FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT:
Sheri Layral
312 Signers' Hall
474-7964 FYSENAT
A G E N D A
UAF FACULTY SENATE MEETING #97
Monday, October 30, 2000
1:30 p.m. - 4:00 p.m.
Wood Center Ballroom
1:30 I Call to Order - Larry Duffy 5 Min.
A. Roll Call
B. Approval of Minutes to Meeting #96
C. Adoption of Agenda
1:35 II Status of Chancellor's Office Actions 5 Min.
A. Motions Approved:
1. Motion to approve an Appeals Policy for
Academic Decisions.
2. Motion to amend the UAF Faculty Appointment
and Evaluation Policies & Regulations
for the Evaluation of Faculty
B. Motions Pending: none
1:40 III A. Remarks by Chancellor M. Lind 10 Min.
B. Remarks by Provost P. Reichardt 10 Min.
C. Accreditation Report - R. Gatterdam 15 Min.
2:15 IV Governance Reports
A. ASUAF -S. Banks / GSO - 5 Min.
B. Staff Council - S. Culbertson 5 Min.
C. President's Report - L. Duffy (Attachment 97/1) 5 Min.
D. President-Elect's Comments (Attachment 97/2)
2:30 V. Consent Agenda
A. Motion to amend Section 3 (Article V: Committees,
Permanent) of the Bylaws, submitted by Core Review
(Attachment 97/3)
2:30 VI New Business
A. Motion to approve the M.A. In Cross-Cultural 5 Min.
Studies, submited by Graduate Academic &
Advisory Committee (Attachment 97/4)
B. Motion to delete the Ed.S. degree, submitted 5 Min.
by Graduate Academic & Advisory Committee
(Attachment 97/5)
C. Motion to adopt the "Guidelines for the 5 Min.
Evaluation Process for Administrators", submitted
by the Faculty Appeals & Oversight Committee
(Attachment 97/6)
D. Resolution to support the use of a student 5 Min.
satisfaction survey, submitted by Administrative
Committee (Attachment 97/7)
E. Motion to accept "The Bacccalaureate Experience: 5 Min.
Core Curriculum Requirements" as updated by
the Core Review Committee (Attachment 97/8)
2:55 ***BREAK*** 10 Min
3:05 VII Public Comments/Questions 5 Min.
3:10 VIII Committee Reports 15 Min.
A. Faculty Affairs - P. McRoy (Attachment 97/9)
B. Graduate Academic & Advisory Committee - J. Gardner
(Attachment 97/10)
C. Core Review - J. Brown (Attachment 97/11)
D. Curriculum Review - S, Bandopadhyay
E. Developmental Studies - J. Weber
F. Faculty Appeals & Oversight - G. Chukwu
(Attachment 97/12)
G. Faculty Development, Assessment & Improvement -
T. Robinson (Attachment 97/13)
H. Curricular Affairs - R. Illingworth (Attachment 97/14)
3:25 IX Discussion Items 15 Min.
A. Curricular Affairs Committee report on Prerequisites
3:40 X Members' Comments/Questions 5 Min.
3:45 XI Adjournment
ATTACHMENT 97/1
UAF FACULTY SENATE #97
OCTOBER 30, 2000
President's Comments - Larry Duffy
The UA Board of Regents passed a new mission statement which is "The
University of Alaska inspires learning, and advances and disseminates
knowledge through teaching, research, and public service, emphasizing
the North and its diverse peoples."
Preliminary budget and the Initiative Process was also discussed at the
Regent's meetings. The November meeting is at UAF. If you have not
been to a meeting, I encourage you to attend to see how the process
works.
I have enclosed several attachments to these comments which I will
address in more detail at the meeting. Please pay special attention to
Richard Hacker's, our Academic Liaison Faculty Fellow, comments about
the FY03 Initiative Process. The Chancellor and Provost are working to
increase faculty involvement in the planning and budget process. I have
attached some of the almost 100 ideas that are coming forward. I
commend those who are working on these ideas. Provost Reichardt will
use these as UAF's plan for the near future.
However, I am concerned by comments from some senior Professors
about how much extra work this is. My reply is that we can't have it both
ways. If we are to be involved we must take the time now so that UAF
has a quality plan. I would also argue that "beside our RIGHT to be
involved in the decision process, it is our DUTY to spend the time on this
service activity." Remember the calendar is determined by the Alaska
Legislature's Process. We will have an exciting meeting on October 30
with issues ranging from "Review of Administrators" to "Philosophy of
the Core."
ATTACHMENT 97/2
UAF FACULTY SENATE #97
OCTOBER 30, 2000
President-Elect Comments - Norm Swazo
Please accept my apologies for being absent from my duties as
Chair of the Senate Administrative Committee and the Faculty Senate
meeting. I am unable to participate in the Senate's deliberations today
given that I am out-of-state participating as a member of a Philosophy
Delegation to the People's Republic of China, this delegation sponsored
by the non-governmental organization People to People Ambassador
Programs. However, I did want to share with you my thoughts on a
couple of items of business before the Senate Faculty Affairs Committee
and the Faculty Appeals & Oversight Committee.
