Item #1 -- FA 02-02: Submitted by the Executive Committee.
from the Department of Nursing to change its designation from Department
of Nursing to School of Nursing
Frohlich moved the item. Mary Borg wanted to know if there was some
criteria that made a department a school. She wondered if any department
could decide to call itself a school. Pam Chally responded that
usually a school has a well-thought-of baccalaureate program and
a masters program. She pointed out that throughout the state, nursing
programs are called schools of nursing.
#2 -- FA 02-03: Submitted by the Academic Programs Committee
Roberson moved the item. The item passed.
#3 -- FA 02-04: Submitted by the Academic Programs Committee
Len Roberson moved the item. The item passed.
#4 -- FA 02-05: Submitted by the Academic Standards Committee
Statement of Good Standing
Pal Sen moved the item. The item passed.
#5 -- FA 02-06: Submitted by the Faculty Affairs Committee
Judy Solano moved the item.
Plumlee asked about Question 4 on page one. He noted that it mentions
business practices. He said that some departments have nothing to
do with business. Judy Solano said it was an oversight and she could
accept striking "business practices" as a friendly amendment.
Plumlee admitted that he did not attend the open hearing held to
discuss the questionnaire. He begged indulgence, but felt that since
the document is very important, he wanted to ask some questions.
He said that, overall, he thought the questionnaire was a good document.
Most of the questions were pretty straightforward and he thought
students could do a good job of assessment, but he noted his concern
with several questions.
11 asks if the professor fosters an environment conducive to critical
thinking. Dr. Plumlee said he doesn't think students know what critical
thinking is and doesn't think they can assess a professor's competence
in this area. He moved that the document be amended to eliminate
Question 11. The motion was seconded.
Borg registered her reservation about the critical thinking question.
There was considerable discussion by faculty about students' ability
to assess this. One person asked if critical thinking skills were
discussed and/or taught in general education classes? Another person
pointed out that in some places there are entire courses on critical
thinking. Others felt is was a good question. The question was called.
amendment failed by a vote of 18 to 29. Question 11 remains on the
Plumlee wanted to make another minor point. He wondered about the
word "challenging" in Question 15. He wondered if challenging
meant hard or, possibly, stimulating. There was discussion about
the meaning of "challenging" and whether it is a good
measure of evaluation. Dale Clifford said that most of the questions
were teacher-centered. She liked having a question about engagement
Plumlee moved that "challenging" be replaced by "stimulating".
The motion was seconded.
Clifford asked if "intellectually stimulating" might be
better? Pat Plumlee accepted that. Mina Baliamoune spoke in favor
of retaining "challenging." Dr. Kline said he agreed that
the word had some ambiguity, but he thinks it would be good to have
some question that would get at the idea. Verna Urbanski suggested
using "intellectually challenging." Someone else recommended
two questions one to measure difficulty and one to measure
question was called. The amendment failed. Question 15 remains as
Shapiro called the question on the whole item. The measure failed.
Scheirer said she wanted to add " not applicable" to the
possible answers. She feels there should be a "no response"
column. The motion was moved and seconded. There was discussion
about this. Scott Hochwald registered his disapproval of the motion.
He said he felt the document had structural problems throughout.
He especially did not like Question 12 concerning professors treating
all students in a consistent manner.
item passed by a voice vote. "Not applicable" will be
added to the answer column.
question was asked if this document is to become part of the formal
evaluation? Judy Solano answered yes, it would be administered with
turned to the overall need for the questionnaire and how it would
figure into teacher evaluation and promotion and tenure implications.
Van Horn thought that the administration of the questionnaire should
be at the discretion of the department. He wants to make it an elective
process. He feels there are times when it is good to use a larger
set of questions and times when a simple set is sufficient.
Borg moved that the questionnaire be sent back to Committee to have
time to hold another open forum. The motion was seconded.
Bowen spoke against the motion. He pointed out that people had the
opportunity to attend the hearing and should have done so. He noted
that people probably wouldn't come to the second one. Scott Hochwald
said this instrument has too many problems in it to fix it now.
Bill Wilson pointed out that if it goes back to Committee, no one
will offer any constructive criticism.
Solano said that COBA spent a year doing extensive research
they did focus tests with students and used pilot tests. She doesn't
think another test would do much better. Royal Van Horn supported
the motion to send the document back to the committee. He said he
thinks each department should have its own documents.
Sen said she supports the motion but she wanted to point out that
the open hearing was not advertised well that it only appeared
on the Web site.
question was called to vote on the motion to send the questionnaire
back to the committee. The vote failed - 16 to 32.
Hochwald moved to strike Question 12. The motion was seconded. Pat
Plumlee asked if it would be better to read ..."treats all
students fairly?". The motion failed. Item 12 will not be stricken.
question was called. The item passed.
#6 -- FA 02-07: Submitted by the Faculty Affairs Committee
for Administration of SIR Assessment Instrument
Solano spoke in favor of the item.
Committee recommends that University support for the administration
of the SIR assessment instrument be discontinued. Dr. Solano pointed
out that the University is no longer administering the instrument.
Al Tilley spoke against the motion. He thinks the SIR assessment
is a fairly sensitive instrument and gives a much fuller profile
of a classroom experience. He thinks UNF should use SIR. Pat Plumlee
said if UNF does not discontinue SIR, we would have it in some departments,
the SUSSAI in some and the new document in all. Judy Solano pointed
out that the SUSSAI is required of all. She said the reason the
Faculty Affairs Committee put this on the agenda is to discontinue
the use of SIR. UNF does not have the resources to continue to administer
Clifford noted that the SIR is prohibitively expensive. Kathy Hughes
talked about the costs to gather, scan, print and report back to
departments. She said if people want SIRS, are departments willing
to pay? There was more discussion about the cost of the test.
Van Horn said he thinks it is useful to have the instrument available.
He thinks it has some good points. He wonders why we want to remove
it. Bill Wilson said the test is valid only if it is used by the
whole university. If only a few use it, it is no longer a basis
for a norm. Pat Plumlee asked if it is such a valuable tool, why
not bring it back and use it in lieu of the instrument just passed
. Al Tilley said he much prefers SIR but the state requires the
use of the SUSSAI.
motion was made and passed to return the item to the committee for