EAST CAROLINA UNIVERSITY FACULTY SENATE February 28, 1989 The sixth regular meeting of the Faculty Senate for the academic year 1988/89 was held on Tuesday, February 28, 1989, in Mendenhall Student Center, Room 244. Members absent were Chancellor Eakin, Vice Chancellor Laupus, Dean Grove (Deans' Council), Boyce and Moskop (Faculty Assembly), Patton (Aerospace), McPherson (Industry and Technology), Dudek (Medicine), and Powers (Education). Alternates present were Ferrante for Pinkney (Counseling Center), Daugherty for Davis (Mathematics), Ferrence for Spickerman (Nursing), and Schreiber for Donohue (Theater Arts). Agenda [tem I. Call to Order Chair Conner Atkeson called the meeting to order at 2:10 p.m. Chair Atkeson called for a minute of silence for Marilyn Stephenson (Academic Library Services) who passed away this past week. Agenda Item II. Approval of Minutes of December 6, 1988 Jim Joyce (Secretary) asked for an editorial change to correct a typographical error in the minutes as distributed. The third sentence in Chancellor Eakin's report should read: ‘'The Chancellor acknowledged the generous financial support of CT&T and said, ‘I must give high praise to one of your colleagues, Dr. Bertie Fearing, for her splendid direction of the Forum program.''' The minutes were approved as amended. Agenda Item III. Special Order of the Day B. Announcements, Chair of the Faculty, Conner Atkeson 1. There will be a Special Senate Session on Tuesday, April 11, 1989, at 3:00 p.m., Biology Auditorium, for a briefing on the progress of the Strategic Planning Process prior to a report from the Educational Policies and Planning Committee scheduled to be given at the April 25, 1989, Senate Meeting. Tellers for the Senate Officers Nominating Committee election will be as follows: Ralph Scott (Academic Library Services), Susan McDaniel (Biology), Ellen Campbell (Economics). Agenda Item V.A.2.3. (Second Major) has been removed from the Agenda. Committee Annual Reports are due in the Faculty Senate Office no later than Friday, April 28, 1989. C. Richard Rakin, Chancellor Chancellor Eakin was in Chapel Hill at a Chancellors' meeting. D. Vice Chancellors' Reports Vice Chancellor Bloodworth (Academic Affairs) drew attention to the reaccreditation process of the Southern Association of Schools and Colleges to take place in Spring, 1992. While we go through this process every ten years, Dr. Bloodworth indicated that it would be different this time. He read from a section of the Criteria for Accreditation dealing with Institutional Effectiveness which indicated that we would need to evaluate the results of our academic programs and indicate a plan for improvement in those programs. (Attachment 1) Chancellor Eakin has indicated that the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs will be in charge of this study, he said. Vice Chancellor Bloodworth will appoint shortly an "Accreditation Liaison Officer" called for in the procedures. E. Search Committee Reports 1. Bob Schellenberger (Business), Chair of the Search Committee for the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, reported that, during the open period for application, December 1 through February 1, 125 applications were received and extensively reviewed in light of the published criteria; that the Committee is in the final stages of selecting candidates for on-campus interviews, which will take place during the period March 11 to March 28; that notice concerning the scheduling of the visits will be provided at the earliest opportunity; and that the interview process will include a two day visit and the candidate will be available to a broad section of the University including the Faculty Senate and the faculty as a whole. Artemis Kares (Academic Library Services) asked how many finalists will be invited. Schellenberger replied that four were anticipated. 2. Dean Thiele (Allied Health), Chair of the Search Committee for the Vice Chancellor of Health Sciences, reported that the closing date for receiving applications is March 1; that the announcement of the position received a wide distribution; that the Committee expects about 35 completed applications and has prepared an extensive profile of the desired candidate, and anticipates about five or six finalists visiting the campus. He further said that the Committee plans to submit three names to the Chancellor by late April or early May. 3. Richard Edwards (Chancellor's Office), Chair of the Search Committee for Vice Chancellor of Business Affairs, reported that the Committee was appointed in December; that advertisements for the position began to appear in January; that 187 applications were received by the closing date of February 15; that 18 of those were selected for further review; that the Committee was “on track" and was impressed with the quality of the applicants; that the list of finalists would be reduced by next Monday (March 6); that on-campus interviews were planned in late March or early April; and that final selection by the Chancellor was expected by mid-April. In response to a question from Artemis Kares, Edwards responded that the Committee is planning involvement of the university community in the on-campus interview process and that he anticipates three to five visits. 