THE CITADEL FACULTY COUNCIL
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of 11 May 1995
Board of Visitors Room, Jenkins Hall, 11:00 AM
1. Professor John Carter, as incoming Chair, called Faculty Council to
order at 11:45 AM, this immediately following the end of the General
Faculty meeting held earlier in the morning.
A welcome was extended to new and returning members.
2. Members in attendance: Professors Adelman, Brannan, O. Bowman, Bishop,
J. Carter, Crabtree, Dunlop, Hewitt, Siskind, E. Carter, Leonard,
Barrett, Hutchisson, Bryson, Woolsey
Members Absent: Professors Feurtado, Durgun, Kelley, McRae, Chandler,
Greenawalt, McCullohs
Professor Richardson substituted for Professor Rushing.
Also present: Professor Tucker (past Chair), Professor Mailloux
3. Approval of Previous Minutes.
Professor Bowman moved, second by Professor Woolsey, to accept the
minutes of the 20 April 95 meeting.
4. Elections of officers:
Vice-Chair/Chair Elect: Professor J. Leonard was nominated by
Professor Woolsey, second by Professor Adelman. It was noted that
Professor Leonard had consented to serve. It was MSC to close
nominations; the chair asked for election by acclamation, unanimous.
Secretary: Professor K. Brannan was nominated by Professor Woolsey,
second by Professor Bowman. It was noted that Professor Brannan had
consented to serve. It was MSC to close nominations; the chair asked
for election by acclamation, unanimous.
Parliamentarian: The Chair asked Professor Bishop to continue serving
in this role.
5. Special request: The Chair reported that the incoming secretary had
inquired about the use of a tape recorder to facilitate recording of the
minutes; there was no disapproval for the use of a tape recorder for
maintaining a temporary record of the discussion.
6. Reports
a. Professor Tucker (past Chair) reported that Board of Visitors education
liaison committee had charged the chair of Faculty Council and the VPAA
(General Poole) with providing them with information concerning tenure
and the process of tenure decisions. To this point, BoV involvement
has been mostly with respect to the appeal process.
Discussion addressed General Poole's desire to adjust the time of
tenure to more closely parallel the AAUP Red Book's guidelines of 6th
year review and a 7th year terminal appointment (one year beyond
present practice). The rational for this longer term is that it
permits additional scrutiny of the probationer.
The question was asked if, under such a changed system, the decision
could be made at an earlier year WITHOUT penalty. The shorter time has
value in attracting the prospective faculty member or for recognizing
the outstanding probationer.
Professor Bowman moved, second by Professor Woolsey, to consider moving
to a sixth year tenure review for a person hired as an Assistant
Professor.
Professor Tucker moved, second by Professor Bishop, to table the
motion. Carried by a vote of 13 yes, 1 no, 2 abstain.
b. Professor Mailloux (Strategic Planning) referred to the presentations
which had been made earlier at the General Faculty meeting and invited
additional comments.
Discussion included:
> recommendations and comments received will be assigned to
specific individuals; this process is underway.
> freshman attrition has both military and academic aspects. The
goal is to reduce academic attrition from about 18% to about 15%
> the committee is concerned over the increasing numbers of
administrators. Numbers, distribution, and utilization of both
administrators and faculty is an aspect of the planning process.
Various aspects of the draft report have been reviewed by the
President and by representatives of the Board of Visitors.
> there has been a reluctance to examine programs, etc., to
gather data ... this in part due to a fear of hidden agendas
> the excessive course load taken by some students reflects a
perceived need to do 5 years of work in 4 years. A possible
solution is to mandate summer school attendance rather than
anticipate fifth year privates.
> freshman course loads should correlate to the special demands
of the fourth class system. Presently, the freshman year is
overloaded in terms of hours taken.
> the means of funding the recommendations and identification of
resources to do this still needs to be done. Current aspects
discussed include the establishment of a capital campaign --
but this would be a BoV function.
c. Professor Carter distributed an outline of meeting agendas for the fall
semester. [These are attached to the electronic copy of the minutes.]
He reported that General Poole is interested in Faculty Council being
a united voice of the faculty and is willing to visit with Council to
learn of concerns and issues of the faculty.
Members are asked to contribute concerns and issues by the August
meeting of Council; these will be forwarded to General Poole for him
to prepare for an October meeting with Council.
Copies of the Charter and some notes were distributed for future
discussion.
7. At 12:55, Professor Bowman moved, second by Professor Bishop, to
adjourn.
Faculty Council Membership: 1995-96 Academic Year
Cluster/Department Representative Subcom. Years on Council
A: Business Administration Bill Woolsey B 4
Mary Greenawalt C 1
Education Teri Siskind A 2
Stephanie Hewitt C 3
Health & PE John Carter EXCOM 4
Psychology Oliver Bowman A 5 *
B. English Jim Leonard EXCOM 2
Jim Hutchisson C 1
History Jane Bishop B 2
Mike Barrett A 1
Library Betsey Carter B 1
Modern Language Chris McRae B 4
Political Science Guardel Feurtado B 2
C. Biology Bob Baldwin B 1
Civil Engineering Ken Brannan EXCOM 1
Chemistry Carey Rushing C 1
Electrical Engineering Larry Dunlop C 1
Math/CSCI Kanat Durgun C 1
Leslie Crabtree A 2
Physics Saul Adelman A 4
-. Aerospace Science Mark McCullohs A 2
Military Science Matt Chandler C 2
Naval Science Ted Bryson B 2
* continuing for a third term in the absence of other tenured faculty
in the Psychology department
* * * * * *
Faculty Council 1995-96 Academic Year: Fall Semester Outline
Meeting # Date Proposed Agenda
1. 5-11-95 Strategic Planning 94-95
Orientation to goals and purposes of
Faculty Council
2. 8-24-95 Issues, concerns, and questions from the
faculty for General Poole and the
administration
3. 9-28-95 General Poole will discuss (1) faculty
concerns and (2) his objectives for Council
over the next 1-2 years
4. 10-12-95 Invited administrators and/or BoV members
will discuss faculty concerns and address
questions
5. 11-16-95
6. 12-14-95
* * * * * *
*** Goal/Purpose/Charge of Faculty Council
Faculty Council Constitution:
A channel of communication between faculty and administration.
Faculty's representative body which considers institutional issues and
policies
General Poole:
Initiates discussion of agenda items for the college.
A united voice of the faculty with which administrators can communicate.
A method by with departmental constituencies can communicate issues and
concerns (i.e., tenure and promotion policies, probationary periods)
*** Faculty Council Chairperson
A diplomat; a reasonable/realistic translator of a united faculty voice
to the administration (and vice versa).
An initiator of changes to the Faculty Manual; responsible for
maintaining Faculty Manual.
An ex-officio, non-voting member of Academic Board, Graduate Council.
An invited guest of the BoV, especially the Academic Liaison/Faculty
Affairs Committee.
Assists the Committee on Committees as needed.
Forms a task force to help the VPAA develop arguments, statements, and
points of view for the BoV with respect to academic tenure.
Gets 2-3 volunteers to help Dean Reilly plan the Fall colloquy
(18 Aug 95)
* * * * * *
Continuing (OLD) Business of Faculty Council
Subcommittee B -- Professor C. McRae: In response to the 1993 SACS
report, study of the practice of faculty wearing uniforms was addressed.
In April 1995, Faculty Council voted to develop a questionnaire/survey to
be administered to Citadel constituencies (students, faculty, staff, ROTC
personnel) during the 1995-96 academic year. Timelines?
At the request of Professor D. Moore, Professor Tucker proposed to
Academic Board to amend the Charter of the Committee on Academic Tenure
and Promotion to allow (1) release time for the Chair during the Spring
semester (see page 58 of the Faculty Manual) and (2) an election of a
vice-chair.
The May 1995 letter from President Watts and COL Tomasik urging campus
residents to maintain high standards of "campus appearance."
Professor Holbein of the Committee on Curriculum and Instruction has
presented an interim report on learning disabilities. The final report
will be made after discussions with the new Director of Special Services.
The Faculty Manual is the property of the faculty. Academic Board and
Faculty Council can make suggested changes in cooperation with one
another. The Chair of Faculty Council will have responsibility for
maintaining the Faculty Manual. How can this task best be accomplished?
Perhaps by a permanent subcommittee of the Council. Final revisions in
the current manual are due Fall 1995 and will be in effect for three
years.
The Chair of Faculty Council will establish a task force (Professors
Tucker, J. Carter, Feurtado, J. Moore, others) which will work with
General Poole on a study of academic tenure to be presented to the BoV.
Use "Priorities" (sic, Professor J. Carter). Get the best
statements/articles on the subject of academic tenure. Academic tenure
is an issue of both academic freedom and job security.
Professor Siskind's ad hoc committee will continue the work on student
evaluation of instruction. Recommendations (page 7-8 of the committee
report) were approved.
Professor Leonard and Subcommittee A continue to examine the
appropriateness of the proposal from Dean Reilly that the Policy
Statement (Document) on CDF Research Grants be included in the Faculty
Manual. Is this a co-decision to be made with the standing Research
Committee and Faculty Council? If "yes," should it be in the body/text
or in the appendices?
There is a committee formed by General Poole (comprised of three Faculty
Council members -- Professor Woolsey and two more, three department heads
-- Emory, Blanton, Bob White) which will study the issue of transfer
credits.
Professor Bishop has asked that cadet letter grades be allowed to have
(+) and (-) attached. Ron Gaskins will be consulted.
Professor H. Ezell of the Campus Residents Association could give us an
interim report on this new group (charged by the Faculty Housing
Subcommittee of the Campus Affairs Committee)
Report due in Fall 1995 from the President's Special Task Force on NCAA
alignment of our athletic programs (football).
MONEY: we may need the advice of the new chief of the human resources
department in trying to make some logical sense of how salaries can be
enhanced. Pay for performance (shares); Faculty Achievement Awards (5-6
per academic year); merit pay; permanent salary increases.
Professor Adelman has asked that Faculty Council discuss the following
issues.
> A voluntary faculty exchange program with other colleges, (i.e., CoC)
> A study (from a management systems approach) of the appropriate size
of an administration for a college of our size; what is the need for a
Vice President for External Affairs?
> Once/Twice per school year, our faculty should have an all-faculty
meeting (without Deans and VPs) to air issues of concern; would this
increase unity/cohesiveness of the faculty body?
> It is time to assess/evaluate our standing committees ... how have
they done since being established and reorganized 4-5 years ago? What
are their charges, activities, and results? accomplishments?
shortcomings? Does the administration listen to their concerns and
recommendations? Does an adjustment need to be made in the structure
and process of the Committee on Committees? [Professor Tucker,
incoming chair of Committee on Committees, has volunteered to work on
this review.]
===============================================================================
THE CITADEL FACULTY COUNCIL
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of 20 April 1995
Board of Visitors Room, Jenkins Hall, 11:00 AM
1. The Chair called Faculty Council to order at 11:01 AM.
2. Members in attendance: Professors Adelman, Anessi, Bishop, O. Bowman,
Carter, Crabtree, Deutz, Epple, Feurtado, Kelley, Leonard, McRae,
Maynard, Richardson, Simmons, Tucker, Woolsey
Members Absent: Professors Hewett, McCullohs, Siskind, Tripp
Professor Mike Sparks substituted for Professor Bryson
Professor Thompson substituted for Professor Chandler
Also present: Professor Holbein, Chair of Curriculum Committee and its
subcommittee on "Learning Disabilities"
3. Approval of Previous Minutes.
Professor McRae moved, second by Professor Bowman, to accept the
minutes of the 16 March 1995 meeting. Carried unanimously.
4. Reports
a. Professor Tucker read the following letter of response from General Poole
on behalf of General Watts concerning Faculty Council's resolution of
20 Jan 94 concerning retirement privileges for faculty.
21 March 1995. "General Watts has carefully reviewed the Faculty
Council's resolution concerning partial retirement for senior members of
the faculty. After discussing the issue with the members of the Council
of Presidents, he had decided not to support this resolution. Instead,
he and other college Presidents will support the initiative to allow
faculty members to retire after 25 years of service. It is his opinion
that this will accomplish much of the outcomes desired by the Faculty
Council."
b. Professor Holbein, as chair of the Curriculum Committee's subcommittee on
"Learning Disabilities" brought an interim report on progress in response
to Faculty Council's request of 25 August 1994. [The report is attached
to the VAX/Gopher copy of the minutes.]
Due to the ongoing search for a Director of Special Services, a final
report and recommendation will be delayed until the position has been
filled; the new individual will thus have an input into this process.
It is anticipated that the recommendations will include (1) outside
certification of the student's disability within the previous five years
(due to privacy regulations, this disability need not be disclosed at the
time of matriculation), (2) discussion among the student, the deans, the
department, the instructor, and the director of special services
concerning a suitable resolution of the problem at hand, and (3) course
substitution should be considered only as a last resort.
Professor Tucker directed that any additional comments and questions be
forwarded to Professor Holbein.
c. Professor Tucker reported on the response by the administration to the
Council's March 1995 resolutions concerning (1) the election of a vice-
chair for the Faculty Tenure and Promotion Committee and (2) spring-
semester release time for the chair of the Faculty Tenure and Promotion
Committee.
With respect to a vice-chair, this is well within the privileges of a
committee concerning its organization.
With respect to special release time, the "April 1995" edition of
revisions to the Faculty Manual, page 58, addresses this and expands upon
the concept to include a variety of special cases (as illustrated by
examples) in which the individual could apply to the Vice President for
this release.
d. Professor Tucker reported that the administration as accepted the concept
that the Faculty Manual belongs to the faculty and, as such, Academic
Board will be considering a proposal stating that the responsibility for
the maintenance of the Faculty Manual lies with the Chair of Faculty
Council.
Professor Tucker asked for guidance as to how this load might be
distributed; a possibility which he advanced was that this
responsibility be assigned to a permanent subcommittee of Council.
The administration's intention is that the Faculty Manual will be
available on the VAX with a hard copy being placed in the library and in
each department. Presumably an individual could acquire a hard copy by
special application.
