Vice-Chair Fulgham called the meeting to order at 4:10 p.m. on Tuesday, March 9, 2004, in Nelson Hall East, Room 102 (Goodwin Forum).

Members Present: Butler, Cheyne, Derden, Dixon, Dunk, Fulgham, Green, Klein, Knox, Kornreich, Marshall, Meiggs, Moyer, Oliver, O’Rourke-Andrews, Paselk, Paynton, Schwab, Shellhase, Sonntag, Varkey, Vrem, Wieand, Yarnall.

Members Absent: Coffey, Dalsant, Fonseca, MacConnie, Mullery, Newsom, Platin, Richmond, Sanford, Snyder, Stamps, Thobaben.

Proxies: Meiggs for Paynton (1st half of meeting), Meiggs for Mullery, Knox for Dalsant.

Guests: Shawn MacDuff (University Budget Office), Steve Smith (NRS), Linda Phillips (Registrar), Val Phillips (AHSS), Bill Cannon (ITS), Sue Woodstra (Athletics).

1. Approval of Minutes

It was moved and seconded (Klein/Cheyne) to approve the minutes of February 24, 2004. Voting occurred and MOTION PASSED.

2. Announcements and Communications

CFA Chapter President Meiggs announced that the local CFA Chapter’s computer was hacked and the address book, including the database of volunteers to write letters, was deleted. They are starting over with compiling the list of volunteers. Senators were asked to fill out the forms distributed at the meeting and to participate in writing letters to Senator Chesbro and Assemblywoman Berg, asking them to support full funding for the CSU. Stationary and envelopes will be supplied. Meiggs requested that forms be filled out and returned to her at the end of the meeting. Senators may choose to identify themselves as affiliated with Humboldt and/or use their home address.

Vice-Chair Fulgham announced the following:

The next Senate meeting will be March 30. The next Senate Executive Committee meeting will be March 23.

Budget Summit attendees from the Academic Senate include MacConnie, Newsom, Richmond, Snyder, and Thobaben.

President Richmond approved the Senate’s Resolution Recommending the Faculty Athletic Representative to Check Cal Poly Humboldt Grade Point Averages for Student Athletes at the Beginning of Both the Fall and Spring Terms (#12-03/04-SA).

The University Budget Committee will meet on Friday, March 26, 3-5 p.m.

3. Committee Report

s

Student Affairs: Nominations are due this Friday for the outstanding student awards. The Diversity Conference this past weekend was very well-attended, with more than 150 people at the opening session. The men’s basketball team will be playing in the regional tournament on Friday. The team is seeded 3rd out of 8 teams.

Educational Policies Committee: The Committee has a resolution on the agenda today. They have also been discussing the possibility of double counting institutional requirements.

University Curriculum Committee: Senator Knox reported for Senator Dalsant. A number of GE proposals are coming forward from UCC subcommittees and work is being done on looking at assessment areas.

Academic Affairs: One piece of good news regarding summer term is that the local CFA and Administration have come to agreement on summer operation. It is still being negotiated at the system level. It is possible that there may be an answer by the end of the day.

There was a question regarding salary savings. There has not been a recommendation from the OAA Budget Committee yet to the Dean, and there has been no recommendation to Provost’s Council yet. The OAA Budget Committee is in the process of developing a budget policy for OAA, and salary savings has been discussed. No conclusions have been reached yet.

The question was raised as to when the summer schedule will be out for students. It will be out with the Fall schedule, on April 1, when it normally comes out. At this point it is not known if Extended Education will have the classes put together for the schedule by that time, or if they will have to produce an additional schedule.

Has any thought been given to more rigorous, focused advertising for summer session, since many students might be assuming there will be no summer session and be making other plans? Once closure is reached, an announcement will be made to campus. There have been preliminary discussions with community relations. The concern is understood and noted.

Student Affairs Committee: The Committee has a resolution on the agenda today.

CFA: Nothing has been heard yet regarding the golden handshake. The governor may be looking at it a little more seriously now since Proposition 57 passed. CFA is hoping to hear something soon.