4. Douglas McMillan (English), member of the Search Committee for Associate Vice Chancellor for Research and Dean of the Graduate School, noting that Dean Grove, Chair of the Committee, was out of town, reported that out of the 91 applications received, 35 applications met the advertised criteria; that the top 12 of these applicants were interviewed by phone; and that the top four of these will be visiting campus after spring break: Dr. Gordon Nelson, Professor of Chemistry, University of Southern Mississippi, will visit March 13 and 14. An open meeting for faculty will be held March 13, 2-3 p.m., in GCB3008. Dr. Joel Russeli, Professor of Chemistry, Oakland University (Rochester, Michigan), will visit March 15 and 16. The open meeting will be March 15, 2-3 p.m., in GCB3009. Dr. John Mischler, Professor of Biology, University of Missouri-Kansas City will visit March 20-22. The open meeting will be March 21, 2-3 p.m., in GCB3008. Dr. Diane Jacobs, Professor of Microbiology, State University of New York-Buffalo, will visit March 29 and 30. The open meeting will be March 29, 2-3 p.-m., in GCB3009. 3 5. Dean Charles Coble (Education), Chair of the Search Committee for the Director of Academic Library Services, was out of town but reported by letter. Chair Atkeson read the letter which indicated that this search was being extended due to inadequate response and low quality of the applications received and that Vice Chancellor Bloodworth had agreed to a new minimum salary of $60,000 for the position. F. Bob Woodside (Mathematics) presented the report of the 68th meeting of the Faculty Assembly of the University of North Carolina held on February 17. He reported that President Spangler addressed the Assembly stating that representatives of the General Administration had met several times with General Assembly committees, in particular, with those concerned with the “base" budget for the University; that more discussion on this and other budgets will be taking place; that each of the Chancellors met with their local legislative delegations on their respective campuses to discuss their needs; and that he was cautiously optimistic concerning the University's request for monies for salaries, professional development, libraries, etc., indicating, however that it was too early for prediction. Woodside went on to report that Roddy Jones, Chairman of the Board of Governors and former Chair of the ECU Board of Trustees then addressed the Assembly reviewing the history of the creation of the 16-campus University and the Board of Governors; stating that it was the Board of Governors' duty to ask questions concerning utilization of various curricula and the overlapping of special programs; that the Board should insist on the quality of academics as a whole; that the Board had concern over the excessive cost of remediation; that we should question the effects of the low side of our enrollment and the cost of remediating our low SAT students; that it was wrong for an institution to increase enrollment if SAT's were going down; that the Board appreciates the faculty's role and contributions; and that the Board would do whatever they can to assist the faculty. Woodside indicated that President Spangler commented that those institutions whose enrollment was increasing while their SAT's were decreasing were doing things wrong and that the Board was applying some pressure on him to do something about it. Woodside also reported that among the Nominating Committee's nominees were Ken Wilson for Chair of the Academic Freedom Committee, Madge Chamness for the Budget Committee, Robert Woodside for Governance, and Emily Boyce for Planning. Among the committee presentations, he reported that the Budget Committee, based on their study, offered and the Assembly passed a resolution 1) supporting President Spangler's and the Board's salary request for 89-90 and 90-91; 2) asking that a portion of the salary increase be used to keep pace with inflation; and 3) asking that meritorious faculty be rewarded with significant merit raises; that the Faculty Welfare Committee reported on a study of fringe benefits at seven state universities indicating that "we aren't winning but it is not clear how bad we are losing;'' that the Planning and Program Committee found a wide discrepancy in the number of teaching days at the various schools; that the dramatic drop in teaching days over the past five years is a concern of Vice President Dawson while we are asking for salary increases; that the Governance Committee offered and the Assembly passed a resolution reaffirming the need for each institution to support its Faculty Senate/Council with 1) released time for the Chair, 2) a budget to include lines for communication and supplies, 3) adequate secretarial support, and 4) separate office space accessible to all faculty; and that the Governance Committee also presented and the Assembly adopted a set of revised By-Laws. [Professor Woodside indicated that he has a set of audio tapes of the meeting available to interested senators. ] 4 Carson Bays (Economics) asked what kind of pressure was being applied to the campuses which had increased enrollment and decreased SAT's. Woodside responded that it was in the nature of moral persuasion with President Spangler expressing his displeasure and the displeasure of the Board of Governors. G. Election of Nominating Committee