In late fall 1995, the Faculty Manual, as revised through that time, will
be "frozen" and become the governing document for a period of three
years. Any necessary changes will be explicitly entered as addenda. At
the end of the three year period, the Manual will be updated and revised
and then "refrozen" for a comparable period.
Changes to Faculty Manual can be initiated by either Faculty Council or
by Academic Board; the other body will review these actions; the final
decision on incorporation will be determined by the Vice President for
Academic Affairs.
e. Professor Tucker reported on the recent Board of Visitors Academic
Liaison/Faculty Affairs Committee meeting.
The Board has established "tenure" as an ongoing agenda item; this
follows from the bill before the SC Legislature which would abolish
tenure at the state colleges.
In the opinion of the members of the Board, this bill should not be a
cause for concern; it presently is only in committee and will probably
not be reported out.
However, the Board feels responsible for becoming aware of tenure issues
and has charged the Vice President of Academic Affairs and the Chair of
Faculty Council to assist the Board in developing arguments, statements,
and points of view so that the Board can properly respond to the
legislature.
Professor Bowman moved, second by Professor Woolsey, that the chair of
Faculty Council be given permission to establish a task force to work
with and assist Dean Poole in this work. Carried unanimously. Professor
Bowman recommended that the task force should take advantage of recent
AAUP reports and position papers regarding the tenure. Professor
Fuertado volunteered to join the task force. It was recommended that
Professor Jamie Moore (president of The Citadel chapter of the AAUP and
also SC State AAUP President) be asked to join the task force.
5. Old Business
a. Student Evaluation of Instruction: Professor Tucker reported that he
had received no concerns regarding the report from the committee (16
March 1995 minutes). No other concerns were reported.
Professor Bowman moved, second by Professor Carter, to pass the several
recommendations which appear on pages 7 and 8 of the report so as to
empower the committee to continue its work. Carried unanimously.
b. Faculty Uniforms. Professor McRae, on behalf of Subcommittee B, brought
an interim report [attached to the VAX/Gopher copy of the minutes] to
council, presented some points from the subcommittee's considerations,
and asked for approval to conduct a survey.
The faculty uniform dates from the period when all faculty WERE military
officers. Potential problems include an additional hierarchy of rank as
well as the potential of a diminished candidate pool for faculty
recruiting. There is potential for negative student perception,
particularly with the anagramed acronym of the "Unorganized Militia of
South Carolina." A fraction of the public perceives the uniformed
faculty as military personnel, not as academics.
Professor Bishop moved, second by Professor Fuertado, that subcommittee
develop a questionnaire; in addition to the groups to be surveyed, as
listed in the report, students (and especially freshmen) also need to be
surveyed. Motion carried with one abstention (18-0-1).
c. Research Policy. Professor Leonard, on behalf of Subcommittee A and the
Research Committee spoke to the question asked by Dean Reilly as to if or
not it would be appropriate to include the Policy Document [reproduced
with March VAX/Gopher minutes] in the Faculty Manual.
The research committee has not had an opportunity to meet to consider
this question.
The development history of the guidelines was reviewed.
A brief discussion ensued addressing separate publication grants, the
newly created presentation grants, and the control of these and other
funds by the deans as opposed to the research committee.
6. New Business
a. Committee on Committees. Election of 1995-96 members. A slate of
candidates was received from the 1994-95 committee.
Cluster A: LTC James M. Alford -- Business Administration
MAJ Josephine H. Templeton -- Health and Phys. Education
Cluster B: COL Paul R. Benson -- Political Science
LTC David G. Allen -- English
Cluster C: MAJ Thomas H. Richardson -- Chemistry
LTC Russell H. Stout, Jr -- Civil Engineering
It was proposed that election of the membership be by cluster.
It was M/S/C that the Cluster A individuals be nominated. There were no
additional nominations. It was M/S/C to close nominations and hence
elect by acclamation.
It was M/S/C that the Cluster B individuals be nominated. There were no
additional nominations. It was M/S/C to close nominations and hence
elect by acclamation.
It was M/S/C that the Cluster C individuals be nominated. There were no
additional nominations. It was M/S/C to close nominations and hence
elect by acclamation.
The incoming Chair of Committee on Committees for 1995-96 will be
Professor Ted Tucker as past chair of Faculty Council.
b. 1995-96 Faculty Council. Professor Tucker read the names and departments
of the individuals who will be succeeding current members who are
rotating off. This listing, with subsequent updates, is
Civil Engineering: Ken Brannan (succeeding Tom Anessi)
Chemistry: Carey Rushing (succeeding Tom Richardson)
Math/CS: Kanat Durgun (succeeding Andre Deutz)
Education: Stephanie Hewett (continuing for a second term)
Business Administration: Mary Greenawalt (succeeding Susan Simmons)
English: Jim Hutchisson (succeeding Ted Tucker)
History: Mike Barrett (succeeding Joe Tripp)
Psychology: Oliver Bowman (continuing for a third term
in the absence of other
tenured faculty in the
Psychology Department)
Library: Elizabeth Carter (succeeding Ed Maynard who
completed the term
"belonging" to Herb Nath)
Electrical Engineering: Larry Dunlop (succeeding Joe Epple)
Biology: ** TBE ********* (succeeding Joe Kelley)
7. Announcements
a. It was reported that Dean Reilly is planning the 1995-96 Fall Colloquy
and is requesting faculty assistance.
b. Professor Tucker asked council to express thanks to the secretary,
Professor Tom Richardson, for his work.
c. Professor Bowman moved, second by Professor Adelman, for council to
express thanks to the chair, Professor Ted Tucker, for his work.
d. Professor Carter announced that the first meeting of the 1995-96 Council
will be held on Thursday, 11 May 95, at 11:00 AM, Board of Visitors Room
/s/ Tom Richardson
Secretary, Faculty Council
* * * * *
Text of the Interim Report to Faculty Council on Learning Disabilities
The Chair of Faculty Council forwarded to the Curriculum and
Instruction Committee (CIC) two items on Learning Disabilities (LD). One was
the unilateral action of the administration for course substitution of core
curriculum courses and secondly, the CIC was charged with formulating a
definitive and college wide policy on LC. (Faculty Council Minutes of 25
August 1994)
The Chair [Professor Holbein] appointed a subcommittee of CIC members
of concerned departments and other faculty members who had an interest in or
an understanding of LD.
After examining many, many documents, supplied by Dean Reilly, on the
legal issues and on what was being done elsewhere, especially at the College
of Charleston, the subcommittee met and discussed the LD situation at The
Citadel. A complicating factor was the departure of Dr. Wemme Walls and the
appointment of a search committee chaired by Professor Daughtry, (a member of
the subcommittee), for a full-time Director of Special Services.
As an interim program, Dean Reilly met with Dr. Wemme Walls, Dean
Gordon, and the Chair of Modern Languages to work out procedures for
accommodating LD students. This resolved the problem of unilateral action by
the administration of course substitution. Also, since the procedures
paralleled what the committee was considering, the subcommittee decided not to
take additional action.
By law, The Citadel must reasonably accommodate all LD students. As
the chair of the subcommittee, I became aware of the complexities of the
issue. Since a search was in progress for a full-time director, I recommended
and the committee agreed that no formal policy should be established.
Professor Daughtry invited me to participate in the interviews of prospective
candidates. Although not on the formal search committee, I had lunch with all
four candidates and attended the formal presentations of each. As chair of
CIC, I asked questions on procedures and academic issues. Professor Daughtry
requested my personal response to each candidate. When the new Director of
Special Services arrives on campus, I shall continue to make sure that the
faculty has an input to the establishment of formal LD policy and for the
involvement of the faculty in the development of procedures for the
accommodation of LD students. The search has been completed and the
administration is negotiating with one of the finalists.
I trust that the actions of the subcommittee prove satisfactory.
* * * * *
Text of the Report from Subcommittee B on Faculty Uniforms
SOME RELEVANT QUOTATIONS
"According to the _Faculty Manual_, members of the faculty will be in uniform
when members of the Corps of Cadets have classes and are available to meet
with faculty. The philosophy is that faculty officers serve as role models
for the Corps and should be in proper uniform while contact with cadets is
likely.
"It is appropriate to mention here that from time to time, Faculty Council and
other groups have recommended that the faculty not be required to wear the
uniform. Objection to wearing the uniform by some members of the faculty
rests on the view that the appropriate role of the faculty is that of a
'professor' and not that of a 'military officer.' Faculty members are not the
only ones who question the policy. Cadets, as well as ROTS officers [sic],
often complain that the members of the faculty are poor military role models
because they do not have good military bearing and do not wear the uniform
well. To instill these military qualities would entail a different
socialization experience.
"Because faculty are currently expected to wear the uniform and conform to
military standards of grooming, these requirements are openly discussed at an
early stage of the recruitment process so all short-listed candidates or
interviewees are fully aware of them. Although some applicants have been
deterred, the pool of potential candidates has in the past been sufficiently
large so that there were always well-qualified individuals who have accepted
the requirements."
-- _The Citadel 1993 Self-Study_, Chapter VI, pp. 6-7.
"Recommendations [...]
" 4. The Citadel should provide greater incentives to retain outstanding
faculty.
" 5. The Citadel should study the relationship between the military and the
academic roles of faculty, especially in regard to the appropriateness
of requiring faculty to wear the uniform."
-- _Ibid._, Chapter VI, p. 11.
A MODEST PROPOSAL
It was agreed by members of Subcommittee B that Faculty Council should sponsor
and distribute a questionnaire concerning the issues raised above, and that
this survey would include (a) the tenured/tenure-track faculty, (B) the ROTC
faculty, (c) the administration, and (d) the adjunct and temporary faculty.
Respondents would identify themselves by group only, not by name, on the form.
[added in presentation to council: (e) students]
Some of the questions to be asked on the form might include the following:
(1) Is the wearing of the uniform germane or relevant to the _mission_ of the
college?
(2) Should the faculty be required to wear a uniform or should it be optional?
(3) If mandatory, what type of uniform should/could it be:
(a) the current modified Army uniform
(b) a modified Citadel blazer
(c) academic cap and gown
(d) other
(4) How do you think deletion of the requirement to wear the uniform would
affect the "character" of The Citadel?
(5) As a member of the Citadel faculty, do you perceive your effectiveness
enhanced or diminished by the requirement to wear the "SCUM" uniform?
(6) Does wearing the uniform enhance of diminish the _professional_ image of
Citadel faculty. [Council discussion added the same questions but
_military_ image]
===============================================================================
THE CITADEL FACULTY COUNCIL
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of 16 March 1995
Board of Visitors Room, Jenkins Hall, 11:00 AM
1. The Chair called Faculty Council to order at 11:03 AM.
2. Members in attendance: Professors Anessi, Bishop, O. Bowman, Carter,
Crabtree, Deutz, Epple, McRae, Chandler, Siskind, Leonard, Richardson,
Simmons, Tripp, Tucker, Woolsey, McCullohs
Members Absent: Professors Feurtado, Hewett, Kelley, Maynard
Professor Briggs substituted for Professor Adelman; Professor Lewis
substituted for Professor Bryson.
Also present: Professor D. Moore
3. Approval of Previous Minutes.
Professor Anessi moved, second by Professor Bowman, to accept the
minutes of the 16 Feb 95 meeting. Carried unanimously.
4. Reports
a. Letters were received from Professor D. Moore, Chair of the Faculty
Tenure and Promotion Committee, and from Professor Tucker in support of
the election that committee's charter being amended to permit the
election of a designated vice chair. Professor Tucker's letter also
asked that the committee chair be granted spring-semester release time.
These letters are attached to the VAX/Gopher version of the minutes.
> After discussion, Professor Bowman moved, second provided that the
charter of the Faculty Tenure and Promotion committee be amended so that
the committee may elect a (recognized) Vice-Chair; the election of this
Vice-Chair would occur at the same time as is the Chair--at the
organizational meeting of the new committee. This Vice-Chair will be a
term appointment; this individual will NOT be considered as the chair-
elect for the following year and may stand again for the position in the
same fashion as does the Chair.
Professor Briggs moved, second by Professor Bishop that this motion be
amended so that the Chair of the Faculty Tenure and Promotion Committee
would be granted a one-course reduction during the second (spring)
semester. This release time is to be explicitly funded by the college so
that an adjunct can be hired; this time is NOT to be redistributed to the
department; this release time is necessitated by the increased
administrative duties which have fallen to the Chair; duties which in
times past were performed on behalf of the committee by the dean.
Carried unanimously.
b. Academic Board. Professor Tucker noted that the Academic Board minutes
are now generally available through the VAX/Gopher and that, in general,
details of these should be disseminated to faculty through their
Department Heads. Current topics include guidelines for the "pay for
performance" directives.
It was also noted that the revisions to General Order 28 (academic
precidence) had been approved; the various recommendations for the
calendar had been taken into consideration.
c. The Faculty Housing Committee (a subcommittee of the Campus Affairs
Committee) reports that the Campus Residents Association has been formed;
a charter has been prepared and other organizational activity has
occurred. The Association will be sending an exofficio representative to
both the Faculty Housing and Campus Affairs committees.
d. Graduate Council: Professor Leonard reported that the February meeting
had addressed the finances of the Summer School program. In essence, the
bookkeeping has been such that the summer school profits have been used
to offset various expenses of the Corps of Cadets program.
Several faculty were admitted to the Graduate Faculty at the March
Meeting (Professors Chin, Deutz, Moody, Dane, Bursen). New courses in
counseling and psychology were approved. Also, departmental graduate
assistantships will now be administered by the appropriate department
rather than by the dean.
e. Professor Tucker noted that the Board of Visitors would be meeting soon
after this Faculty Council meeting. Among the topics to be considered is
the determination of NCAA Division I or IIIA status for football.
5. Old Business
a. Professor Siskind distributed the final report (to be attached to the
VAX/Gopher copy of the minutes) on the pilot process, etc., of the
"Student Evaluation of Teaching" and spoke to the document. Also
available are voluminous appendices.
Professor Bowman asked that this be distributed to the general faculty
(via VAX/mail) with faculty being asked to respond through their
representatives; a vote will be taken at the April meeting of Faculty
Council.