1. Faculty Affairs Issue:
As you are aware from the Agenda Attachment 96/1 for the
September Senate meeting, Dr. Ted DeLaca, Director of the UAF Office
of Arctic Research, shared his proposal concerning establishment of an
Office of Sponsored Programs and two committees. One of the
proposed committees - the "UAF Research Ethics Committee" - is to be
a "standing committee" chaired by the UAF Research Integrity Officer.
As Dr. DeLaca says in his proposal, "The Committee will be prepared to
deal rapidly and effectively with any allegations of misconduct related to
UAF faculty, staff, or students." It is Dr. DeLaca's view that these
committees are "necessary, if not required, by existing and pending
Federal regulations".
I have asked the Faculty Affairs Committee to meet with Dr.
DeLaca for discussion of this proposal. The Committee met on Friday,
October 13, the substance of which discussion will be reported by Dr.
Peter McRoy, Committee Chair.
Dr. DeLaca's proposal concerning organizational details of an Office
of Sponsored Programs and the proposed Research Integrity Committee
is, in my view, unproblematic and reasonably to be supported. I have
attended two meetings of the Research Integrity Committee and agree
with Dr. DeLaca that the committee is useful in assuring communication
between the various sector representatives. However, this is not the
case at the moment with the proposal for a Research Ethics Committee.
I have expressed my concerns to the Faculty Affairs Committee as
follows.
a.) UAF currently operates subject to University Policy P10.07.06
and the correlative university regulation R10.07.06 on "Misconduct in
Research, Scholarly Work, and Creative Activity in the University". As
Section E of the regulation states, "This regulation constitutes the
exclusive review process for matters of alleged misconduct in university
research...". Dr. DeLaca's proposal, as currently outlined, seemingly sets
up a parallel review process.
b.) The extant regulation distinguishes between "inquiries" and
"investigations" of alleged misconduct. Each stage has its corresponding
"inquiry panel" and "investigations panel". The language in section B.2
and C.2 makes it clear that these are Ad Hoc panels, with individuals
serving on them having the requisite subject-matter expertise. Dr.
DeLaca's proposal, as currently outlined, would put in place a standing
committee to deal with allegations of misconduct. This seems to me
inconsistent with the extant regulation.
c.) The extant regulation at B.1.b assigns to the Provost the
function of "designated university official" to whom allegations of
misconduct are to be directed. Dr. DeLaca's proposal places the
Research Integrity Officer in that position to the extent that the RIO
would chair the proposed standing Research Ethics Committee.
In short, Dr. DeLaca's proposal innovates upon an existing
regulation and may contravene its exclusivity in process, depending on
how this is to be implemented. Since this is a matter centrally of import
to faculty, this cannot be a matter of unilateral administrative decision
only. I wish to assure that there is the appropriate faculty review of Dr.
DeLaca's proposal consistent with our operative process of shared
governance. If we wish to proceed with Dr. DeLaca's proposal, then
there needs to be the requisite revision to the University Regulation, with
appropriate review and recommendation by the UAF Faculty Senate, and
subsequent promulgation of the revised regulation by the University
President.
I have asked the Faculty Affairs Committee to review the relevant
DHHS/PHS regulations/policy (42 C.F.R., Part 50, Subpart A) with a view
to assessing the adequacy of the current UA regulation governing
scientific misconduct. Alternatively, the PHS Office of Research Integrity
provides "model policy" and "model procedures" documents that may
minimize time here in our review, a copy of each of which documents I
am making available to the Faculty Affairs Committee. I suggest that we
proceed at this point by organizing an Ad Hoc Committee on Research
Integrity for the purpose of reviewing and revising the UA regulation. I
propose the Committee be chaired by Dr. Peter McRoy, with members of
the Committee being -- a member of the Faculty Affairs Committee (in
addition to Dr. McRoy), Dr. DeLaca, Mr. Mark Neumayr from the
University Counsel's Office, Dr. Duffy and myself. This will be a useful
opportunity for the Faculty Senate to be involved in policy/regulation
drafting from the beginning rather than waiting for Statewide to do that
work and thereafter solicit our comments.
Accordingly, I recommend your careful attention to this matter
with the appropriate deliberation and recommendation to follow from
review of the issue by the Faculty Affairs Committee, and if there is
agreement, from the Ad Hoc Committee.
2. Faculty Appeals & Oversight Issue:
The Committee met on Monday, October 16, to conclude review of
the process of evaluation of administrators. Having attended the
meeting and participated in the deliberations, I think we have a version
that responds adequately to the various interests involved. Accordingly,
I recommend we move this forward as a motion to be passed at the
October 30 meeting. Dr. Godwin Chukwu, Chair of the Faculty Appeals
and Oversight Committee, will present his report, among which is the
question of the list of deans/directors slated for evaluation.
ATTACHMENT 97/3
UAF FACULTY SENATE #97
OCTOBER 30, 2000
SUBMITTED BY CORE REVIEW
MOTION:
======
The UAF Faculty Senate moves to amend Section 3 (Article V:
Committees, Permanent) of the Bylaws, as follows:
CAPS - Addition
[[ ]] - Deletion
PERMANENT
7. The Core Review Committee reviews and approves
courses submitted by the appropriate
school/college curriculum councils for their
inclusion in the core curriculum at UAF. The Core
Review Committee coordinates and recommends
changes to the core curriculum, develops the
process for assessment of the core curriculum,
regularly reports on assessment of the core
curriculum, monitors transfer guidelines for core
courses, acts on petitions for core credit, and
evaluates guidelines in light of the total core
experience. This committee will also review
courses for oral, written, and natural science core
classification.
