the senate and debate as all balanced out. >> Any questions I can answer quickly. >> Well, if I use quickly Oh, that's great. Thank you. >> We have no no items on the consent agenda. >> Let's move down to our regular agenda. We have two resolutions under unfinished business. >> The first is a recommendation from the Executive Committee with the concurrence of the rules committee to amend the constitution for the UD faculty. What this would do is remove a requirement that we hold a regularly scheduled Faculty Senate meeting during the month of January to passes. >> It will take a two-thirds positive vote. And so I'm hoping Karen has aren't numbers in hand questions on this resolution? Discussion on this resolution. >> As we draw close to five, we have a nudge. It's called I should actually to call the question as that cuts off debate requires itself a two-thirds vote. >> So how about we do this carry no. >> Here he no questions. >> Discussion. >> Let's move to a vote. >> All in favor of this resolution, show by racing car all those against this resolution by the same side basically and chair rules that it passes Willis and people who didn't raise your cards. >> So there were some who didn't didn't vote our second resolution. >> It's a recommendation from the exact or parliamentarian said it was unanimous. >> But actually I saw some cards not raised. So there were some who thought object recommendation from the executive committee of the faculty senate with the concurrence of the rules committee. >> This is to modify the faculty handbook, which is a different document from from the constitution. >> The effect of this resolution would remove January as irregular meeting month of the Faculty Senate and no longer require the meeting to be the first Monday of the month, sometimes because of holidays or sometimes because of President Harker schedule. It's not always the first Monday of the month. >> Discussion questions, comments on this resolution? Hearing? None. >> Let's move to vote. >> All in favor of this resolution, please raise your cart. >> Thank you. >> All those opposed and chair rules that it passes under new business. >> We have our confirmation of appointments. Cocaine is put together. >> Jack Brody's our chair of coconuts, but together our slate of committee membership. >> Any questions, comments on this? >> And this needs a this needs a motion to approve or does it come coming from committee? It doesn't require emotion. >> Yeah. >> I don't think I think coming from committee, it doesn't require any comments, questions, hearing none. >> Let's move to the vote. >> All in favor of adopting the slave membership, please raise your card and chair rules that That's late as approved. >> Let's move to introduction of new business. >> Keep in mind, items introduced under new business cannot be acted on at this meeting. >> It would they would be acted on at a future meeting. >> Do any senators have items to introduce seen none. >> Chair will entertain a motion to adjourn a second and please vote with your feet.
2011-2012/facsen-20111003.mp3
From Joseph Dombroski May 06, 2020
0 plays
0
0 comments
0
You unliked the media.