Professor Bishop moved, second by Professor Bowman, to thank Professor
Siskind and her committee for the time and effort expended in bringing
this effort to fruition. Carried unanimously.
b. On behalf of Subcommittee C, Professor Deutz reported on discussions and
inquiries following from the letter by Professor Elksnin (received at the
16 Feb 95 meeting of Faculty Council).
> Concerning the selection for Faculty Achievement Awards, the revised
procedure should increase faculty control of the process.
> Concerning search committees, Dean Reilly was reported to state that the
new guidelines are a more common college model and that a revision to the
Faculty Manual incorporating these changes will be submitted to Faculty
Council for review. Further action was deferred until the revision is
received; Faculty Council needs to assure that there is mutual agreement
on the composition of search committees. Should such be desired, Dean
Reilly will be willing to meet with Faculty Council.
6. New business.
a. The review by SACS raised the following concern: "The Citadel should
study the relationship between the military and academic role of faculty,
especially in regard to the appropriateness of requiring faculty to wear
the uniform." Professor Tucker asked Subcommittee B (to be convened by
Professor McRae) to work on this for a report at the April 95 meeting.
b. Professor Carter (vice-chair/chair-elect) distributed a membership roster
classified by term. Continuing members were asked to consider candidates
for election to secretary and vice-chair/chair-elect for the coming year.
7. At 12:35 PM, Professor Bowman moved, second by Professor Carter, to
ajourn. Carried unanimously.
/s/ Tom Richardson
Secretary, Faculty Council
* * * * *
Resolutions of Faculty Council with respect to Faculty Tenure and Promotion
Committee organization, 16 March 95.
1. It was M/S/C that the charter of the Faculty Tenure and Promotion
committee be amended so that the committee may elect a (recognized)
Vice-Chair; the election of this Vice-Chair would occur at the same time
as is the Chair--at the organizational meeting of the new committee.
The Vice-Chair will be a term appointment; this individual will NOT be
considered as the chair-elect for the following year and may stand again
for the position in the same fashion as does the Chair.
2. It was M/S/C that the Chair of the Faculty Tenure and Promotion Committee
be granted a one-course reduction during the second (spring) semester.
a. This release time is to be explicitly funded by the college so that
an adjunct can be hired; this time is NOT to be redistributed to the
department. (Briggs/Bishop)
b. This release time is necessitated by the increased administrative
duties which have fallen to the Chair; duties which in times past
were performed on behalf of the committee by the dean.
* * * * *
Text of the letter received from Professor D. Moore, addressed to Faculty
Council and to Committee on Committees:
6 March 1995
The Faculty Tenure and Promotion Committee requests that Faculty Council
and the Committee on Committees approve our request for a revision in our
Charter to permit the election of a Vice Chair. The election of the Vice
Chair would occur in the spring when the Chair of the committee is elected.
I would like to appear briefly before your committee on Thursday, March
16th, to present the ballot for this proposal.
Provisions and Rationale for Change:
Faculty Tenure [and] Promotion Committee Ballot for Vice Chair
Amendment to Committee Charter.
I approve the amendment to the FTPC Charter which established the
nomination and election of a Vice Chair for the FTPC. The Vice Chair would be
elected in the spring of each academic year at the same time the election is
held for the Chair. The Chair may be re-elected for more than one term.
Election as Vice Chair does not mean that s/he would automatically take over
as Chair the following year.
The primary function of the office of the Vice Chair is to provide
continuity in committee business in the absence of the Chair. Also, now the
committee is dealing with four deans rather than one, the Vice Chair may be
asked to be a second spokesperson for the committee at some or all of these
meetings.
* * * * *
Text of the letter received from Professor Tucker, addressed to General Poole
with copies to FTPC, Faculty Council, and Academic Board.
14 March 1995
On Thursday, March 16, 1995, Professor Dorothy P. Moore will attend the
scheduled meeting of the Academic Board [sic, Council?] in order to propose a
revision to the college charter for the FTPC: namely, to elect each year a
Vice-Chair for that important committee.
I had observed once before to Professor Moore, and I would like to go on
record as having said so, that the person who undertakes the chairmanship of
the FTPC should have the benefit of one course reduction during the SECOND
SEMESTER [underline in original] of each academic year. I offered this
suggestion not only because the chairperson of FTPC has a huge load of duties
and responsibilities during the Spring semester of each year, but also because
a course reduction, as proposed, would serve as an additional incentive for
the most highly qualified, and often most senior, faculty available to us.
There is no question about the importance of the work upon that committee, nor
about the huge investment of time the chair makes in accepting the position.
My stress would fall, moreover, on the extreme importance of selecting the
best qualified persons to perform in this role. It would be good for our
faculty colleagues, and it is critical also to the college.
Therefore, I would like to propose that the college award a course
reduction to the duly elected Chair of FTPC each spring semester. Many thanks
for any consideration you devote to this proposition.
* * * * *
Roster of Faculty Council Members by term:
1. Completing their second two-year term in May 1995; must rotate off Faculty
Council:
O. Bowman (Psychology)
T. Anessi (Civil Engineering)
J. Kelley (Biology)
T. Richardson (Chemistry)
2. 1995-96 academic year will be their fourth year on faculty council;
ineligible for Chair-Elect
J. Carter (Health & Physical Education) [Chair 1995-96]
B. Woolsey (Business Administration)
C. McRae (Modern Languages)
S. Adelman (Physics)
3. Completing their first two-year term in May 1995; may be reelected by
their departments; elibible for Chair-Elect or secretary for 1995-96
S. Hewett (Education)
S. Simmons (Business Administration)
J. Tripp (History)
E. Maynard (Library, is completing H. Nath's term)
A. Deutz (Math/Computer Science)
J. Epple (Electrical Engineering)
T. Tucker (English, is ineligible for Chair-Elect)
4. Completing their first year of their first of their first term in May
1995; elibible for Chair-Elect or secretary for 1995-96
T. Siskind (Education)
J. Bishop (History)
G. Feurtado (Political Science)
J. Leonard (English)
L. Crabtree (Math/Computer Science)
M. McCullohs (Aerospace Science)
M. Chandler (Miliatry Science)
T. Bryson (Naval Science)
* * * * *
Text of report from Student Evaluation of Instruction Committee:
(the various appendices referenced have been placed in the library;
copies are also held by Professors Siskind and Tucker)
Final Report
Student Evaluation of Faculty Teaching
1993-1995
Introduction
============
During the 1993-94 Academic Year, Faculty Council appointed a Committee
on the Student Evaluation of Faculty Teaching. The three-member committee was
charged with the continuation of the work of a subcommittee which had been
appointed by the Curriculum and Instruction Committee during the 1992-93 school
year. The Curriculum and Instruction subcommittee (James Rembert, William
Rhett, Judith Von, Chair) had developed an evaluation form which was approved
by the Curriculum and Instruction Committee. The committee had also selected a
software package to "run" the evaluation system. The software package was
sanctioned by Faculty Council.
Specifically, the 1993-94 committee was commissioned to develop an
administration plan (hereafter, The Plan) for student evaluations of faculty
and to oversee a pilot of the administration process. Members of the 1993-94
committee were Russell O. Hilleke, Physics; James A. Rembert, English; Theresa
G. Siskind, Chair, Education.
During 1994-95 neither Professor Hilleke nor Professor Rembert was to
be in residence on campus. Along with Professor Siskind, Professors Tony N.
Redd, English, and David A. Trautman, Mathematics and Computer Science, agreed
to serve on the 1994-95 committee. The committee received the following charge
from Faculty Council.
Charge for the Committee on the Evaluation of Teaching:
------------------------------------------------------
The Faculty Council charges the Committee on the Evaluation
of Teaching to undertake the following tasks:
(1) To supervise the first full pilot run of the instrument
in the Fall 1994 semester, incorporating the open-ended
questions according to the original design;
(2) To encourage individual departments to submit sets of
additional questions appropriate to their specific
disciplines;
(3) To examine and test the evaluation items for validity,
particularly in regard to possible bias, as it may
affect particular groups within the faculty;
(4) To prepare an analytical report of findings arising
from the Fall 1994 evaluation.
At the same time, the Committee is asked to continue their
research into the methods that will be used to complete the
remaining two-thirds of the evaluation of teaching
effectiveness, with a view to implementation in Spring 1995.
The purpose of the present report is to provide a summary of the work
of the committees over the past two academic years, as well as to provide an
analytical report of the Fall 1994 pilot.
Summary of Committee Activities and Findings, 1993-94
=====================================================
The committee developed The Plan that was presented to Faculty Council
on February 17, 1994. Faculty Council approved The Plan which is included in
Appendix A.
The rating form that had been approved by the Curriculum and
Instruction Committee was not piloted in its intact form during Spring 1994.
Over the objections of the committee, The Citadel administration administered a
version of the rating form in which four questions were eliminated and two were
altered. After deliberations with the administration, an agreement was reached
wherein the Spring 1994 evaluation could be considered a pre-pilot. The April
21 report to Faculty Council (Appendix B) reflects these discussions.
A survey about the pre-pilot was disseminated to the faculty of The
Citadel on May 5, 1994. The survey questions appear in Appendix C. Faculty
comments to each question appear in Appendix D.
Summary of Committee Activities and Findings, 1994-95
=====================================================
After scrutinizing the faculty responses, the committee made a series
of recommendations for the Fall 1994 pilot in a report to Faculty Council on
September 15, 1994 (Appendix E). As a result, departments were invited to
submit departmental sets of items (Appendix F). As indicated in the
abbreviated report to Faculty Council on October 20 (Appendix G), eight
departments elected to specify departmental item sets for the fall pilot which
was scheduled for the period from November 14-December 7. A copy of the
Administration Instructions and the student rating form appear in Appendix H.
The faculty was once again surveyed, and the survey and responses appear in
Appendix I.
Student Monitors reported few "unusual occurrences" during the pilot
administration of the Student Evaluation of Teaching (SET). Six monitors
reported instances which ranged from "talking" to administration outside of the
classroom. Of these, four occurred in graduate classes. When questioned, the
monitors indicated that they did not believe that the incidents influenced
students' responses on SET.
SET results were disseminated to faculty during the first week of
classes for Spring Semester 1995. A Guide to Interpreting the Student
Evaluation of Teaching (Appendix J) was provided to faculty with their class
summaries. On January 27, college-wide statistics were disseminated along with
a faculty survey (Appendix K). Faculty responses to the survey appear in
Appendix L.
The committee examined the results of the surveys. Few modifications
in the administration procedures appeared necessary for Spring 1995; however,
departments and individuals were allowed to specify additional items (see
Appendices M and N).
Technical Analyses
==================
Validity
--------
Validity is commonly defined as the extent to which a test measures
what it purports to measure, and multiple sources of evidence are commonly
sought. As suggested by Marsh (1984), the current instrument was developed
from reviewing appropriate literature and through faculty input from the
Curriculum and Instruction Committee, Faculty Council, and faculty surveys. In
addition, a content validity review was undertaken and a factor analysis was
performed.
Through a literature review and faculty survey, nine dimensions of
teaching were identified. Each of the members of the Committee on Student
Evaluation of Teaching independently reviewed The Citadel core items and the
eight departmental item sets submitted in the fall to determine the
correlations between the items and the dimensions of teaching. The committee
then met and achieved consensus on item-dimension correlations.
As indicated in the October 20 brief to Faculty Council, the first
seven dimensions are addressed by the core items. Dimensions 8 and 9 were
addressed by several departmental item sets.
The factor analysis (Appendix O) indicates that the ten item core is
unidimensional. Note that CORE items (as indicated in this printout) are
scored on a scale in which the point value of 1 is the most positive response.
In subsequent analyses, RCORE items are scored on a scale in which the point
value of 5 is the most positive response.
Reliability
-----------
The consistency of ratings was verified by inter-item correlations,
item-total correlations, and Cronbach alpha reliability coefficients (Appendix
P). The analyses indicate that ratings on SET are reliable.
Bias Analyses
-------------
Student ratings have been considered "biased" when they are "influenced
by variables not related to teaching effectiveness." The following variables
were examined as potentially biasing. In reviewing the data, it is important
to note the following point made by Marsh (1984, p. 734): "It is not
sufficient to show that some variable is correlated with student ratings and
that a causal interpretation is warranted; it must also be shown that the
variable is not correlated with effective teaching." Neither correlations nor
differences, in and of themselves, should imply causality.
GRADES. Cashin (1988) indicates that student grade point ratio is not related
to student ratings, and that there is a low positive correlation between
ratings and expected grades. Marsh (1984, p. 722) gives three possible
explanations for correlations: "(a) more effective teaching that produces
greater learning and higher evaluations by students; (b) increased student
satisfaction with higher grades that causes them to reward the instructor with
higher ratings independent of more effective teaching or greater learning; or
(c) initial differences in student characteristics (e.g., prior subject
interest, motivation, and ability) that affect both teaching effectiveness and
performance."
To ascertain the relationship at The Citadel, "midterm grade"
and "cumulative grade" were included on SET for cadets, and "expected" grade
was included on SET for evening students. The grade variables were correlated
with item and total SET scores using both Pearson and Spearman coefficients.
Spearman correlation coefficients for cadets' cumulative grades ranged from .03
to .10. Midterm grade correlations were higher ranging from .14 to .25.
Correlations with expected grade for evening students ranged from .10 to .23.
Taken as a whole, these correlations are relatively weak with the highest only
accounting for 6% of the variation in the ratings. It is interesting to note
that (other than the total score) the highest correlations for midterm grades
appear on Item 6 (I understand what is expected of me in this course) and Item
9 (I learned a lot in this course). For evening students, (aside from the
"total" rating) expected grade was most highly correlated with Item 6 and Item
8 (Assignments are related to the goals of this course). Statistical output
appears in Appendix Q.
ACADEMIC RANK. Instructor rank has produced mixed effects when studied (Marsh,
1984). To ascertain its relationship with SET ratings, an analysis of variance
was conducted to compare item and total ratings across professor ranks.
Instructors were initially classified as either adjunct/temporary, assistant,
associate, or full professors. For the Corps of Cadets, all items and the
total showed significant differences in ratings across ranks. In an attempt to
analyze these differences more closely, faculty were classified as either
adjunct, temporary, military, assistant, associate, or full professors.