Faculty Affairs Committee: The Committee has accepted Proposal G as a recommendation and begun to develop a draft example of the Professional Development Plan and discuss associated changes to Appendix J of the Faculty Handbook and the Personnel Data Sheet. The Pathways of Review has been dropped from future consideration.

4. Resolution on On-Line Course Evaluations (#13-03/04-EP)

It was moved and seconded (Knox/Varkey) to place the resolution on the floor.

WHEREAS, The Academic Senate of Cal Poly Humboldt recognizes the important of maintaining the integrity of data used in class development and improvement and in the Retention, Tenure and Promotion process, and

WHEREAS, The Academic Senate of Cal Poly Humboldt recognizes the importance of maintaining student evaluations in a secure environment, in which each student can submit one and only one anonymous course evaluation, and

WHEREAS, the September 2002 ad hoc committee recommended to the Joint Council

in their report on the Future of Optical Scanning of Course Evaluations and Grade Reports that a) “a coercive approach to increasing student participation in the use of on-line instructor and course evaluations should not be used. (p.3),” and that “Tenured, full professors should be encouraged to use the on-line system. Because they are not in the midst of the RTP process, they can be used to build an experience base of what works and does not … (p. 4),” and

WHEREAS, Professors Rice and van Duzer have performed a preliminary study involving the quality of the data provided on-line course evaluations, and

WHEREAS, This study indicated that student response rates in on-line evaluations were poor when the release of student’s grades were not contingent upon completing an evaluation, and

WHEREAS, The results of student course evaluations are identified in Appendix J as a critical element of evidence of teaching effectiveness and thus play a central role in the Retention, Tenure and Promotion process, be it therefore

RESOLVED, That to ensure fairness, completeness and accuracy, The Academic Senate of Cal Poly Humboldt recommends that further study of methods of on-line student evaluations over a representative sample of University courses be completed before the results of such evaluations can be required for purposes of Retention, Tenure, Promotion or temporary faculty reappointment; and be it further

RESOLVED, That this study is also required before on-line evaluations can be made mandatory for the purposes of class development and improvement; and be it further

RESOLVED, That an ad hoc committee shall be appointed by the Chair of the Academic Senate and the Vice President of Academic Affairs to complete a study of on-line course evaluations by the end of fall semester 2004; and be it further

RESOLVED, That this study shall identify procedures which meet the following criteria:

1. Response rates shall be shown to not differ significantly from the response rates of written evaluations without making the reporting of grades contingent on the submission of evaluation
2. Students shall in no way be rewarded or punished for participation or non-participation in evaluations
3. The distribution of responses to quantitative evaluation items must be shown to not differ significantly from that of identical written items for the same class and instructor in a representative sample
4. Security measures must be shown to ensure that each student in the course can submit no more than one evaluation, and that students not enrolled in a course cannot submit evaluations, and that no student can submit an evaluation for another student
5. Anonymity of responses must be maintained when they are reported to department staff and faculty
6. Students must have sufficient time to complete their evaluations, but in no case shall a student be permitted to evaluate a course after the due date for grades
7. The use of instructional time by the evaluation process shall not on average exceed 30 minutes.

The resolution comes forward as a result of discussions in several different forums about using an on-line method for course evaluations. There have been problems noted, specifically in terms of response rates, and questions raised about the quality of the data that is being returned. A particular concern of the Committee is the use of on-line course evaluation data in the retention, tenure and promotion (RTP) process. The resolution identifies issues and concerns, and suggests that an ad hoc committee be created to develop criteria for the use of on-line evaluations and that until the quality of the data can be addressed, the data should not be used for the RTP process.

Discussion:

A friendly amendment was offered to change the wording in the first Whereas to:

WHEREAS, The Academic Senate of Cal Poly Humboldt recognizes the importance of maintaining the integrity of data used in class development and improvement, in the Retention, Tenure and Promotion process, and temporary faculty reappointment, and

The amendment was not considered friendly. It was moved and seconded (Dunk/Cheyne) to amend the resolution as stated above. It was clarified that there is a comma following “class development and improvement” and the earlier objection was withdrawn. The amendment was accepted as friendly.