for Faculty Senate Officers Nominees ist Ballot Jo Ann Jones 42 Bob Schellenberger 39 Bill Grossnickle 39 Ken Wilson 41 Artemis Kares 41 Abstain 1 Inelegible 2 Chair Atkeson declared all five nominees elected. IV. Unfinished Business There was no unfinished business. V. Report of Committees A. Bill Grossnickle (Psychology), Chair of the Curriculum Committee, presented the report of the Committee as contained in the Committee minutes of January 26 and February 9, 1989, meetings with the exception of adding the word "Promotion" to the Worksite Health track in the BS in School and Community Health Education (V.A.2.2.) and deleting the item (V.A.2.3.) involving the second major. The Senate voted to accept the recommendations. (Resolution #89-3) Grossnickle requested that any curriculum changes that are to appear in the new catalogue be submitted to the Curriculum Committee Chair no later than October 31, 1989, so that they can be considered by the Committee and submitted to the Faculty Senate by its December 1989 meeting. ‘Bes Don Collins (Library and Information Studies), Chair of the Libraries Committee, reported on the Committee's approval of a report by Academic Library Services describing the need and methods for reviewing library’ seriai subscriptions. He stated that libraries have been hit hard by price increases for journals; that journal subscription prices had increased from 14 to 18% last year; that price increases in certain fields were even larger; that such institutions as the University of California-Berkeley had to cut 15% of their subscriptions. Collins went on to state that the purpose of the library's study was to develop plans for expected cuts; that new disciplines have serial needs; that new journals are being offered in established disciplines; that departments are asking for more subscriptions than can be purchased; that the library must fill holes in the collection for accreditation purposes; that the library budget has not kept up with the price increases; and that it was the library's responsibility to make collection decisions in an informed manner. Collins indicated that the “use study" included current periodicals, bound periodicals, interlibrary loan requests, microfilm call slips; that the library was acquiring other information, such as faculty ratings of periodicals within their discipline; that no journal will be cancelled without notification of faculty; and that planning will bring some order to this process. 5 Don Parkerson (History) asked how interdisciplinary journals would be handled. Artemis Kares responded that a list of cancellations would be distributed to all departments. Chair Atkeson read a question passed to him inquiring about fire prevention in the library. After some "passing the buck(et)", Don Lennon (Academic Library Services) responded that some of his colleagues feel a need for a fire prevention plan. He mentioned improved fire alarms and the need for fire drills, but that such suggestions had only been discussed informally and internally. Chair Atkeson directed the Libraries Committee to investigate the matter. VI. New Business There being no new business, Chair Atkeson adjourned the meeting at 3:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ee \] re y Lu / le Maroy Band James Joyce, Secretary Sharon Bland, Office Secretary Resolution 89-3 Amended Curriculum Committee Report CRITERIA FOR ACCREDITATION COMMISSION ON COLLEGES Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (1989 Edition) Section III Institutional Effectiveness The quality of education provided by member institutions is the primary consideration in the decision to confer or reaffirm accreditation. The evaluation of educational quality is a difficult task requiring careful analysis and professional judgment. Traditionally, accreditation has focused attention almost exclusively upon institutional resources and processes. It has usually been assumed that, if an institution has certain resources and uses certain processes, effective education will occur. A comprehensive approach to accreditation, however, takes into account not only the resources and processes of education (such as faculty and student qualifications, physical plant, fiscal resources and other elements addressed in the Criteria) but also the evaluation of the results of education and plans for the improvement of the institution's programs. The level of institutional quality depends not only on an institution's educational processes and resources but also on the institution's successful use of those processes and resources to achieve established goals. Institutions have an obligation to all constituents to evaluate effectiveness and to use the results in a broad-based, continuous planning and evaluation process. 