The committee shall be composed of one faculty
member from each of the core component areas:
(Social Sciences, English, Humanities, Mathematics,
Natural Sciences, [[and]] Communication, AND LIBRARY
SCIENCE) and one faculty member from a non-core
component area. Membership on the committee will
include an undergraduate student.
EFFECTIVE: Immediately
RATIONALE: Library Science is a Core component area
and should have full voting membership.
ATTACHMENT 97/4
UAF FACULTY SENATE #97
OCTOBER 30, 2000
SUBMITTED BY GRADUATE ACADEMIC & ADVISORY COMMITTEE
MOTION
=======
The UAF Faculty Senate moves to approve the M.A. degree program in
Cross-Cultural Studies.
EFFECTIVE: Fall 2001 or
Upon Board of Regents' Approval
RATIONALE: See full program proposal on file in the
Governance Office, 312 Signers' Hall.
Executive Summary
MA, Cross-Cultural Studies
The intent of this request is to convert the current Ed.S. in Cross-
Cultural Education to an M.A. In Cross-Cultural Studies, to be
administered through the Department of Alaska Native Studies and the
Center for Cross-Cultural Studies, College of Liberal Arts, University of
Alaska 糖心vlog官网. This will serve to broaden the applicability and appeal
of the degree/coursework currently available for graduate students
under the Education Specialist degree to fields beyond education that
also involve cross-cultural issues and utilize indigenous knowledge
systems (e.g., ecological studies, natural resources, health care,
community development, social services, justice, Native studies, etc.).
The M.A. degree is also designed to incorporate and contribute to newly
emerging bodies of scholarship that have much to offer in addressing
critical needs of the state, and it will continue to be available to students
by distance education, in combination with intensive seminars and
summer courses on campus.
These program changes will help to improve the quality and availability of
services and provide for more efficient utilization of existing resources as
current faculty contribute to the instructional and research functions
associate with the reconstituted program. No additional faculty
resources are required, since instructional/advising responsibilities
previously associate with the Ed.S. program will be shifted to the M.A.
program. In addition, the revised program draws on several existing
courses and will continue to utilize the established distance education
course delivery system. Graduate students in education who have
already completed an M.Ed. degree but wish to pursue advanced work in
"cross-cultural studies" will still be able to do so, but as a second
master's degree, rather than at the post-masters level.
Objective 1 - To extend graduate opportunities in cross-cultural studies
to students outside 糖心vlog官网 and beyond the field of education,
including people working in ecological sciences, natural resources
management, health care, community development, social services,
justice and Native Studies.
Objective 2 - To provide research and advanced study opportunities in
comparative knowledge systems, world views and ways of knowing.
Objective 3 - To increase cross-cultural understanding through the
dissemination of student/faculty research and cultural documentation.
ATTACHMENT 97/5
UAF FACULTY SENATE #97
OCTOBER 30, 2000
SUBMITTED BY GRADUATE ACADEMIC & ADVISORY COMMITTEE
MOTION
=======
The UAF Faculty Senate moves to delete the Ed.S.
EFFECTIVE: Fall 2001 or
Upon Board of Regents' Approval
RATIONALE: See full program proposal on file in the
Governance Office, 312 Signers' Hall.
Executive Summary
Education Specialist, Cross-Cultural Studies
This request for the deletion of the Ed.S. degree reflects the
reconstruction of the current Ed.S. in Cross-Cultural Education into an
M.A. in Cross-Cultural Studies to broaden it applicability and appeal for
graduate students in a greater variety of fields involving cross-cultural
issues and indigenous knowledge systems, and to incorporate newly
emerging bodies of scholarship that have much to contribute in
addressing critical needs of the state.
The Ed.S. has been a stand-alone degree within the UAF School of
Education since the mid-1960s. It was initially created to provide a post-
masters degree program for the preparation of school superintendents
and was later expanded to include advanced study in the areas of cross-
cultural education. Due to staffing reductions in the School of Education,
the superintendents program was suspended in 1985, and then
discontinued altogether at UAF when the responsibility for preparing
school administrators was shifted to UAA in 1998. In the meantime, the
Center for Cross-Cultural Studies (which had responsibility for the Ed.S.
program in cross-cultural studies under SOE) was retained in the College
of Liberal Arts when the School of Education was administratively shifted
to the Graduate School in 1998, so this proposal is, in part, intended to
bring the degree program in line with the academic unit under which it is
to be administered.
The impact of the proposed revision on student enrollment will be
relatively minor, as only five students have completed the Ed.S. since
1990, and there are no active students enrolled in the program at the
present time. Graduate students in education who have already
completed an M.Ed. degree but wish to pursue advance work in "cross-
cultural studies" will still be able to do so, but as a second master's
degree or an interdisciplinary Ph.D., rather than at the post-masters
level.
ATTACHMENT 97/6
UAF FACULTY SENATE #97
OCTOBER 30, 2000
SUBMITTED BY FACULTY APPEALS & OVERSIGHT
MOTION
======
The UAF Faculty Senate recommends that the "Guidelines for the
Evaluation Process for Administrators" formulated by the Faculty
Appeals and Oversight Committee be adopted for use by committees
assigned the task of reviewing administrators.