Discussion:

• § Why is a further study needed? Is it possible to go another direction and focus on ways to increase student participation in on-line course evaluations?
• § The purpose of the ad hoc committee is specifically to study methods of on-line student evaluations. The study will collect information to help identify procedures that will help to make on-line course evaluations work more effectively. There are known problems, and work needs to be done on solving those problems.
• § Concern was expressed about not being able to reward or punish students for participation, as stated in the fourth resolve, #2). It was mentioned that the current policy in one department does not include rewards or punishment. Technically, it would possible to have students “opt out”. There are a number of models discussed in the literature that use ways to increase response rate without rewards or punishments.
• § A clarification was requested concerning the fourth resolve, #3): Does this mean the same class, at the same time, split 50/50? The ad hoc committee will determine, but it would be preferable to have the same class.
• § Has the committee looked at response rates on other campuses? Generally, campuses with higher response rates are using a process that manages students access in some way. The main concern right now about using data for the RTP process and the data is not reliable.

Voting on the motion to approve the resolution as amended occurred. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

The revised resolution reads:

WHEREAS, The Academic Senate of Cal Poly Humboldt recognizes the importance of maintaining the integrity of data used in class development and improvement, in the Retention, Tenure and Promotion process, and temporary faculty reappointment, and

WHEREAS, The Academic Senate of Cal Poly Humboldt recognizes the importance of maintaining student evaluations in a secure environment, in which each student can submit one and only one anonymous course evaluation, and

WHEREAS, the September 2002 ad hoc committee recommended to the Joint Council

in their report on the Future of Optical Scanning of Course Evaluations and Grade Reports that a) “a coercive approach to increasing student participation in the use of on-line instructor and course evaluations should not be used. (p.3),” and that “Tenured, full professors should be encouraged to use the on-line system. Because they are not in the midst of the RTP process, they can be used to build an experience base of what works and does not … (p. 4),” and

WHEREAS, Professors Rice and van Duzer have performed a preliminary study involving the quality of the data provided on-line course evaluations, and

WHEREAS, This study indicated that student response rates in on-line evaluations were poor when the release of student’s grades were not contingent upon completing an evaluation, and

WHEREAS, The results of student course evaluations are identified in Appendix J as a critical element of evidence of teaching effectiveness and thus play a central role in the Retention, Tenure and Promotion process, be it therefore

RESOLVED, That to ensure fairness, completeness and accuracy, The Academic Senate of Cal Poly Humboldt recommends that further study of methods of on-line student evaluations over a representative sample of University courses be completed before the results of such evaluations can be required for purposes of Retention, Tenure, Promotion or temporary faculty reappointment; and be it further

RESOLVED, That this study is also required before on-line evaluations can be made mandatory for the purposes of class development and improvement; and be it further

RESOLVED, That an ad hoc committee shall be appointed by the Chair of the Academic Senate and the Vice President of Academic Affairs to complete a study of on-line course evaluations by the end of fall semester 2004; and be it further

RESOLVED, That this study shall identify procedures which meet the following criteria:

1. Response rates shall be shown to not differ significantly from the response rates of written evaluations without making the reporting of grades contingent on the submission of evaluation
2. Students shall in no way be rewarded or punished for participation or non-participation in evaluations
3. The distribution of responses to quantitative evaluation items must be shown to not differ significantly from that of identical written items for the same class and instructor in a representative sample
4. Security measures must be shown to ensure that each student in the course can submit no more than one evaluation, and that students not enrolled in a course cannot submit evaluations, and that no student can submit an evaluation for another student
5. Anonymity of responses must be maintained when they are reported to department staff and faculty
6. Students must have sufficient time to complete their evaluations, but in no case shall a student be permitted to evaluate a course after the due date for grades
7. The use of instructional time by the evaluation process shall not on average exceed 30 minutes.

5. Resolution for Initiating Early Registration for Students Engaged in Officially Recognized University Activities (#14-03/04-SA)

It was moved and seconded (Klein/Mortazavi) to place the resolution on the floor. It was noted that Linda Phillips, Enrollment Management, is present to answer questions about implementation.