Significant differences appeared for all items and for total rating scores.
Although there are item differences, in general military faculty received the
highest ratings and associate professors received the lowest ratings. It
should be noted that ratings on the whole were high, with 3.96 (on a 5 point
scale) as the lowest mean rating for any rank on any item.
For the College of Graduate and Professional Studies students, faculty
were classified as adjunct/temporary, assistant, associate or full professors.
The analysis of variance showed significant academic rank differences for Items
3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10 and the total. Results varied by item, but in general,
adjunct faculty received the highest ratings and full professors received the
lowest ratings. This is somewhat consistent with Cashin's (1988, p. 3) report
that "older faculty receive lower ratings."
Statistical output appears in Appendix R.
YEARS TEACHING. Cashin (1988) indicates that negative correlations between
instructor's age/teaching experience and student ratings have been found in
some studies. In an attempt to gauge this relationship at The Citadel,
professors were asked to code the number of years of teaching experience.
Appendix S provides the correlations for the 56 faculty members who coded their
years of teaching experience. Low negative correlations are reported for all
items and the total.
MILITARY RANK. Similar analyses were conducted for military rank as were
conducted for academic rank. Only full-time tenure track faculty were included
in these analyses. Significant differences were noted for the total score and
all items except #8 (Assignments are related to goals of this course).
Captains generally achieved the highest ratings; however, significant
differences among ranks differed by item. Findings were similar in the College
of Graduate and Professional Studies.
Statistical output appears in Appendix T.
STUDENT CLASS LEVEL. Although Cashin (1988) reports that student class level
is unrelated to student ratings, the unique nature of the fourth class system
made this a suspect finding with respect to The Citadel. Analysis of variance
results clearly indicate that except for Item 6 (I understand what is expected
of me in this course) freshman ratings are lower than others. Interestingly,
for Item 9 (I learned a lot in this course) ratings of seniors are almost as
low as freshman ratings.
Analyses are reported only for the Corps of Cadets, since most evening
students are graduate students. Statistical output appears in Appendix U.
STUDENT MOTIVATION. The literature indicates that both prior interest in the
subject and the reason for taking the course are related to course ratings
(Cashin, 1988; Marsh, 1984). To evaluate student motivation effects, two types
of data were collected: whether or not the course was required, and whether
the course was in the major/minor/other area. Non-required courses generally
received higher ratings for both day and evening students. For the Corps of
Cadets, Items 2, 6 and 7 did not show significant differences. For evening
students, ratings on Item 7 did not differ significantly. For day students,
only four items showed differences in ratings according to the
major/minor/other distinction: Items 2, 6, 7, and 9. For the four items,
"Other" ratings appeared to be highest except for Item 9 where the ratings of
"Minor" students were highest. Among evening students, classes in the major
appeared least favored. Significant differences were found on all Items except
1 and 7. It should be noted that only a small percentage of classes were
classified as "minor" in the evening programs.
Statistical output appears in Appendix V.
GENDER OF FACULTY MEMBER. Because of the single gender environment of The
Citadel Corps of Cadets, possible gender bias in faculty ratings seemed to
warrant special attention. For this reason, a number of studies were
undertaken. Four of these studies are reported in the paper in Appendix W. As
reported in the paper, male faculty receive higher ratings than female faculty
on Items 1 (My professor displays a clear understanding of course topics) and
Item 3 (My professor speaks audibly and clearly). Female faculty receive
higher ratings than male faculty on Item 4 (My professor displays enthusiasm
when teaching). In statistical analyses specifically designed to detect item
bias, no items were found to be biased against either gender. As an
explanation of the findings from statistical analyses and interviews with
female faculty and cadets, the "expert rater" hypothesis suggests that the
gender bias that exists at The Citadel does not affect student ratings of
faculty performance on SET.
An additional study and the full analysis of interview data are
currently underway.
For the College of Graduate and Professional Studies, a two-way
analyses of variance was conducted with both student gender and faculty gender
specified as main effects. On almost all items and the total, significant main
effects and interaction effects were noted. The ratings of female students
tended to be higher than the ratings for male students. The ratings for female
faculty tended to be higher than the ratings for male faculty. And the ratings
of female students for female faculty were higher than any other combination.
Exceptions included Item 1, for which there was no student gender main effect,
and Item 4, for which there was not quite a significant interaction effect.
Statistical output appears in Appendix X.
Recommendations
===============
(1) Continued use of SET, as specified in The Plan, as one part of the
evaluation of teaching. Based on the technical analyses, SET appears to
be valid, reliable, and unbiased. SET should not be viewed as a static
system; however, and should be reviewed annually and changed as warranted.
Changes in items should be initiated in the Curriculum and Instruction
Committee according to The Plan, as revised and presented to Faculty
Council in the fall. Any changes in SET will warrant updated validity,
reliability, and bias analyses.
(2) Revision to departmental item sets should be accommodated. Individual
instructors should be permitted to specify additional items for each
course they teach during a given semester.
(3) SET should be a part of the evaluation of teaching as specified by each
department's standards. SET should not be the only mechanism by which
teaching is evaluated. (The charge to develop a measure to provide the
other 2/3 of the evaluation of teaching has been superseded by the
development of departmental standards.) Instructors may use other forms
of data gathering to supplement SET. Of note:
In general, student ratings tend to be statistically
reliable, valid, and relatively free from bias,
probably more so than any other data used for faculty
evaluation. Nevertheless, student ratings are only one
source of data about teaching and must be used in
combination with multiple sources of data if one wishes
to make a judgment of all of the components of college
teaching. Further, student ratings are data that must
be interpreted. We should not confuse a source of data
with the evaluators who use the data to make a
judgment. (Cashin, 1988, p. 4)
(4) Continued attention to the following concerns:
(a) Instructor Present During Administration. Objections continue to
surface about the presence of the faculty member during
administration. Cashin (1988) reports that ratings "tend to be
higher" when the instructor is present during administration than
when the instructor is not present. If current procedures are
followed, all instructors should be present during SET administration
so this factor should be eliminated as an influencing variable.
Maintaining an instructor's presence may enhance the integrity of
the evaluation process.
(b) Mismarks. The possibility of customizing rating forms to minimize
mismarking should continue to be investigated . Among the Corps of
Cadets, there were 1,357 mismarks for Item 10 and 336 mismarks in
demographic codes. For the evening students, there were 258
mismarks on Item 10 and 28 mismarks in demographic coding.
(c) Calculation of Descriptive Statistics. Currently, medians are
calculated for each item for each class. Yet, when comparative
campus-wide statistics are calculated, means are presented.
Comparative statistics may not be necessitated by departmental
standards, but if they are, the same measure should be used for both.
(d) Student Comments. Instructors tend to find student comments more
useful than summarized ratings. Suggestions have been made to
increase the comment space, and to provide a typed version of student
comments.
(e) Consultation. Research indicates that student ratings are most
useful in improving instruction when consultative services about the
improvement of instruction accompany the ratings.
===============================================================================
THE CITADEL FACULTY COUNCIL
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of 16 February 1995
Board of Visitors Room, Jenkins Hall, 11:00 AM
1. The Chair called Faculty Council to order at 11:03 AM.
2. Members in attendance: Professors Adelman, Anessi, Bishop, Bryson,
Carter, Chandler, Crabtree, Deutz, Hewett, Kelley, Maynard, Richardson,
Siskind, Tucker, Woolsey
Members Absent: Professors O. Bowman, Feurtado, McCullohs, McRae,
Simmons, and Tripp
Professor Lally substituted for Professor Leonard.
Professor Jerse substituted for Professor Epple
3. Approval of Previous Minutes.
Professor Adelman moved, second by Professor Deutz, to accept the
minutes of the 19 Jan 95 meeting. Carried unanimously.
4. Announcements from the Chair.
Academic Board has not met since the last meeting of Faculty Council.
The Board of Visitors on 10 Feb 95 approved a proposal by Dean Gordon to
hold a two-day academic orientation in August for the entering freshmen.
This would take place BEFORE cadre week.
Applications and acceptances for fall 1995 are comparable with the past
years performance.
5. Old Business
Evaluation of Instruction: Professor Siskind reported that bias analyses
and interpretation of the fall 1994 pilot are underway. A full report to
Council is anticipated for the March meeting. She noted that the project
assigned to the committee ends this spring; that further work will need
to revert to the Committee on Curriculum and Instruction.
Faculty Manual: Professor Tucker took the Subcommittee C resolutions,
which were approved at the January meeting, to Dean Poole who took them
under advisement.
Furlough: Professor Tucker took the resolution from the January meeting
to Dean Poole who took this under advisement.
6. New Business
a. Professor Tucker read a letter from Professor Elksnin [to be attached to
the VAX/gopher copy of the minutes] addressing concerns regarding Faculty
Achievement Awards, search committee composition, and the Faculty Manual.
The question of search committees was forwarded to Subcommittee C for a
report at the March meeting.
b. Professor Tucker, on behalf of Dean Gordon, invited discussion on
possible revision of General Order 28 (3 Sep 84) concerning Faculty
Precedence at commencements and similar gatherings. [The order as it
presently stands is attached to the VAX/gopher copy of the minutes.]
Professor Bryson noted that this document does not clearly integrate
the "academic" and "military" faculties. With the exception of the
heads, who march with Academic Board and who have the rank of "full
professor," the "military" faculty appear to be considered "assistant
professor" regardless of service, education, and experience.
Professor Woolsey moved, second by Professor Bryson, that the order be
modified so that the "military" faculty process with "academic" faculty
of comparable rank, ie,
"military" faculty "academic" faculty
O5,O6 full professor
O4 associate professor
O3 assistant professor
O1,O2 instructor
Professor Siskind moved, second by Professor Lally, to amend the
motion so that paragraph 4 of GO 28 would read:
"This procedure shall become applicable upon publication. This
procedure shall apply only to ceremonial activities and faculty
roster listings."
Motion and amendment passed unanimously.
Professor Adelman, second by Professor Carter, that the substance of
this directive be added to the Faculty Manual under the heading of
Precedence. [At the present time, the VAX/gopher version merely makes
reference to General Order 28!]
c. On behalf of Professor Leonard and the Research Committee, Professor
Tucker distributed a Policy Statement on Applications for CDF Research
Grants [a copy will be appended to the VAX/gopher copy of the minutes].
This document was developed by a subcommittee of the Research Committee
and has been revised and finalized by the full Research Committee. The
statement IS currently in effect at the Research Committee.
Faculty Council is asked to review the document and make a recommendation
to Dean Poole concerning the question: Should this be added to the
Faculty Manual? This matter was directed to Subcommittee A, Professor
Adelman was asked to convene the subcommittee.
7. Meeting adjourned, 11:55 AM
/s/ Tom Richardson
Secretary, Faculty Council
* * * * *
Text of a letter from Professor Elksnin to Professor Tucker,
Chair of Faculty Council:
I have a sinking feeling that more and more responsibilites
and controls are being shifted from the faculty to the
administration. Here are two examples.
Until this past year, recipients of Faculty Achievement Awards
were selected by their peers, rather than by the administration.
In the "proposed minutes" of the December Academic Board Meeting,
the draft of the guidelines for Faculty Achievement Awards
recommends that Department Heads, rather than faculty members,
serve on the selection committees.
In the Policy Document regarding "Establishing Search Committees
and Procedures for Review of Candidates for Faculty Position [sic],"
item 3 requires that "all search committees for tenure-track
positions, department and unit heads must be appointed by the
designated dean." In the past, tenure-track position search
committees were appointed by the Department Head, with the
concurrence of faculty members. Only in the case of head searches
did the deans become involved in the appointment of search
committees recommended by faculty in the department. I am
assuming that item 2a recognizes that department faculty recommend
internal representatives, one external representative, and the
individual who will chair the Department Head Search Committee,
subject to the approval of the dean as stipulated in the Faculty
Manual.
Of course, the Faculty Manual appears to be a "moving target," with
its contents being superseded and over-ridden by memos, policy and
procedures documents, and so forth.
What are your perceptions? I would like very much for Faculty
Council to discuss issues of faculty governance and faculty
influence.
/s/ Linda K. Elsknin
Past Chair, Faculty Council
* * * * *
Text of General Order 28, 3 Sep 84, "Faculty Precedence"
1. For ceremonial activities and for faculty rosters, it is essential
that a uniform policy be implemented for the determinatin of
faculty precedence.
2. The faculty ranks shall be:
Professor
Associate Professor
Assistant Professor
Instructor
3. Precedence within each rank shall be determined by date of appointment
to that rank. Where there are two or more faculty with the same date
of appointment to the same rank, the faculty member whose terminal
degree has the earliest date will have precedence. In the rare case
of a continuing tie under these conditions, precedence will be
determined alphabetically.
4. This procedure shall become applicable upon publication. At the same
time, it is not intended that faculty precedence should become a
dominant factor in internal departmental operations, organizations,
nor in committee assignments. The determination of precedence shall
apply to offical faculty listings and to academic processins (or other
academic ceremonies). It shall not be used in the determination of
eligibility for campus housing nor shall this procedure apply to the
determination of precedence among the faculty of the military
departments. For military deparments, the date of military rank will
determine precedence.
* * * * *
Text of "Policy Statement on Applications for CDF Research Grants"
from the Research Committee for possible inclusion in the
Faculty Manual
I. Purpose
The purpose of this statement is (a) to provide for all faculty
authorative guidance in applications for CDF research grants and
(b) to establish policies to assure equitable and effective
distribution of research funds. The Research Committee shall make
recommendations regarding faculty applications for CDF support for
research and presentation consistent with the policies detailed in
the sections which follow.