EFFECTIVE: Immediately
RATIONALE: Each time an administrator is evaluated the
committee assigned the task spends half their time
developing a process for evaluation. This would save the
committee time and also inform the administrators of the
process prior to their evaluation.
****
GUIDELINES FOR THE EVALUATION PROCESS FOR ADMINISTRATORS
1. Within the first three weeks of the Fall Semester the Supervisor
of the Administrator to be reviewed will appoint an Ad Hoc
Administrator Review Committee consisting of three tenured
faculty members and two staff members from the Administrator's
unit.
In the case of evaluation of the Dean of the Graduate School,
the Provost will appoint an Ad Hoc Committee consisting of
one faculty drawn from the UAF Faculty Senate's Graduate
Academic & Advisory Committee, two graduate program
department chairs, two Deans/Directors, and a student
representative from the Graduate Student Organization.
In the case of evaluation of the Dean of Students, the Provost
will appoint an Ad Hoc Committee consisting of one faculty
member from the UAF Faculty Senate's Curricular Affairs
Committee and one faculty member from the Graduate
Academic & Advisory Committee, two Deans/Directors, and
one student representative from ASUAF and one student
from the Graduate Student Organization.
Additionally, two members of the UAF Faculty Appeals and
Oversight Committee shall serve in an ex officio capacity as
representatives of the Faculty Senate.
The Ad Hoc Committee will solicit input from all relevant
constituencies on- and off-campus, including faculty, staff,
and students. This may be accomplished through various
instruments, e.g., a standard questionnaire completed
anonymously and returned to the Committee Chair.
2. The Administrator to be evaluated will prepare a narrative
self-evaluation of activities performed during the three year
period (academic years) prior to the year of evaluation or since
the last evaluation. This narrative should include reflections
about how adequately s/he has fulfilled responsibilities of
leadership consistent with his/her own performance
expectations and those of faculty, staff, and students in
the unit. Major or otherwise significant accomplishments should
be highlighted. Any issues raised in the last evaluation should
be referenced with a view to what progress has been made on
those items. Finally, the self-evaluation should identify a limited
set of reasonable goals for the unit over the next three years,
with some discussion about specific strategies that may be
undertaken through his/her administrative leadership.
3. The Ad Hoc Committee will interview a select sample of faculty,
staff, students and others as relevant for further evaluative
comments about the Administrator's performance.
4. The Ad Hoc Committee will interview the Administrator either
in person or by conference call. The interview shall proceed
on the basis of a selected set of questions which reference
the Administrator's self-evaluation, the results of returned
questionnaires, and the interviews of faculty, staff, and
students.
5. The Ad Hoc Committee will prepare an evaluative summary, and
submit its report to the Provost (in the case of evaluation of
Deans and Directors) or to the Chancellor (in the case of
evaluation of the Provost). The Ad Hoc Committee shall work
as expeditiously as possible in completing its report and submit
it to the Provost or Chancellor by March 15 of the Spring
Semester. The report shall be submitted also to the UAF Faculty
Senate's Faculty Appeals & Oversight Committee for review.
(a) At a date to be set by the Provost, the Provost shall meet
in joint conference with the Ad Hoc Committee and the
Faculty Appeals & Oversight Committee for final review,
recommendations, and disposition of the Administrator's
evaluation. An evaluative summary of the Ad Hoc
Committee's report will be made available to the faculty
and staff of the Administrator's unit upon written request
to the appropriate supervisor. The supervisor of the
administrator will then provide his/her formal evaluation
taking into account the Ad Hoc Committee's report.
(b) At a date to be set by the Chancellor, the Provost and the
Chancellor shall meet to discuss the Ad Hoc Committee's
evaluation of the Provost. During this meeting the
Chancellor and Provost shall identify performance
priorities for the next review period. The Chancellor
shall meet in joint conference with the Ad Hoc Committee
and the UAF Faculty Senate's Faculty Appeals & Oversight
Committee to summarize his evaluation. The Chancellor
shall prepare an executive summary of the Provost's
evaluation to be made available to the University
community upon written request to the Office of the
Chancellor.
ATTACHMENT 97/7
UAF FACULTY SENATE #97
OCTOBER 30, 2000
SUBMITTED BY ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE
INTRODUCTION
UAF has been conducting student satisfaction surveys on a regular basis
since 1993. Results have been used to refine our enrollment
management program and to improve selected services and programs
students identified as weak. This research will provide additional
information for improving recruitment, retention and self-evaluation of
general institutional effectiveness. Additionally, the comparison of the
employee survey with the student survey will aid in aligning employees
with student expectations. This effort will help create a better
relationship between students, faculty, staff and administration, thereby
achieving a more ideal learning environment.
DRAFT RESOLUTION
===============
Whereas, in recent years there has been a movement nationwide as well
as within the Alaska legislature to evaluate higher education using the
market driven approach of consumer satisfaction.
Whereas, a relationship has been shown to exist between a student's
persistence and his or her expectations being met.
Whereas, unmet expectations and low satisfaction appear to be the key
factor in the attrition of students in good standing from institutions of
higher learning.