3.1 Planning and Evaluation To focus attention on the effectiveness of the educational program, the institution must establish adequate procedures for planning and evaluation. The institution must define its expected educational results and describe how the achievement of these results will be ascertained. Although no specific format for this planning and evaluation process is prescribed, an effective process should include: 1. broad-based involvement of faculty and administration, the establishment of a clearly defined purpose appropriate to collegiate education, the formulation of educational goals consistent with the institution's purpose, the development of procedures for evaluating the extent to which these educational goals are being achieved, and the use of the results of these evaluations to improve institutional effectiveness. In addition to establishing procedures for evaluating the extent to which their educational goals are being achieved, institutions should ascertain periodically the change in the academic achievement of their students. Procedures used to evaluate instructional programs may include: peer evaluation of educational programs; structured interviews with students and graduates; changes in students' values as measured by standard instruments or self-reported behavior patterns; pre- and post-testing of students; surveys of recent graduates; surveys of employers of graduates; student scores on standardized examinations or locally constructed examinations; performance of graduates in graduate school; performance of graduates of professional programs on licensure examinations; or, the placement of graduates of occupational programs in positions related to their fields of preparation. Institutions with research or public service missions must develop and implement appropriate procedures for evaluating their effectiveness in these areas. The appropriateness of any evaluation procedure depends upon the nature of the institution and the institution's goals for instruction, research and public service. The Commission on Colleges prescribes no set of procedures for use by an institution and recognizes that an effective program to evaluate institutional effectiveness will usually require the use of a variety of procedures. 3.2 Institutional Research Because institutional research can provide significant information on all phases of a college or university program, it is an essential element in planning and evaluating the institution's success in carrying out its purpose. The nature of the institutional research function depends on the size and complexity of the institution and may vary from a part-time operation to an office staffed by several persons. All institutions, however, must engage in continuous study, analysis and appraisal of their purposes, policies, procedures and programs. Institutions should assign administrative responsibility for carrying out institutional research. Institutional research should be allocated adequate resources, and those responsible for it should be given access to all relevant information. Institutions regularly must evaluate their institutional research function. Attachment 1 NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF STATE UNIVERSITIES AND LAND GRANT COLLEGES COUNCIL ON ACADEMIC AFFATRS PROPOSED GUIDELINES for STATE OR INSTITUTIONAL ASSESSMENT Institutional assessment should focus on the effectiveness of academic programs and on the improvement of student learning and performance. While it may be necessary, for certain purposes, to test for basic skills or to certify minimum competencies upon graduation, these should not be the primary focus of assessment programs instituted to promote improvement and assure quality. Initiatives tor improvement or assessment should create an environment that will encourage and enable colleges and universities to improve academic programs and educates students more effectively. States and institutions should rely primarily on incentives rather than on regulation or penalties to foster program improvement. State or system requirements for assessment should permit colleges and universities to develop institutional programs appropriate to their missions and goals. Because institutions differ markedly, they should be permitted to develop their own indicators of effectiveness. Colleges and universities should be encouraged to use multiple methods of assessment for improving teaching and learning. No single mechanism--no test or set of standardized tests--can effectively evaluate the subtleties and complexities of college education. Whenever possible the methods should be based on existing information. Assessment programs should be as informed and sophisticated as possible and based on reliable research and proven practices. States and institutions should resist the initial enthusiasm and political pressure for simplistic means of assessment and develop informed, thoughtful programs that have well-defined purposes. State or systems requirements for assessment should be financially conservative and not impose costly evaluation programs on institutions or state agencies. In the current educational economy, funds required for assessment will probably be drawn directly from instructional or research programs. Even if assessment does help improve undergraduate education, these funds will, at best, effect instruction only indirectly or obliquely. The net effect may be the reduction of academic program budgets. Within an institution, assessment programs should be linked to strategic planning or program review, or to some other process intended to encourage change and improvement. Within states, assessment should become part of a larger and comprehensive strategy for educational excellence. @ 8. Institutional programs for evaluation and assessment should be developed with the cooperation and leadership of the faculty.