II. Philosophy
The Research Committee seeks to encourage faculty research, writing,
presentation, and publication through financila support for meritorious
research proposals. The College's support for faculty research, made
possible by generous grants from the Citadel Development Foundation,
has provided much of the basis for recruiting and maintaining a highly
qualified faculty. The grants have enabled faculty members to make
original and useful contributions to the advancement of knowledge and,
in general, to be professionally active in their disciplines. In short,
the quality of The Citadel's faculty has been directly and substantially
enhanced by the availability of CDF faculty research grants. Both
teaching and the College's general academic reputation have significantly
benefitted from a professionally active faculty dedicated to high
standards of learning and scholarship. A 1988 report on faculty
credentials and faculty involvement in research during the period
1930-1985 quantitatively documented the dramatic increase in faculty
participation in productive research beginning in the late 1970s, a
development strongly linked to CDF support for faculty research.
[Moore, J. W. "The Changing Citadel Faculty: Profile Data" (1988). A
document developed for the Task Force on Academic Programs, Strategic
Planning Committee, 1988.]
III. Eligibility
Eligibility for application for CDF grants shall be limited to full-time
faculty who are tenured or tenure-track and who maintain an
electronically-available complete and annually updated vita.
IV. Guidelines and Policies for Grant Applications
Those applying for CDF-funded research grants shall note the policies and
observe the guidelines set forth below.
1. External Grants
The Research Committee encourages the use of CDF grants as a means to
obtain external funding (ie, "seed money"), and such applications,
where properly supported and documented, may earn priority rating.
When outside funding may be available, a faculty member may be
expected to demonstrate why he or she has not applied for such
funding.
2. Continuing Grants
Since research is often longitudinal (eg, basic collection of data in
the first year; initial analysis, writing, and paper presentation in
the following year or years; and a capstone publication, such as a
book, perhaps not forthcoming until as much as five years from the
time the data were first collected), research projects shall be
considered for ongoing support without an arbitrary limit on the
number of consecutive grants; such support, however, is contingent
upon a demonstration of effective use of previous grants (as may be
documented in annual CDF grant reports).
To limit grant support to projects that can be completed in 12 to 18
months seems very shortsighted; it would discriminate against many
projects that simply cannot be completed in so short a timeframe; in
the social sciences, eg, large-scale projects may require one or two
years simply to plan and to collect data. The result of a one-year
limitation would likely be to reduce the quality of research and to
reduce the likelihood of publication (which normally spans a longer
timeframe than a year).
3. Monetary Caps on Grant Awards
In the interest of effective cost controls and wide participation in
the award of grant funds, the maximum grant award per applicant shall
normally be $5000 for the 1995-1996 grant year. [The Committee shall
establish any caps on grant awards on a yearly basis, such information
to be announced in the annual call for research grant applications.]
Note that exceptions to this maximum award may be made by the
committee, but in those instances applicants must sustain a heavy
burden of proof.
Note also that the above cap applies to research grants; those who
are awarded such grants may in addition apply for presentation grants
(which are separately administered).
4. Travel
Research Committee policy does not restrict travel destinations as
the Committee recognizes that some disciplines require international
travel. International travel, therefore, may be recommended for
funding, but the applicant must sustain the burden of proof for such
travel. As with any grant application, the quality of the proposal
and the record (or potential) of the applicant are the most important
factors to determine funding.
5. Committee Criteria.
Criteria for evaluation of grant applications shall include the
following:
(a) scholarly merit
(b) clarity of the proposal
(c) feasibility
(d) expected benefits or outcomes
(e) cost effectiveness
(f) outcomes from previous grants
(g) any special factors such as applications from new
faculty or from current faculty renewing research agendas.
6. Assessment of Research Committee Procedures and Policies
In order to assess the effectiveness of its policies, the Committee
will undertake a periodic survey of faculty to assess faculty
understanding of -- and satisfaction with -- Committee procedures
and criteria.
===============================================================================
THE CITADEL FACULTY COUNCIL
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of 19 January 1995
Board of Visitors Room, Jenkins Hall, 11:00 AM
1. The Chair called Faculty Council to order at 11:02 PM
2. Members in attendance: Professors Adelman, Anessi, O. Bowman, Carter,
Bishop, Feurtado, Deutz, Epple, Crabtree, McRae, Chandler, Maynard,
Richardson, Leonard, Simmons, Tripp, Tucker, Bryson, and Woolsey
Members absent: Professors Kelley, Siskind, McCollohs
Also present: Cadets Jeffcoat and Pantsari
Note: During the period while Professor H. Nath is serving as Library
Director, Professor E. Maynard will substitute for him.
3. Acceptance of Previous Minutes.
Professor Bowman moved, second by Professor Carter, to accept the minutes
of the 17 Nov 94 meeting. Carried unanimously.
4. Reports
Professor Tucker suggested that since the minutes of both Academic Board
and Graduate Council are now available on the VAX-Gopher system, routine
presentation of those meetings will not longer be done at a portion of the
Faculty Council agenda. This proposal was accepted without objection.
There had been no meetings of the Board of Visitors to report on.
5. Old Business: Evaluations:
Professor Siskind is not yet ready to report on the fall pilot exercise.
She will be working with Department Heads and others in anticipation of
the spring exercise. She anticipates having a presentation for the March
meeting of Faculty Council.
6. Special Business. Presentation by Cadets Jeffcoat and Pantsari
a. Concerning the racial discrimination incidents of recent days. It was
reported that there is an ongoing positive discussion in the Corps and
that letters of recommendation have been written, approved, and
implementation is beginning. The Corps responded well in this
situation; SLED is investigating; early resolution is anticipated.
Professor Bishop moved, second by Professor Chandler, that Faculty
Council affirm its support of The Citadel community's expression of
efforts to further the cause of racial harmony and strongly condemn
the recent incidents of racism on campus. Carried unanimously. [The
text of this resolution was distributed to virtually every e-mail
address on the Citadel VAX; it was also published in the Brigadier.]
b. Letter to Faculty Council concerning the furlough procedures as
outlined in the draft calendar. [These are appended as an appendix to
the electronic version of the minutes.]
items of especial concern:
(d) shut-down and start-up of Corps activities is not a trivial matter
(e) "stub weeks" will lead to useless class days as Cadets will be
thinking on matters other than academic
Professor Bowman moved that Faculty Council accept the letter for
information purposes and take the matter under advisement. Professor
Tucker accepted the letter and promised future action.
Professor Bishop moved, second provided, that Faculty Council urge
Academic Board, for reasons of Cadet morale, to resume from next year
on, the practice of one spring break in mid-semester rather than two
shorter ones. Carried unanimously.
7. New Business
a. On behalf of Subcommittee C, Professor Deutz distributed a report and
recommendation concerning various aspects of the distribution and
availability of the Faculty Manual. [These are appended as an appendix to
the electronic version of the minutes.]
It was noted that neither the paper copies which have been placed in the
departments nor the electronic version available on the VAX-Gopher have
either an index or table of contents. It was also noted that the Gopher
version is awkward in placement and access.
Comments to the Survey:
Items (1) and (2) indicate that 75% of the faculty desire at least a
paper copy of the manual regardless of the electronic availability.
Items (3) and (4) express concerns addressing faculty governance.
There needs to be an annual date on which all approved changes become
effective so that the actual Faculty Manual remains constant and
defined during the course of an academic year.
The subcommittee proposed the following resolutions:
> Faculty Council recommends that all changes to the Faculty Manual be
approved by the Council before the changes become part of the Faculty
Manual.
> Faculty Council recommends that faculty members be informed of the
process used and the personnel involved in making changes to the
Faculty Manual.
> Faculty Council recommends that a flow chart be developed that
outlines the procedures used in making additions to or changes in the
Faculty Manual and that the flow chart become part of the Manual.
> Faculty Council recommends that the procedures used to make additions
to or changes in the Faculty Manual be modified to involve faculty
members from the start of the process.
Professor Leonard moved, second by Professor Bishop, the adoption of the
recommendations from Subcommittee C and that these be forwarded to General
Poole. Carried unanimously.
b. Professor Bishop asked if or not the possibility of +/- grading had been
addressed by Faculty Council; the response was not in present memory
although Academic Board has done so.
Professor Tucker directed Professor Bishop to pursue this possibility for
consideration by Faculty Council at a later date.
8. Meeting adjourned 12:20 PM.
/s/ Tom Richardson
Secretary, Faculty Council
* * * * *
Appendix 1 -- Letter from the Regimental Academic Officer [Steven C. Jeffcoat]
Concerning Calendar and Furlough to Faculty Council. 16 Jan 1995
1. The purpose of this memorandum is to clearly state the recommendations of
the Corps of Cadets concerning Spring Furlough.
2. There are several issues that need to be considered concerning this
matter:
a. We are expecting a tremendous influx of family, friends, and alumni
on campus over the Corps Day weekend. It would be beneficial to all
cadets, especially the members of the Fourthclass, if they are
allowed to depart with their families on Sunday. If non-driving
cadets are forced to leave on Tuesday, this would certainly mean
additional traveling time for their families. Because of this
factor, many cadet families may opt out of attending Corps Day
festivities due to travel arrangements and expenses.
b. The present schedule only adds one period of instruction per course
while subtracting three days of leave.
c. Lengthening the Spring Furlough would still leave 42 class periods
for MWF classes and 28 class periods for TR classes.
d. Colleges that I am familiar with either have one long break or two
short breaks per semester. It is not feasible for the Corps of
Cadets to have two short breaks because of the massive amount of work
it takes to shut down and restart the Corps of Cadets.
e. The most important reason for lengthening the Spring Furlough
revolves around the academic atmosphere of The Citadel, itself. Many
cadets have confirmed that if forced to leave on a Tuesday, they will
embark for their Spring vacationing sites immediately following
dismissal. As a result, the classes scheduled for Monday and Tuesday
through noon, as well as, ESP for Monday and Sunday night, will be
effectively useless. This is a simple fact. A vast majority of
cadets will have their minds at the beach rather [than] in the
classroom where they belong. In addition, instead of studying on
Monday night, these same cadets will be busy packing for their trips.
If the Corps of Cadets leaves on Sunday, cadets will have the weekend
to pack and coordinate for their trips. They will also give cadets
who live close by the opportunity to visit their families before
embarking on their respective trips.
f. The Corps of Cadets' performance over the Homecoming weekend was
stellar. They managed to turn in rifles and secure the armory in two
hours and forty-five minutes! The Corps leadership spent countless
hours planning and troubleshooting the weekend schedule and this was
evident in the near flawless execution of the plan. The Cadet
leadership is confidant that we can orchestrate a repeat performance.
3. The following events require cadet participation over the Corps Day
weekend: parades, open barracks, and chapel. With this in mind, the
Cadet leadership recommends the following actions be taken:
a. The Spring Furlough schedule be amended to begin at 1200 hours on
Sunday 19 March.
b. All general leave on 18 March end at 0100 Sunday morning.
c. Alloted overnights for the upper three classes on 17 March to
terminate at 0700 18 March
d. The Regiment be secured immediately following the completion of rifle
turn-in and barracks inspection.
* * * * *
Appendix 2 -- Data Provided by Subcommittee C
Textual Summary of Faculty Survey Fall 1994
Total number of respondents: 81 [multiple responses were accepted, thus
percentages may not add to 100%]
1. A copy of the Faculty Manual should be provided to each
faculty member
a) on the VAX. __25 resp. _ 30.9%
b) on paper. __21 resp._ 25.9%
c) on both on the VAX and on paper. __39 resp._ 48.1% (b+c: 74.0%)
d) undecided ___0 resp._ 0.0%
2. Changes made to the Faculty Manual should be distributed to
each faculty member
a) on the VAX. __22 resp._ 27.2%
b) on paper. __22 resp._ 27.2% (b+c: 77.8%)
c) both on the VAX and on paper. __41 resp._ 50.6%
d) undecided ___0 resp._ 0.0%
3. Changes made to the Faculty Manual should be approved by
Faculty Council.
a) Yes __70 resp._ 86.4%
b) No __ 2 resp._ 2.5%
c) undecided __ 7 resp._ 8.6%
4. Changes made to any document pertaining to any matter in the
entire range of faculty responsibilities and rights should be
approved by faculty. (Examples of faculty responsibilities
include the curriculum and academic programs.)
a) Yes __63 resp._ 77.8%
b) No __ 4 resp._ 4.9%
c) Undecided __12 resp._ 14.8%
===============================================================================
Note: There was no meeting of Faculty Council in December 1994. THR
===============================================================================
THE CITADEL FACULTY COUNCIL
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of 17 November 1994
Board of Visitors Room, Jenkins Hall, 11:00 AM
1. The Chair called Faculty Council to order at 11:05 PM
2. Members in attendance: Professors Anessi, O. Bowman, Carter, Feurtado,
Deutz, Epple, Crabtree, Kelley, McRae, Chandler, Siskind, Nath,
Richardson, Leonard, Simmons, Tripp, Tucker, and Woolsey
Members absent: Professors Adelman, Bishop, McCullohs, and Bryson.
Also present: Professor Trautman, Director of Admissions W. West, Dean of
Administration R. Gaskins.
3. Acceptance of Previous Minutes.
Professor Bowman moved, second by Professor Carter, to accept the minutes
of the 20 Oct 94 meeting. Carried unanimously.
Professor Richardson moved, second by Professor Bowman, to correct the
minutes of the 15 Sept 94 meeting as follows. Carried unanimously. [The
electronic copy on the VAX has been corrected to reflect this correction.]
On page 3 of the Minutes as distributed to Council, a motion
attibuted to Professor Briggs and seconded by Professor Bishop was
improperly copied from the Secretary's notes. The proper wording is
to be:
'Professor Briggs moved, second by Professor Bishop, that the sentence
on page 25 of the report "And a median of 3.0 ... respond to the
item." be deleted. Carried unanimously.'
4. Special Presentation
Dean Gaskins, with the assistance of Messrs. West and Trautman, presented
an overview and outlook on the recruitment, admissions, and retention
situation as it presently stands at The Citadel. A major focus of this
presentation was a request for Faculty Council to explicitly endorse
faculty involvement in the overall recruitment process. Professor Tucker
(Chair of Council) asked members to consider ways in which faculty can
become involved; he will also ask the Committee on Committees to consider
a specific faculty committee assignment for this purpose.