Whereas, it is a priority to attract and retain Alaskan students in the
糖心vlog官网 and keeping students satisfied while
meeting their expectations, now,
Therefore, Be it Resolved, That the UAF Faculty Senate supports the use
of the Noel-Levitz Student Satisfaction Inventory which will examine the
student expectations at the 糖心vlog官网. Specifically,
it will examine what is satisfying and important to UAF students,
compare student ratings to national benchmark data and check student
perceptions against those of faculty and staff, and
Be It Further Resolved, That the UAF Faculty Senate encourages faculty
whose classes are randomly selected to allow time to hand out the
survey and to encourage students to return it at the next class period.
---------------------------------------------
University of Alaska Statewide System
202 BUTROVICH BLDG
P.O. BOX 755000
FAIRBANKS, ALASKA 99775-5000
PHONE: (907) 474-7311
FAX: (907) 474-6342
EMAIL: sypres@alaska.edu
October 11, 2000
Dear University Faculty and Staff:
The University of Alaska needs your assistance in its enrollment
management effort. As you know growing enrollment is a primary
indicator of UA's success. During the second week of November, the
Anchorage, 糖心vlog官网, Juneau, Sitka, Mat-Su, Tanana Valley, and
Kuskokwim campuses, will be administering a student satisfaction survey
of their students.
A total of 240 faculty will be asked to participate in this effort to survey
17 percent of the students on these campuses. The survey sample will
cover all segments of campus students from non-traditional community
campus students to traditional, full-time undergraduate students. In
addition to the student survey, there is a complementary staff and
faculty survey that will be distributed to 1,800 employees to ascertain
faculty and staff perceptions of UA student satisfaction.
UA will be using an instrument developed by the USA Group Noel-Levitz,
one of the leading student retention consulting firms in the country. The
advantage of using this instrument is that it is a nationally established
survey that we will use over time to measure the effectiveness of UA's
efforts toward improving student satisfaction. Additionally, many
universities have participated nationally, and student satisfaction at UA
can be compared to that of students from appropriate peer colleges and
universities across the nation.
In order to ensure a good cross section and adequate response from the
students, specific faculty will be asked to allow the distribution of the
survey during a class period in the first two weeks of November and to
encourage students to respond. We are asking for distribution during
class to assure an adequate response rate from the established sample
of students (studies show response rate in class average 90 percent
compared to less than 40 percent otherwise). This is the standard
methodology used at other universities administering this survey. The
complementary employee survey will be distributed and collected from
departmental contacts.
I appreciate your sincere effort in supporting the survey in your class
and/or, if selected, filling out an employee survey. Over the next couple
of weeks, the chancellor from your respective MAU will provide more
information and possibly request your specific involvement in this
project. Thank you in advance for your efforts toward improving the
University of Alaska and your campus.
Mark R. Hamilton
President
ATTACHMENT 97/8
UAF FACULTY SENATE #97
OCTOBER 30, 2000
SUBMITTED BY CORE REVIEW
MOTION:
======
The UAF Faculty Senate moves to accept "The Bacccalaureate
Experience: Core Curriculum Requirements" as updated by the Core
Review Committee.
EFFECTIVE: Immediately
Upon Chancellor Approval
RATIONALE: The Core Curriculum requirements were
approved by the UAF Faculty Senate in April 1990 and
this document was printed and distributed in August
1990. Since then the Senate has approved numerous
changes and additions to the guidelines. This document
includes all the changes and an updated philosophy
statement.
CAPS - Addition
[[ ]] - Deletion
THE UAF BACCALAUREATE EXPERIENCE
The Philosophy
The pursuit of the baccalaureate degree in the TWENTY-FIRST [[late
twentieth]] century is a formidable undertaking. Social change and the
knowledge explosion create new disciplines and alter the conventions,
content, methods, and the applications of existing disciplines. We in
higher education have reacted to THESE PHENOMENA [[this
phenomenon]] by promoting an ever-growing curriculum of specialized
majors, often at the expense of the basic liberal ARTS education concept
of unity of knowledge as expressed by a common core of intellectual
experiences.
As UAF students advance toward a degree goal they, too, encounter an
array of general education and specialized curriculum offerings by the
University. IN ORDER TO ASSURE THAT THE BACCALAUREATE
EXPERIENCE OF ALL UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA FAIRBANKS STUDENTS
REFLECTS THE ACADEMIC PHILOSOPHY OF A LIBERAL ARTS EDUCATION,
THE UNIVERSITY HAS CREATED A CORE CURRICULUM. THE CORE
CURRICULUM IS DESIGNED TO INCLUDE THE INTELLECTUAL EXPERIENCES
CONSIDERED ESSENTIAL FOR ALL UAF STUDENTS, REGARDLESS OF
ACADEMIC MAJOR OR CAREER ASPIRATIONS. [[If these encounters are to
reflect a clear learning purpose, then the curriculum must reflect a clearly
stated academic philosophy defining the meaning and purpose of the
baccalaureate degree at the 糖心vlog官网. Formulation
of this philosophy starts directly with this question:
What intellectual experiences shall be deemed essential for all UAF
students, regardless of academic major or career aspirations.]]
THE CORE CURRICULUM WILL BE SUSTAINED IN QUALITY THROUGH AN
ON-GOING PROCESS OF STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOMES ASSESSMENT.