Whereas, It is the goal of Cal Poly Humboldt to foster an environment that strives to maintain the highest standards of academic achievement; and

Whereas, On occasion, student travel is required for official course requirements or University business that equals or exceeds 20% of their total on-campus time in a semester; and

Whereas, Such significant required travel often leads to conflict and hardship with other course offerings, missed classes or the inability to fully participate in their officially recognized University activity; and

Whereas, Those classes could avoid being missed if students, engaged in officially recognized University activities, were able to choose with certainty other options for the same course, allowing for better coordination with required obligations and travel time; therefore be it

Resolved, That the Academic Senate of Cal Poly Humboldt endorses early registration being offered to students meeting the above criteria, making it available to all students whose time away from campus for officially recognized University activities equals or exceeds 20% of their total on-campus time for a semester; and be it further resolved

Resolved, That the Registrar will assist in establishing procedures to facilitate this early registration, to be implemented in the earliest term possible.

Discussion:

• § The resolution can not be supported as it is currently written. More numbers are needed, for example, how many students would be involved in early registration? 20% of a normal load may be only 3 hours a week, which is a very minor amount to get priority registration.
• § Few student athletes would qualify under this, since travel time does not usually conflict with classes. Practice times are more problematic, due to shortage of practice facilities. Early registration would help in some cases.
• § Additional concern was expressed about the 20% threshold. Without any numbers, it is difficult to support the resolution as it is written. If number of students who are eligible is too large, it is possible that some students may be denied opportunities, especially seniors who want to graduate on time.
• § It was clarified that this applies to courses where there are multiple sections to choose from.
• § Part of the reason that this has been brought forward is a general concern that students are not being accommodated when classes have to be missed. This includes Forensics, Associated Students, Athletics, etc. Some faculty do not want to be told that they have to accommodate students who need to miss class. So if students are not going to be accommodated, at least let students have an option to schedule classes around their official university activity, so they won’t have to miss as much class time and/or provide something more definitive in the Faculty Handbook that allows eligible students to miss classes without repercussions.
• § It was clarified that the 20% threshold was conceived of in terms of days per semester (not hours).
• § Is there any idea of the percentage of professors that will not accommodate students? There may be differences between disciplines, and it may not be a problem in all areas. How many classes take attendance? Is there other data than anecdotal evidence?
• § This was initially looked at in terms of athletes, and it was estimated that about 150 athletes a semester would be participating in early registration (at the most). An additional problem of student athletes not being able to compete during final exams, if the competition conflicted with a scheduled final exam, was noted.
• § There are a number of ways to approach the issue. The Student Affairs Committee estimated that about 250 students per semester would be eligible for early registration, including athletes, Associated Students, and others that could be identified. Some activities require travel and some don’t, so the current version of the resolution was written to try to cover the broadest spectrum of students (the 250 estimate). It attempts to encompass as many students as possible, not just the students that have to be registered in coursework, such as the Associated Students who may or may not be registered in Leadership Studies.
• § There is the capacity to implement the resolution. Currently there is no priority registration except for disabled students, and those students are designated by the Disabled Students Office. This also includes students with learning disabilities. Learning disabilities are determined based on an assessment.
• § Concerns about the policy were expressed, specifically that a responsible person(s) needs to be designated to decided who the eligible students are. It needs to be someone at a level that would have the authority to make the decision. Each semester eligibility would change and have to be monitored.
• § It was noted that the concern about final exams would not be addressed by this resolution. The language could be modified or another resolution could be introduced to address that issue.

Vice-Chair Fulgham asked the following questions of the Senate. 1) Is there a consensus that we want to move forward with this? 2) If a procedure and a process is identified, and numbers are provided, including the number of students who would be affected, is there support for early registration? Then, a straw vote on the concept of early registration was taken.

14 supported the concept of early registration.

2 did not support the concept.

5 were undecided.

It was moved and seconded (Dixon/Varkey) that the resolution be tabled and sent back to Student Affairs to be re-worded and clarified (e.g., to identify 20% threshold in terms of days rather than hours), and brought back to the next Senate meeting on March 30, 2004, with data on the numbers and categories of students that will be involved.

Voting occurred and PASSED WITH ONE NO VOTE.

It was moved and seconded (Derden/Paselk) to adjourn. Meeting adjourned at 5:50 p.m