5. Reports by the Chair
Academic Board (15 Nov 94)
A draft report on the Faculty Achievement Awards was presented. The
purpose will be to reward faculty for significant achievement ... positive
impact on student, academic, and intellectual development ... scholarship
... contribution to the profession or discipline. There may be as many as
5 or 6 such awards per year, each award may be for as much as $5000 ...
this program will commence in the 1995-96 school year. General Poole
hopes that the awards will be presented at the opening (fall) convocation;
thus, the review process should be completed in the prior spring.
Departmental review of this proposal is to be anticipated.
Dean Reilly presented a proposal for professional and career development
programs within the College of Graduate and Professional Studies. These
programs could include the necessary continuing educational programs
required by various disciplines for maintaining professional
qualifications. Departmental review of this proposal is to be
anticipated.
Dean Reilly is chairing a committee to develop procedures for search
committees.
Dean Metts reported on a CHE conference on Assessment. The extent to
which The Citadel is deficient is now known ... also thoughts towards
rectification ... which will include, among other items, the results of
evaluations by students.
The tenure and promotion process document (which was presented to the
faculty on the morning of 15 November 94) was discussed.
Comments toward the implementation of SIS-Plus were presented. This
includes a required orientation workshop, without which faculty will not
have access to student records, etc., which are essential for proper
advising of students!
Graduate Council (3 Nov 94)
The proposed standards for membership and continuation of Graduate Faculty
Status are now policy (see Faculty Council October 94 Minutes).
Departments may establish and enforce higher standards. The review of
Graduate Faculty will occur this year.
Professor Barrett proposed the adoption of a process for submission of new
course proposals. This was approved.
Board of Visitors
The new mission statement from Strategic Planning (Professor Mailloux) was
adopted.
Athletic Committee: Problems have arisen due to the College Football
Association prohibiting their members from playing The Citadel (and
similar 1-AA schools). The choices include becomming a 1-A program
(expensive) or dropping to 1-AAA status. A BoV committee has been formed
to study athletic policy and the future of the program; faculty
representation has been requested. Professor Tucker has nominated
professors Tom Dion (Civil Engineering) and Gerald Runey (Biology) to
serve on the committee.
Core Curriculum Review
To date there has been one meeting ... membership is Dean Reilly (chair),
the Chair of Faculty Council (Professor Tucker) plus three members of
Faculty Council (Professors Bishop, Kelley, and Woolsey) and three members
of Academic Board (Professors R. A. White, J. R. Blanton, and R. Emory).
Miscellaneous Reports
Professor Tim Dougherty will replace Professor Stephanie Hewett on the
Strategic Planning Educational Programs Task Force.
Professors Woody Holbein and Kathy Haldane have been appointed to the
"Book Selection Committee." The purpose of this committee will be to make
recommendations concerning the "general interest" books which will be
offered for sale at the Gift Shop.
6. There was no old business.
7. New Business
Professor Tucker distributed a letter which had been received from
Professor J. Moore (President of The Citadel Chapter of AAUP) concerning
the Faculty Handbook addressing the process and procedures of language and
other changes. [This letter is appended to the VAX copy of the minutes.]
Discussion included the cost of general hard-copy distribution and the
problems involved with properly updating all personal hard-copy manuals.
Suggestions included the establishment of an "official" annual edition;
changes would be collected and the "official" version updated at specific
times; the changes in the electronic version MUST be properly flagged.
Professor Tucker directed Subcommittee C to study this issue and to report
to Council at the December 1994 meeting. Professor Deutz was appointed to
convene the subcommittee.
8. Announcements and Adjournment.
It was noted that Professor Bishop's mother, who has been visiting her, is
seriously ill.
It was reported that Professor Sherman Pyatt will be leaving The Citadel
to join the College of Charleston to become an archivist with the Avery
Institute.
Professor Bowman moved, second provided to adjourn at 12:30 PM. Carried
unanimously.
/s/ Tom Richardson
Secretary, Faculty Council
* * * * *
Text of a letter from Professor J. Moore (President of The Citadel Chapter of
AAUP) to Professor T. Tucker (Chair of Faculty Council)
6 November 1994
By unanimous resolution at the November 3, 1994 meeting, members of
The Citadel AAUP Chapter invite your attention, and that of the Vice President
for Academic Affairs, to concerns regarding the current Faculty Manual.
First, for a variety of reasons, faculty now find that the current
system of maintaining the Faculty Manual electronically on the VAX and
providing a single printed copy for each department severely limits individual
access to this extremely important document. Second, while the initial
language in the new Manual was reviewed and approved by Faculty Council,
faculty also find that they are uninformed when that language changes, who
authors or authorizes these alterations, and about the review process followed
to insure appropriate faculty participation in the process.
The Citadel AAUP Chapter asks Faculty Council to place the following
recommendations on its agenda: (1) That, after a review by Faculty Council of
all recent changes, the Faculty Manual be printed and a copy distributed to
each member of the faculty. To facilitate future changes, perhaps the manuals
could be printed for loose-leaf binders, as was done in the past. (2) That
the office of the Vice President for Academic Affairs communicate to faculty
the current procedures for faculty review of changes to the Faculty Manual;
or, if absent, that VPAA work with Faculty Council to develop such procedures.
===============================================================================
THE CITADEL FACULTY COUNCIL
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of 20 October 1994
Board of Visitors Room, Jenkins Hall, 11:00 AM
1. The Chair called Faculty Council to order at 11:03 AM.
2. Members in attendance: Professors Adelman, Anessi, O. Bowman, Bryson,
Carter, Crabtree, Deutz, Epple, Leonard, McCullohs, McRae, Nath,
Richardson, Simmons, Siskind, Tripp, Tucker, Woolsey
Members Absent: Professors Bishop, Feurtado, Hewett, Kelley, Thompson
3. Approval of Previous Minutes.
Professor O. Bowman moved, second by Professor Carter, to accept the
minutes of the 15 Sep 94 meeting.
4. Reports from the Chair.
a. Academic Board meeting of 20 Sep 94:
COL Trez, Professor of Military Science, requested faculty input into
the new leadership program (greencards, etc). This information has
since been distributed to faculty.
There was discussion on Charleston Passes and leave policy changes; also
enhanced ESP times.
The final faculty meeting may be rescheduled.
A two-year catalog will be implemented.
The new organization structure with each cluster reporting through a
dean is an interim measure.
Departmental standards on tenure and promotion are due to Dean Poole by
15 Nov 94.
Dean Reilly is heading a committee on Faculty/Academic Achievement
Awards to set policy and procedures for next year.
Dean Gordon is heading a committee to consider the final 1.36 percent of
the state-provided pay raise.
b. Academic Board meeting of 18 Oct 94:
Professor Mailloux reported on the state of Strategic Planning
Mr. Gaskins reported on the SAT revision and recentering (changes) which
are currently taking place. He also noted that the SIS system would be
undergoing a major upgrade during November.
Dean Gordon reported on the work done by the "1.36 committee;" this
money will be used to address salary imbalances. This will be done by
lump sum adjustment upon nomination and justification by the department
heads followed by evaluation and approval of nominations by the deans.
The report from the committee defines some terms.
Compression occurs when, due to market conditions, a new faculty
member's salary approaches that of existing faculty; inversion occurs
when, due to market conditions, a new faculty member's salary exceeds
that of existing faculty; and imbalance occurs when senior professors
in some disciplines lack appropriate salaries.
Dean Metts stated that the departments scheduled for agency
accreditation would be among those selected for this year's CHE
assessment. These departments are education, physical education, civil
and electrical engineering, psychology and business. The other
departments will receive their turns in the three-year cycle!
Dean Reilly proposed two questions for consideration:
a. Should all CORE curriculum courses be taken at The Citadel?
b. Should all CORE curriculum requirements be meet in the first two
years?
Academic Board concurred that these questions were worth considering.
Dean Reilly asked that a committee of 3 members of Academic Board and
3 members of Faculty Council be established to study this.
It was noted that General Poole had earlier requested of Professor
Tucker that Faculty Council study the business of transfer credit.
>>> Action of Faculty Council: Professor Bowman moved, second by Professor
Woolsey, that Subcommittee B study the question of transfer credit and
that three individuals (to be named later) be appointed to the Reilly
committee. Carried unanimously.
Dean Poole reported on the "Technology in the Year 2000" program. An
initial aspect of this is for each cadet have a computer; it is hoped
that the starting date for this can be September 1995
c. Graduate Council meeting on 6 Oct 94
Several new courses were approved
A draft version of the requirements for graduate faculty status was
discussed . . . this will be distributed to Faculty Council and others
for comments (to be directed to Professor Leonard). [A copy will be
appended to the vax copy of the minutes]
In general, retention of graduate faculty status follows from
scholarship. The several departments will have different standards
due to the differing purposes of their graduate programs, both
"academic scholarship" and "service to the lowcountry" programs are
offered at The Citadel. While it may not be necessary for an
instructor to hold graduate faculty status to teach a graduate-level
course, there is a potential link between the holding of graduate
faculty status and the granting of any associated release time.
5. Report by Professor Siskind on Evaluation of Teaching
A handout was distributed [this is attached to the vax copy of the
minutes] and discussed.
The question was asked (but not fully answered) as to whether or not
the "Dimensions of Teaching" require definitive approval.
Discussion to section 8, concerns, purpose and use. This follows from
the 21 Apr 94 report. For faculty development, the intent is personal
development and growth of the faculty member while for faculty
evaluation, the intent is that this will have some bearing on tenure
and promotion considerations.
Discussion to section 8, Concerns, to whom will the results be made
available? This has been an area of some concern for many
individuals! The thought was expressed that ownership resides with
the faculty member. There are at least two models for sharing the
results with department heads: direct submission or as part of a
faculty member's package. In the latter instance, annotation and
interpretation is more easily implemented.
Professor Bowman moved, second by Professor Tripp, that Council thank
Professor Siskind and her committee for their progress to date.
Carried unanimously.
6. At 12:40 PM, Professor Bowman moved, second by Professor Tripp, to (1)
thank the Chair for providing refreshments for the meeting and (2) to
adjourn. Carried unanimously.
/s/ Tom Richardson
Secretary, Faculty Council
* * * * *
Draft of
1. Standards for Appointment to Graduate Faculty Rank
A full-time tenured or tenure-track member of The Citadel Faculty shall be
eligible for nomination if he or she meets all the following criteria:
a. holds the rank of assistant professor or above;
b. holds the terminal degree in his/her academic discipline;
c. has demonstrated scholarly activity within the past three years
through at least one of the following:
(1) publication of a book (either authored or edited), a full-length
article in a professional journal (including article-length book
reviews), a chapter in a book, or two or more shorter
publications cumulatively equivalent to a journal article or
book chapter;
(2) presentation of a formal paper at a national, regional, or state
conference.
(3) serving as editor of a scholarly periodical;
(4) demonstration of professional leadership role through holding
office in a national, regional, or state professional
organization;
(5) significant contribution to and participation in graduate
program development, at The Citadel or elsewhere.
In addition, all members of the Graduate Council shall be de facto
members of the Graduate Faculty as long as they serve on the Council.
2. Procedures for appointment to the Graduate Faculty [this section is
unchanged from the existing guidelines]
Candidates for the Graduate Faculty shall meet the following criteria:
a. be nominated by the heads of their academic departments or by the
Dean of Graduate Studies in case the nominee is a department head;
b. be evaluated and recommended by a sub-committee of the Graduate
Council;
c. be recommended by the Graduate Council;
d. be recommended to the President by the Dean of Graduate Studies.
3. Standards for continuation.
Appointments to the Graduate Faculty shall be for five years. At the end
of each five-year period, the individual shall be reviewed by a
subcommittee of the Graduate Council to determine eligibility for
continuation. To be eligible for contintuation, the faculty member must
present evidence of continuing scholarly activity during the five-year
period. Such activities may include, but are not limited to, those
listed in 1.c above, but with the additional stipulation that ar least
one instance of presentation of results of research via book, scholarly
journal, or conference paper must be included.
* * * * *
Report from Committee
Brief on Student Evaluation of Teaching
October 20, 1994
I. Demographics modified to include:
A. Cadet Classes:
1. Class
2. Course required
3. Midterm grade
4. Course in major, minor, or "other"
5. Cumulative GPA
B. Evening Classes:
1. Class
2. Gender
3. Course required
4. Expected grade
5. Course in major, minor, or "other"
II. Administration instructions modified accordingly, revised, now being
finalized
III. Format of Student Rating Forms to be finalized. [A dummy was attached]
IV. Departmental Item Sets
A. 8 departments specified sets
B. 1 department wrote items
C. others: "not at this time"
V. Dimensions of Teaching
A. 21 Apr 94 report to Faculty Council identified 8 dimensions of
teaching.
1. Knowledge in one's discipline;
2. Stimulation of intellectual curiosity in one's students;
interesting students in couse content;
3. Preparation for class;
4. Presentation of material in a clear, understandable fashion;
5. Interest in students; sensitivity for their needs;
6. Clearly stated course objectives and requirements;
7. Instruction which results in new knowledge for students;
8. Encouragement of open student expression.
B. Committee suggests another dimension:
9. Attention to the fundamentals the students need to learn in the
course.
VI. Content Validity
A. Definition
B. Process
C. Results
1. All items assess dimensions
2. One dimension (8) is not assessed by items
3. Several departmental sets address dimension 8
VII. Development of Faculty Survey [draft copy of faculty survey was
provided]
VIII. Concerns
A. Purpose/Use (Report of 21 Apr 94)
1. Faculty Development
2. Student Involvement
3. Faculty Evaluation
B. To whom will results be made available?
===============================================================================
THE CITADEL FACULTY COUNCIL
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of 15 September 1994
Board of Visitors Room, Jenkins Hall, 11:00 AM
1. The Chair called Faculty Council to order at 11:05 AM.
2. Members in attendance: Professors O. Bowman, Carter, Bishop, Feurtado,
Epple, Crabtree, Hewett, Kelley, McRae, Nath, Richardson, Leonard,
Simmons, Tripp, Tucker, McCullohs, and Woolsey.
Members Absent: Professors Anessi, Siskind, and Bryson.
Professor Briggs substituted for Professor Adelman, Professor Lipscomb
substituted for Professor Deutz, Professor Chandler substituted for
Professor Thompson.