THE ASSESSMENT WILL BE CONDUCTED AND REPORTED BY THE CORE
REVIEW COMMITTEE OF THE FACULTY SENATE, ACCORDING TO THE
PLAN APPROVED BY THE FACULTY SENATE.
On the Conduct of Intellectual Inquiry. The development
of the intellect is a basic aim of the baccalaureate degree. The
University experience must demand more than [["recipe
knowledge," that is,]] the rote learning of material currently
held to be "factual" and of the elemental "mechanics" of applied
knowledge. What must be emphasized are intellectual activities
which connect the mental processes of critical thinking and
problem solving, and which explore certain metaphysical issues
in knowledge creation.
Problem solving is a constant feature of human existence and
we expect a learned demonstration of an intellectual ability to
[[systematically]]design and conduct critical inquiry
SYSTEMATICALLY. To arrive at plausible answers or solutions
requires first having plausible questions - an analysis task built on
abstract conceptualization, logical reasoning, and [[on]] the
[[exegesis]] EXPLANATION AND INTERPRETATION of appropriate
text material.
Finally, the opportunity for synthesizing knowledge must be
present. The ultimate form of knowing is the perception and
articulation of the "pattern" - of the significant relationships
among pieces of knowledge. The synthesizing exercise should
stimulate creative work and, hopefully, the joy of intellectual
discovery and accomplishment.
Advanced Literacy in Language and Mathematics.
Functional literacy is not, IN ITSELF, a goal of university education.
Regardless of the skill levels in English and Mathematics students
bring to the University, they must experience an educational
process that pushes them beyond the functional to advanced
levels.
For language literacy this means multi-dimensional competency
in the use of English: 1) the critical comprehension of complex
reading material; 2) the preparation of clear, organized, and
soundly reasoned statements in a variety of written forms; and
3) the capability, [[and]] confidence, AND [[to]] COMPETENCE
TO PARTICIPATE BOTH ORALLY AND AURALLY [[orally participate]]
in public forums.
Advanced literacy in mathematics implies a solid grasp of
quantitative reasoning and appreciation of mathematical
applications. Most important is acquiring the knowledge necessary
for informed judgements on the uses of mathematical [[and
statistical]] interpretations confronting us in everyday life.
Inherent in these advanced literacies is an empowering process.
Achievement of the range of competencies comprising these fields
of study represents real personal power. [[It is a power which]]
THE POWER GAINED BY DEVELOPING SUCH COMPETENCIES keys
success, satisfaction, and greater self-determination throughout
the total academic experience and in the CONTEMPORARY
[[modern]] world.
The Nature and Use of Science. At its heart, "science"
represents [[a]] distinct approachES to the study, explanation,
AND UNDERSTANDING of both the natural and social worlds.
College-level work in the sciences should foster an intellectual
comfort with different [[aspects of the]] scientific methodS
[[such as the quest for objectivity, hypothesis building and
testing]] and with the SCIENTIFIC [[explanatory]] functions of
theory. Facility with the [[quantitative manipulations and
measures associated with basic]] USES OF RESEARCH IN
scientific enterprises is an important part of this academic
process.
The student should become closely acquainted with the larger
intellectual frameworks[[,]] which have nurtured the development
of scientific thought, including the ways we have come to
understand and articulate [[the]] ITS basic concepts [[of these
frameworks]]. [[No student, for example, should graduate
without a fundamental understanding of evolutionary theory
because its major assumptions and propositions have triggered
substantial work in virtually every other discipline. Einstein's
theory of relativity is another such framework.]]
NO PARAGRAPH BREAK
While particular emphasis is placed on SCIENTIFIC APPROACHES
[[the scientific approach in its various forms]], adequate attention
should be given to other traditions of human inquiry, both empirical
and non-empirical.
In CONTEMPORARY [[modern]] times, technological developments
[[have had]] ARE HAVING an enormous impact on all facets of
the world's ecosystems, raising philosophical and ethical questions
critical to the making of humane public policy. These are questions
that simply will not go away and should CONTINUE TO BE DEALT
WITH DIRECTLY [[be directly dealt with]] in the natural and social
science curriculums.
Studies in History, Language, and Culture. In one sense,
we all are members of a "global village" because of [[almost]]
instantaneous communication networks, speedy transportation
systems, and interlocking world economies. But in another sense,
we live in a highly uncertain and fragmented world comprising
a multitude of differing historical and cultural traditions. We all
have a history which has shaped the way we define ourselves as
cultural, linguistic, and national groups.
For the American university, the study of Western civilization,
including the culturally pluralistic tradition of America, is an
essential prerequisite to related studies of our contemporary
cultural consciousness and major social institutions. However,
we must go beyond this to the comparative study of non-Western
history and culture since it ultimately has the chance of making
more comprehensible intentional complexities and certain
seemingly intractable conditions such as war, poverty, and
oppression.
The comparative study of history and culture also [[should]]
WILL include content that forces a critical examination of how
the shared images, values, and convictions of a cultural group
directly form the fundamental assumptions by which people
make sense of everyday life and of the world around them.
This kind of intellectual journey will raise many issues about
value formation, the power of cultural identity, and the sources
of ethnocentrism. The most sanguine presumption is that at
journey's end, there will be more than mere tolerance for cultural
differences. Rather, there will emerge a solid understanding
and appreciation for different cultural traditions AND THE
WAYS THAT EXPOSURE TO CULTURAL DIFFERENCES CAN
ENHANCE OUR EVERYDAY LIVES. [[and the way history has
mixed many of these traditions into multicultural societies.]]