Professor Trautman was present to represent the Subcommittee on Student
Evaluation of Instruction.
3. Approval of Previous Minutes.
Professor Bowman moved, second by Professor Tripp, to accept the
minutes of the 25 August 94 meeting. Carried unanimously.
4. Announcements from the Chair.
Academic Board has not met since the previous meeting of Council.
Graduate Council on 1 Sep 94 addressed a variety of administrative
details. The review of qualifications for Graduate Faculty status is
proceeding. Following the next meeting of Graduate Council, a meeting
of all Graduate Faculty will be held.
Board of Visitors.
In addition to sitting in on the (open portion) of the full BOV
meeting, the Chair of Faculty Council attends the meetings of the
Academic Liason Committee of the BOV. The chair is Frank Moode; he
appears to be a faculty advocate and is supportive of the faculty.
The BOV approved a five-year recruitment plan which had been developed
by Admissions and the Administrative Dean. Among other things, the
faculty is a resource for recruitment; a partinership needs to be
developed among Admissions, the Administrative Dean, and the faculty --
how can the faculty contribute? ideas include a speakers' bureau -- a
proposal will be brought forward in New Business.
5. Old Business -- Student Evaluation of Teaching
Professor Woolsey moved, second by Professor Bowman, to accept and adopt
a proposal from the committee. [This is attached as an appendix to the
VAX/INFO copy of the minutes.]
Comments concerning the upcoming Fall 1994 pilot administration:
Questions WILL NOT have statistical read-out.
The forms will be returned directly to the faculty member.
The questions on the back-side (not scanned) are of an "unscannable"
nature. The Spring 1994 trial pilot experienced problems when these
questions were modified for scanning convenience.
Up to 30 department questions may be added to the all-campus list.
The time of administration will be flexible.
For a study of possible bias, the evaluation will need to include the
grade point average to date and the anticipated grade in the course.
> Professor McRae moved, second by Professor Leonard, that the midterm
grade in the course be added to the form as an additional statistic.
Carried unanimously.
> Professor McRae moved, second provided, to delete expected course
grade from the form. Carried unanimously.
[the following motion is a correction approved at the 17 Nov 94 meeting
of Faculty Council]
> Professor Briggs moved, second by Professor Tripp, that the sentence
on page 25 of the report "And a median of 3.0 ... respond to the item."
be deleted. Carried unanimously.
[end of correction]
Other possible-bias items include race and ethnicity of the faculty --
unfortunately, the numbers of these individuals are too few to conduct
a non-specific analysis -- and the military rank of the instuctor.
Doubt was expressed about reporting median values of responses . . .
> Professor Briggs moved, second by Professor Bishop, that the
reporting of medians of responses be deleted. Carrried unanimously.
[clarification 20 Oct 94: actual counts of the various responses
will be reported]
There was discussion concerning alternative wording of the middle
response, "undecided." This was referred to the committee for
consideration.
The entire document, as ammended, was approved unanimously.
6. New Business -- recruiting
Professor Tucker proposed that Messrs. West, Gaskins, and Trautman be
invited to the October meeting of Council to present their thoughts on
developing a partinership with respect to faculty contributions to the
recruitment process. Professor Tripp moved, second by Professor
Chandler, that this be done. Carried unanimously
Professor Carter noted that the 1993-94 Community Relations Committee had
begun work on a Speakers' Bureau.
7. Announcement -- the organization process of the Campus Residents
Association is proceeding.
8. Meeting adjourned, 12:20 PM.
/s/ Tom Richardson
Secretary, Faculty Council
* * * * * *
Appendix. Report from Committee on Student Evaluation of Instruction
MEMO
TO: Faculty Council
Ted Tucker, Chair
FROM: Committee on Student Evaluation of Teaching
Teri Siskind, Chair
Tony Redd
David Trautman
RE: Report on Pilot Administration
DATE: September 15, 1994
The Committee on Student Evaluation of Teaching provides the
following recommendations for the pilot administration of the
student evaluation system, the format of the resulting reports,
and the bias studies.
Pilot Administration of Student Evaluations
Core Items
The committee recommends that the original items adopted by
the Curriculum and Instruction Committee and the Faculty Council
form a set of core items which will be used as part of all
evaluations of teaching at The Citadel. The results from the
survey of the faculty last spring support this recommendation.
These items will appear in the following formats.
The following ten items will appear in Likert format
(Strongly Agree - Strongly Disagree) on the front (scannable)
side of the Student Evaluation form:
My professor displays a clear understanding of course topics.
My professor seems well-prepared for class.
My professor speaks audibly and clearly.
My professor displays enthusiasm when teaching.
My professor makes good use of examples and illustrations.
I understand what is expected of me in this course.
The grading system was clearly explained.
Assignments are related to goals of this course.
I learned a lot in this course.
My professor effectively blends some or all of the following:
theory/facts/labwork/wisdom from experience.
The following five items will appear on the back (non-
computer scanned) side of the evaluation form. They will be
accompanied by the directions which precede them below.
Read the two items below. Circle your response using the
following scale:
A = Much Above Average
B = Above Average
C = Average
D = Below Average
E = Much Below Average
What is your overall impression of the teaching
effectiveness of this professor? A B C D E
What is your overall impression of this course? A B C D E
Please comment about the following items in the blanks provided.
What did you like most about this professor and course?
___
___
What did you dislike most about this professor and course?
___
___
What constructive suggestions do you have for this professor or
course?
___
___
Departmental Item Sets. The Cafeteria System, which The
Citadel purchased upon recommendation from Faculty Council,
contains an item catalog of 200 items (please see Appendix A).
In addition, 100 (65-character) items may be written and added to
the system. These items will appear in Likert format on the
front (scannable) side of the student evaluation form.
The committee recommends that departments select or write
items to be added to the student evaluation form. Since
departments are currently setting standards for teaching, these
two processes should complement each other. Each department may
add up to 30 additional items. In order for items to be included
for this year, departmental recommendations must be received no
later than 5 p.m. October 6. To meet this deadline, we recommend
that the letter in Appendix B be sent immediately to each
department upon approval by the Faculty Council.
Administration Procedures
A revised version of the Administration Procedures is
attached (Appendix C). A discussion of the revisions follows.
Administration by Professor of Record. The committee
recommends that the student evaluations for each class be
administered by the professor of record. Some support for this
revision was provided by responses of faculty on the survey last
spring. In addition to the inconvenience of "switching" classes,
administration to evening classes and off-campus offerings proved
difficult for departments. It is still recommended that the
professor remain in the classroom to maintain decorum during
administration of the evaluations. A Student Monitor will
actually distribute and collect forms. Administration
instructions are included in Appendix D.
Administration Time Period. Class sets of evaluation forms
are to be distributed to departments and faculty one month prior
to the end of classes. For the Fall, 1994 semester, forms should
be sent to departments by November 9. All faculty should receive
forms by Friday, November 11. Evaluations may be administered,
at the professor's discretion, anytime between the distribution
date and the end of class. For the Fall semester, this should
allow for a three-week window within which to administer
evaluations (due to Thanksgiving break).
Processing Responsibility. The responsibility for packaging
and scanning evaluation forms and producing evaluation reports
will shift from ITS to the Office of Planning and Assessment.
Other Administration Issues
The committee recommends that certain classes be exempted
from administration. These would include classes with only one
student like senior tutorials, independent studies, or senior
research projects. We would like each department to submit a
list of these classes on October 6 when they submit their items.
The committee recommends that the faculty be surveyed about
the pilot administration. Results of the survey should be used
to modify and improve the process. In addition, after the pilot
year the Student Evaluation should be reviewed annually (and
revised as necessary) by the Curriculum and Instruction Committee
and Faculty Council.
Report of Evaluation Results
A report of results will be produced for each class to which
the evaluation was administered. The report will be distributed
directly to the professor of record in an envelope which is
sealed and taped with the packager's initials written over the
tape. The report envelope will include the evaluation report, a
guide to interpreting the report, and the original response
forms.
In addition to the name of the class and a summary of the
demographic data collected (see Bias Studies below), the report
will summarize student responses to the scannable items in the
following ways. Each item will be printed (departmental set
followed by The Citadel core). Next to the item, the number of
students giving each response (SA, A, U, D, SD) will be printed
underneath the appropriate designation. The median score for the
item will also be given. A draft copy of the Guide to
Interpreting the Student Evaluation of Teaching is provided in
Appendix E.
Responses to the non-computer scanned items may be read by
the professor from the return of the original forms. There has
been some discussion about the possibility of professors
recognizing student handwriting and reacting "differently" in
future classes to selected students on this basis. Although
student comments could be typed and not returned in original
handwritten form, thereby protecting the anonymity of the
student, the process would be extremely time-consuming. We feel
that the timeliness of receiving the reports immediately after
grades are due and being able to incorporate suggestions into
instruction outweighs the possible misuses.
Student evaluation results will be provided by the professor
as part of his/her evaluation packet stipulated by departmental
standards for the evaluation of teaching. As indicated by the
Guide to Interpreting the Student Evaluation of Teaching, we
strongly recommend that the Student Evaluation of Teaching be
only one component in the evaluation of teaching.
Bias Studies
Based on the pilot items and data, validity, reliability and
bias studies will be conducted. Most of the details regarding
these studies will be provided in later reports; however, items
to be utilized in the bias studies must be identified now so that
data can be collected.
The committee suggests that the following items be coded by
students so that they can be included in the bias analyses:
whether or not the course is required or elective; whether or not
the course is in the major, minor or "other" area of study; the
class of the student (senior, junior, graduate, etc.), the
midterm grade in course, and the overall grade point ratio in
suitable ranges for histogram analysis. For evening and graduate
classes, students will also indicate their gender. Gender will
not be collected from day students so that no one student may be
singled out.
The committee suggests that the following data be collected
for each professor's class for the purpose of the bias studies:
class size, gender of instructor, instructor's academic rank,
instructor's military rank, the level of the course, the time at
which the course is offered. Although it is important to
evaluate ratings for racial or ethnic bias, there are too few
minority faculty members to make such an analysis meaningful.
Instead of evaluating bias, this type of analysis would
inevitably evaluate the individual instructors.
Two additional items were discussed. These included years
of teaching experience and the perceived compatibility of the
faculty member with the goals of The Citadel. Data on the former
item (years of teaching experience) can be obtained from the
faculty member for the pilot analysis by having the professor
code a section of the cover sheet. The latter item (perceived
compatibility) could be studied through interviews with students.
This item should be discussed more completely prior to a
decision.
- - -
Appendix A
Cafeteria System Items
(omitted from this record)
- - -
Appendix B
Memo to Departments About Item Selection
MEMO
TO: Department Chairs
FROM: Committee on Student Evaluation of Teaching
Teri Siskind, Chair
Tony Redd
David Trautman
RE: Selection of Departmental Sets of Items
Identification of Courses for which Evaluation is
Inappropriate
DATE: September 16, 1994
Yesterday, Faculty Council approved a report (attached) made
by the Committee on Student Evaluation of Teaching. As a result
of that action, departments are requested to consider two items:
departmental sets of items for student evaluation and
identification of courses for which evaluation is inappropriate.
Each item is explained separately below.
Departmental Sets of Items
The system which The Citadel purchased to produce and score
student evaluations of teaching contains a 200-item catalog. In
addition, up to 100 Likert-type items (of no more than 65
characters each) may be written and added to the catalog.
Faculty Council and the Curriculum and Instruction Committee have
approved a 15-item core (10 of which are scannable) which will
appear on all evaluation forms. Faculty Council has also voted
that each department may select or write up to 30 additional
(scannable) items which will appear on all evaluation forms for
that department.
Please share the item catalog with your department and
discuss whether or not you would like to include additional
items. Please return your item selections (on the attached form)
by referring to the catalog number. For example, if your
department selects "I understand easily what my instructor is
saying," please indicate by giving Item #001. As a check
measure, you may want to include the actual item as well.
If your department opts to write items, please indicate that
these are non-cataloged items. Any items that you write must be
limited to 65 characters including spaces. Note that these items
must be written in Likert format (i.e., they must be statements
to which the student can express an opinion ranging from Strongly
Agree to Strongly Disagree). Since there is a cap of 100 items
that may be added, our committee will review all departmentally-
constructed items to ensure that there is no unnecessary overlap
in the enhanced catalog.
Although your department may specify up to 30 additional
items, we strongly recommend that you be selective. Remember
that The Citadel core of items includes 15 items already, three
of which are "comment" type items. Since students will be
completing student evaluations in all classes, relative brevity
should be maintained in order to obtain serious consideration of
items by students.
Please return the attached form with item selections to Teri
Siskind, Education Department or 327B Capers Hall, no later than
5 p.m. October 6, 1994. Items not received by this time can not
be included in the pilot administration.
Courses for Which Evaluation May Be Inappropriate
Faculty Council has sanctioned the exemption of certain
classes from evaluation. Exempted classes would include classes
with only one student such as senior tutorials, independent
studies, or senior research projects. Please submit a list of
inappropriate courses, indicating course prefix, number, and
section number, to Teri Siskind by October 6.
The October 6 deadline has been set so that evaluation forms
may be printed and distributed to departments by November 9.
Faculty should receive evaluation forms for all of their classes
by November 14. Evaluations may be administered between November
14 and the last class.
- - -
Item Selection/Construction Form
(omitted from this record)
- - -
Appendix C
Administration Procedures for Student Evaluation of Teaching
9/94
Pre-Administration Procedures
Task/Action Taken Responsible Party
1. Finalize items to be used Curriculum and Instruction
in evaluation of committee
instruction by students.
2. Review items finalized by Faculty Council
Curriculum and
Instruction Committee and forward recommendations to the Dean of the
College.
3. Print student evaluation Dean of Planning and
forms comprised of Assessment with fiscal
recommended items and responsibility and
class labels. authorization from the Dean of
the College
4. Distribute appropriate Dean of Planning and
number of student Assessment
evaluation forms,
envelopes and appropriate class labels to departments.
5. Package and distribute to Offices of Department Heads
departmental faculty
class sets of evaluation forms. Distribution should be scheduled for one
month before the end of classes. Note that the evaluations must be
completed in pencil.