Finally, there exists [[one other]] ANOTHER literacy pertinent
to being a citizen of the CONTEMPORARY [[modern]] world -
the development of a basic competence in a foreign or non-English
language. Together with the pure intellectual benefits of the
learning exercise (and there are many), facility in a second
language opens a very large window to real experiences in
different cultural realities. UAF STUDENTS WILL BE
ENCOURAGED TO RECOGNIZE BOTH THE PERSONAL AND
PROFESSIONAL BENEFITS OF COMPETENCY IN OTHER
LANGUAGES.
Humanistic Expressions. It is the humanistic study of
aesthetics, literature, and ideas that reveals the full meaning
of being human. Unfortunately, it is precisely the humanities
which the [[modern]] technocratic worldview has most de-
emphasized. Nowhere else in the curriculum are the human
senses and emotions so completely engaged as in the study
of literature, the visual and performing arts, and philosophic
discourse.
Moreover, humanistic expressions are cultural products vividly
portraying the salient realities of a particular people at a particular
time. For example, the prose and poetry of a historical period
can bring the human condition to life in ways the literal style of
textbooks cannot. It is in this realm of learning that beauty,
creativity, and the powers of the human imagination and intellect
are most directly encountered and shared through time.
Within this domain, the question of values becomes significant.
Much of everyday life is spent dealing with value ambiguity.
People continually must make decisions within multiple
environments loaded with conflicting moral possibilities. Then
they must bear responsibility for the consequences of their
decisions. Through [[enculturation]] THEIR LIVED CULTURAL
EXPERIENCE people develop a set of principles to guide the
making of these real-life choices. These principles---and
everybody has them and uses them constantly-reflect the
core values and moral standards each of us believe we live
by (or try to live by).
[[Enculturation, hence]] Value formation, derives collectively
from the ethos of those social institutions in which people spend
good portions of their lives - the family, the church, peer groups,
and schools, including the university. [[At a university, students
should directly confront the nature of values.]] AT THE
UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA FAIRBANKS, STUDENTS WILL DIRECTLY
ENGAGE THE NATURE OF VALUES IN THEIR BACCALAUREATE
EXPERIENCE.
The cultural values of society - of humankind - are for learning
and for debating. The ultimate benefit if this exercise depends
on the way we use it to reflect upon and refine our own personal
codes of conduct.
Content Concentration. Intellectual concentration in a specific
discipline serves as conceptual anchor to the baccalaureate
experience and as the professional foundation of the student's
post-baccalaureate career. The major field or area of specialization
is where we expect the intellectual development of a solid
grounding in a defined body of knowledge. Instruction in the
advanced aspects of the field is an integral part of this
undertaking; but full understanding is not gained without
directed independent study and synthesizing activities. Also,
each specialized field of study should examine the ethics and
values associated with the application of its methods and
knowledge.
ATTACHMENT 97/9
UAF FACULTY SENATE #97
OCTOBER 30, 2000
SUBMITTED BY FACULTY AFFAIRS
FACULTY AFFAIRS MEETING REPORT, 12 Oct 2000 - C.P. McRoy, Chair
Members Present: C.P. McRoy (chair); M. Davis; B. Mortensen
Visitors: N. Swazo; T. DeLaca
New Business:
Change of meeting date and place for November:
16 Nov @ 3pm in Wood Center Conf A
1) Research Integrity
Drs. Swazo and DeLaca attended the meeting to discuss the formation
of the proposed "UAF Research Ethics Committee". The concern
expressed by Dr. Swazo was whether the proposal creates a review
process for matters of alleged misconduct that is parallel to that
specified by University Policy P10.07. and regulation R 10.07.06. Dr.
DeLaca's proposal is in response to new developments in Federal
regulations and the coordination of research misconduct investigations
by the Office of Science and Technology Policy and Office of
Management and Budget. An explicit set of rules and regulations with
severe penalties exists for such activities. It is essential that UAF be in
compliance with the requirements. The Faculty Affairs Committee
(Mortensen & McRoy) will obtain the Federal Regulations on misconduct
in research for review and action relative to University policy by the
committee.
Old Business
2) Sabbatical Leave Policy (Weins) - Postponed
3) Research Faculty (McRoy) - Postponed
4) Emeritus Procedure (Mortensen) - This is no longer an issue for FA.
5) Information Resources Regulation - No action
Other business:
Term Faculty Promotions:
J. Leipzig will attend the November meeting to present this issue.
ATTACHMENT 97/10
UAF FACULTY SENATE #97
OCTOBER 30, 2000
SUBMITTED BY GRADUATE ADVISORY & ACADEMIC COMMITTEE
Graduate Advisory and Academic Committee - Jim Gardner, Chair
GAAC met September 27, 2000: those attending were Gimbel, Eicken,
Kan, Richmond, Murray, Lincoln, Lin, Sankaran, Reynolds, Gregory, and
Gardner.
The committee also met on October 9, 2000: those attending were
Gimbel, Murray, Sankaran, Mason, Konar, Gregory, and Gardner.