Administration Procedures
Task/Action Taken Responsible Party
1. Evaluations should be Faculty Members
administered between the
time forms are distributed and the last class meeting (within the last
month of class, at the professor's discretion). Faculty should supervise
the evaluation process by a) reading the standardized instructions
(attached) at the beginning of the class period; b) selecting a student
to collect the evaluation forms; c) providing the selected "Student
Monitor" with instructions for collecting and preparing the forms for
return; d) remaining in class in the front of the classroom during the
evaluation. The professor should not intervene in the evaluation process;
his/her function in remaining in the classroom is to preserve decorum.
2. When all students have
completed evaluation
forms, the "Student
Monitor" will collect forms and prepare them for scanning. The student
will remove unused forms and prepare the documents for scanning according
to the directions provided by the supervising professor. The Student
Monitor will place the completed forms in an envelope which should be
sealed, taped, and signed across the tape by the student. Student
Monitors in each class.
3. The Student Monitor will Student Monitors in each class
return the envelope to
the designated place in the Department Office.
4. Departments will forward Department Heads
unopened envelopes to the
Office of Planning and Assessment.
Post Administration Procedures
Task/Action Taken Responsible Party
1. Scan documents. Office of Planning and
Assessment
2. Print reports and Office of Planning and
distribute to faculty. Assessment
Evaluation results should
be distributed the day after grades are due.
- - -
Appendix D
The Citadel
Administration Instructions for Course Evaluations
Fall 1994
PROFESSOR:
1. Administer the course evaluations between November 14 and
December 7.
2. Allow approximately 10-20 minutes (as needed) at the
beginning of a class period.
3. Read the following directions aloud to students.
Today you will have the opportunity to evaluate this class.
I have been requested to deliver the instructions to you and to
oversee the evaluation in this class. After I read the
directions to you, I will select a student in the class to
distribute, collect, and return the evaluation forms. I will
remain in the front of the classroom only to insure that the
procedures are followed properly.
The purpose of today's evaluation is to help improve
instruction at The Citadel. Your ratings and comments are
critical to this process. With such an important goal, it is
imperative that both students and faculty take the evaluation
process seriously.
Read the following line to day classes only: For day
classes, gender data will not be analyzed so you do not need to
complete that section.
Be sure to complete the items on the back of the form as
well as the items on the front of the form.
Your responses will remain confidential. Neither I nor the
department head will see the responses until after grades are
posted.
Thank you for participating in this important part of
education at The Citadel.
4. Select a responsible student to be the Student Monitor.
Tell the monitor to read and follow the instructions on
the back of this page. Note that pencils must be used
to complete the forms.
5. Remain in the front of the classroom to preserve the
integrity of the evaluation process. You should not
interact with students during completion of the evaluations.
6. Complete the red cover sheet and give it to the Student
Monitor. Code the following sections:
INSTRUCTOR NAME - code the name as it is written on the
envelope label.
COURSE ID - code the course prefix, number, and section
as written on the label. Code the letters and numbers
in the appropriate sections beginning with the first
column on the left of each.
# FORMS REQUIRED - Student Monitor will complete this
section.
DATE OF USE - code date of administration.
DATA PROCESSING STAFF USE ONLY - In this section, code
your total number of years teaching experience. The
number of years is not limited to experience at The
Citadel, and may include school teaching experience.
Code the number of years in the box on the right and
right justify (use leading zeros).
STUDENT MONITOR:
1. Distribute an evaluation form to each student.
2. Instruct students to use a pencil for completion of forms.
3. Complete your evaluation form.
4. Collect completed evaluation forms. Arrange them neatly so
that all forms have the black tick marks on the left-hand
side. Count the number of completed forms. Put unused
forms on the bottom of the stack.
5. Obtain the red cover form from the professor. Locate the
section of the red cover form labelled "# FORMS REQUIRED".
In this section, code the number of completed forms. Right
justify coded numbers. For example, if the number of
completed forms is 27, write and code 027.
6. Place the red cover form on top of the complete evaluation
forms with the black tick marks going in the same direction.
7. Note and explain here if there were any highly unusual
occurrences during the evaluation process:
___
___
8. Sign your name here:
___
9. Place this form on top of the red cover form and the
completed evaluations. Put all forms into the envelope.
Tape the envelope shut and write your initials across the tape.
10. Take the envelope to the Departmental Office and place in
the designated return area.
DEPARTMENT OFFICE:
1. Collect sealed envelopes of completed forms and store in a
secure place.
2. Return envelopes to Lori Woods, Institutional Research, Bond 310.
- - -
Appendix E
Guide to Interpreting the Student Evaluation of Teaching
DRAFT
The Citadel
Guide to Interpreting the Student Evaluation of Teaching
The Instructor Report is a computer printout that summarizes
students responses to the Student Evaluation of Teaching.
At the top of the report is a summary of student demographic
information to help you interpret responses. The frequency or
number of students reporting membership in each demographic
category is reported. A sample is provided below.
Beneath the student demographic report is a listing of the
items selected by your department followed by a listing of the
ten items used in all Citadel faculty evaluations. The last ten
items are know as The Citadel core items and are preceded by a
number with the prefix CO. The departmentally selected items are
numbered according to their system numbers.
Each item is followed by a summary of student responses and
the median score for the item. The following example illustrates
how items and responses are displayed.
The number or frequency of students selecting each response
is reported beneath the SA, A, U, D, SD to the right of each
items. In the example above, ___ students responded Strongly
Agree to Item ___, ___ students responded Agree, and so forth.
A median score represents the midpoint of a response
distribution. Half of the scores fall above the median, and half
fall below. The median indicates how the typical student
responded to each item. A median close to 5.0 would indicate
that most students strongly agreed with the item. A median close
to 1.0 would indicate that most students strongly disagreed with
the item.
The Citadel has chosen not to use percentile data at this
time, therefore "NO DATA" is printed in the %ILE column.
Cautions/Notes
*Neither the ten core items nor the items selected for use
by your department are equal in value. Therefore, the summary
scores for the questions are not additive and can not be
quantified to rate any professor.
*For classes of fewer than 10 students, ratings may not
provide an accurate representation.
*If fewer than 80% of the class was present for
administration of the evaluation, the results may not be
representative of the entire class.
*The items on the enclosed forms represent items that The
Citadel has selected to evaluate all professors (the core items)
and the items that your department has selected for use in
evaluating all department members. Use of these items does not
preclude an individual instructor from using additional items or
forms to gather additional evaluative information.
*Student evaluations of teaching should not be the sole
mechanism for evaluating teaching. It is recommended that other
methods (e.g., portfolio preparation, peer evaluation, review of
instructional materials, review of student products, self-
evaluations) be included in the overall evaluation of teaching.
===============================================================================
THE CITADEL FACULTY COUNCIL
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of 25 August 1994
Board of Visitors Room, Jenkins Hall, 11:00 AM
1. The Chair called Faculty Council to order at 11:03 AM.
2. New member Professor Ron Thompson of Military Science was introduced.
Members in attendance: Professors Adelman, O. Bowman, Carter, Bishop,
Deutz, Epple, Crabtree, McRae, Thompson, Siskind, Richardson, Leonard,
Tripp, Tucker, McCullohs, and Woolsey.
Members Absent: Professors Anessi, Feurtado, Hewett, Kelley, Nath,
Simmons, and Bryson.
3. Approval of Previous Minutes.
Professor Bowman moved, second by Professor Thompson, to accept the
minutes of the 4 May 94 meeting. References to "counseling services" were
changed to "Counseling Center," other misspellings corrected. Carried
unanimously.
4. Reports and Announcements from the Chair.
Graduate Council: The next meeting is scheduled for 1 Sep 94. The final
spring meeting was devoted to the requirements of the (graduate)
college for membership on the graduate faculty. A tentative revision
of the standards is _available_ for discussion. The intent is to
eliminate vagueness and add specificity.
In a brief discussion, Professor Leonard noted that the graduate
faculty guidelines have never been reviewed since they were
established.
To the general topic of _available_, Professor Tripp requested that
such items be forwarded in hard copy, preferably on a per person basis
but at least per department. Professor Adelman suggested that such
documents be distributed by directly by e-mail rather than just being
_available_.
Academic Board: There was discussion on the evaluation of department
heads process. Review packets have been distributed to the faculty and
returned; these have been forwarded to Kansas State for processing.
Progress is continuing towards the creation of an in-house evaluation
of deans.
Dean Metts reported on the status of the student evaluation process.
Discussion included Dean Reilly's separate summer school evaluation;
this has been analyzed and is to be returned to faculty. Attention was
drawn to Dean Metts' e-mail memo concerning the "no use for
evaluations" and Dean Poole restated that it was the intention of The
Citadel to honor Faculty Council's request that the Spring 1994
exercise be not used for departmental evaluations, etc. This latter
reaffirmation follows in part from an alleged violation of this non-use
concept. Dean Poole emphasized the importance of full implementation
of the process this year -- the Spring 1995 exercise will be used for
evaluation purposes.
Professor Tucker has been selected to be the faculty liaison member to
the Board of Visitors Academic Committee.
There was discussion concerning academics and ROTC interaction and
conflicts -- missed classes and laboratories for various purposes.
Dean Poole identified this as a communication problem and directed Dean
Gordon to persue a resolution of this.
There was discussion of the convocation and colloquy.
Assessment: A committee of department heads has been established to
have a fully integrated program in place by the end of the year. The
Citadel and CHE are presently in disagreement with respect to this
process; Dean Metts is to begin reporting to CHE in January on a
department by department basis.
The SACS "package" will be placed in the library. [Copies of
individual portions have been distributed to department heads, etc.]
The reconstituted 34-member Strategic Planning Committee is underway;
the intent is to have a set of goals established by the Spring of 1995.
There was discussion concerning pay raises and available funds: (1)
State money consisting of a 2% across the board to be distributed
beginning 15 Sep 94 and a 2.36% merit. Dean Poole's comment is that
there is no system in place to award this latter money; that a system
needs to be established in time to meet the 31 Dec 94 payroll for
retroactive distribution; there was discussion on various procedures.
On-time monies include (2) faculty achievement and (3) performance pay.
Each of these is a $50,000 pot; there is no plan in place for making
these awards. A concept that is to be implemented is that State merit
pay and Citadel performance pay are to be awarded by the same criteria
and by a single evaluation; proposals for implementation were
solicited.
"South Carolina Conference of State University Faculty Senate Chairs"
Professors Tucker and Carter intend to represent The Citadel.
5. "Committee on Evaluation of Instruction" -- Professor Siskind
Dean Reilly's separate summer school evaluation had followed from a
belief that the summer school was not included and that something was
needed for the evaluation of adjunct professors. Once the committee's
document is established, this will be used.
Reference was made to Dean Metts' memo concerning the disposition of the
Spring 1994 paperwork. In accord with Faculty Council's directive, these
forms are to be returned to the individual faculty members; heads, etc.,
are not to use these materials.
There will be no statistical summary of the spring 1994 trial, even
though there have been requests to do so. Faculty Council had previously
voted not to do this summarization due to the unclear nature of the
questions and the process and the actual meaning of the summary. Such a
summary will be done after the fall 1994 pilot. A brief discussion
followed concerning procedures and possibilities.
A motion was made and seconded that the statistical summary be done on
the Spring 1994 data. This failed to pass by a vote of 1-14.
The committee needs continued guidance on a variety of decisions which
need to be made. In a brief discussion, it was suggested that in many
instances, an e-mail poll of Faculty Council can gather the necessary
input.
6. Old business -- Learning Disabled Students and a Definitive Policy on
Course Waivers
The Curriculum Committee has been directed to look into this; the new
Chair is Professor Holbein.
During the spring, there had been concern expressed that Ms. Walls might
be leaving The Citadel; she had remained and is working on the program.
7. New Business
Campus Residents: In late spring, Professor Cousons chaired a meeting of
residents with Messrs. Lyons, Poole and Schottler. A letter has been
received [a copy is attached as an appendix]. During the summer, Messrs.
Schottler, Cousons, Nichols and Tucker have held various discussions
concerning physical plant. Also Professor Ezell has inquired into the
operation of a similar faculty housing setup at Davidson College.
Professor Woolsey moved, second by Professor Tripp, that "Faculty
Council resolves that a Citadel Campus Residents Association be formed
and that a list of faculty members be selected to form an initial Board
of Directors to organize this body." Carried unanimously.
The following individuals were named: Hack Ezell, Joe Kelley, John
Cousons, Lou Dornetto, Peg Lally, Shelia Foster, Jane Bishop, and
Gardel Feurtado.
Grade Changes. Professor J. Moore has requested that Faculty Council
examine the process by which the Dean of Undergraduate Studies changed a
grade of "F" to "W"; this change had not been initiated or approved by
Professor Moore. A copy of a detailed letter to Dean Poole concerning
this incident was attached.
It was moved and seconded that this be accepted for information
purposes.
A brief discussion ensued; while this was an unfortunate event, it
does not have the gravity that would accompany a grade change of
"F" to "D".
Professor Tucker will look at the wording of the policy as it is
expressed in the catalog so as to avoid similar problems in the future.
Assessment: Professor Carter observed that there are several bodies
and committees on campus which are addressing various aspects of
assessment; these groups should ensure that there is no duplication of
effort.
8. Meeting adjourned, 12:42 PM
/s/ Tom Richardson
Secretary, Faculty Council
* * * * * * * *
Appendix -- Text of a letter from Dean Poole to Professor Tucker as Chair of
Faculty Council concerning the Campus Residents Organization
22 August 1994
Last spring the faculty, in a somewhat heated meeting with COL Lyons,
LTC Schottler, and me, requested the creation of a campus residents
association board or committee. COL Lyons and I agreed to and encouraged the
creation of such an organization to represent on-campus residents.
Thus far, I have not heard from Faculty Council their proposed plan
for addressing this issue. Since this is the beginning of the academic year,
both COL Lyons and I are very interested in having this organization created
and commencing to function as soon as possible. Would you please take a
personal interest in bringing some resolution to this very important matter?
If I can provide you any help, please let me know.