Both meetings focused mainly on the proposal for an M.A. in Cross-
Cultural Studies, submitted by Ray Barnhardt through the Department of
Alaska Native Studies and the Center for Cross-Cultural Studies. Ray,
Phyllis Fast, and George Charles attended the 10/9 meeting in order to
present the proposal to the committee and answer any questions from
the committee. At the end of the 10/9 meeting, a public vote was
taken of the committee members and the proposal was passed 3-2 (1
abstain). With the approval of this proposal, the already passed proposal
to delete the Ed.S. specialist degree in Cross-Cultural Studies is also
advanced to the full Faculty Senate.
At the 9/27 meeting, Joe Kan (Graduate School Dean) submitted a
proposal to the committee to increase the minimum requirements for
completion of a UAF Ph.D. to include passing both written and oral
comphrensive examinations. This proposal will be further discussed at a
future meeting of the committee. It was also brought to the attention
of the committee that the fee for submitting graduate applications to
UAF has been increased from $35 to $50. The committee discussed the
merits of this increase, and will seek an explaination for the increase.
No other business was discussed and the committee adjourned.
ATTACHMENT 97/11
UAF FACULTY SENATE #97
OCTOBER 30, 2000
SUBMITTED BY CORE REVIEW
CORE Review Committee Report - Jin Brown, Chair
The Committee has met twice. New members were introduced and our
progress in the on-going assessment of the CORE Curriculum was
discussed. Mathematics and the Natural Sciences will be doing their
alternate year assessment during this academic year. Other areas of the
CORE were assessed last year.
Also, in regard to assessment, the Committee was informed that we
have been asked to do a "notebook" in regard to the accreditation
process. That work will be addressed as this year progresses.
In the first meeting, we determined that conditions, particularly
enrollment, have changed, and that our move to set the CORE Curriculum
into a moratorium has been abandoned. We will consider new courses
for the CORE Curriculum, with the understanding that there is broad
sentiment that to further expand the CORE is at the point of "watering
down" the original idea, and must be considered with great care.
The Committee and invited others (from University Relations,
Governance, the Graduation Office, and the Advising Center) were given
the opportunity to view the CORE Curriculum web site that has been
under construction through the summer. Suggestions were given at that
meeting and are being incorporated into the site. The site will be
interlinked to other pertinent UAF sites.
A motion was sent to the Senate to redress a minor point of the By-laws.
The library member of CORE Review has always been (with no clear
explanation of why) an Ex Officio member of the Committee. We have
moved that the Library chair of the Committee be given voting
membership. In that the Library course of the CORE Curriculum is a
required course and in that all other required areas have voting
membership we feel that this matter needs redressing.
Over the past year, Sheri Layral has worked to update the original
document of the CORE Curriculum to incorporate changes since the
1990 document was released. In doing so, Sheri found that while the
individual pieces of that 1990 document were each approved by the
Senate, the document in whole was never so ordained. In our last
meeting, the CORE Review Committee completed and voted upon an
updating of the Philosophy statement that precedes the CORE
Requirements. The updated document as a whole is now complete and
CORE Review has submitted a motion to the Senate to accept the
document in total for the first time (to include all updating of the
original).
The Committee has asked Sheri Layral to collect syllabi from every
course offered during the semester that carries the CORE designation.
The Committee will begin regular review of syllabi to ensure that courses
carrying the CORE designation are still inclusive of the standards that
originally gained those courses CORE designation. There is some feeling
that courses, particularly "O" and "W" courses, may have drifted over
the years as they have changed professors. We feel that some level of
checking is appropriate.
The Committee continues its day-to-day work in hearing petitions and
approving courses for the CORE ("O" and "W" designations).
ATTACHMENT 97/12
UAF FACULTY SENATE #97
OCTOBER 30, 2000
SUBMITTED BY FACULTY APPEALS & OVERSIGHT
Report of the second meeting of the Faculty Appeals and Oversight
Committee (10/16/00) - Godwin Chukwu, Chair
Present: Godwin A. Chukwu, SME; Brian Himelbloom, SFOS/FITC; Ed
Husted, CRA; George Khazanov, CSEM; Mitch Roth, CSEM
Guests: Joe Kan, Paul Reichardt, Norm Swazo
Absent: Kristy Long, CRA/ACE; Joan Moessner, CLA; Oscar Kawagley,
SOEd; Dennis Schall, SOEd; Rick Steiner, SFOS-MAP; Madeline Schatz, CLA
Committee Membership
The present committee consists of eleven (11) positions representing
the units. The following schools/colleges still have vacant positions to
be filled:
SOM (2)
SALRM (2)
SME (1)
Sheri Layral has notified the Deans of these schools/colleges to elect
representatives to fill the positions. Madeline Schatz is the new CLA
representative in the committee.
Old Business
1. (a). The Provost pointed out some "wordings" in the "Guidelines
for the Evaluation Process of Administrators" which might have some
legal implications. His comments were considered during the
committee's further deliberations on the issue.
(b). The Provost confirmed the names of the three Administrators
that will be evaluated during the 2000/2001 review period (Executive
Dean of College of Rural Alaska; Dean of School of Fisheries and Ocean
Sciences; Dean of Graduate School). The hire date of the other
Administrators will be provided to the committee by the Provost in order
to prepare a roster of evaluation period for all the Administrators.
2. (a). The committee deliberated on the evaluation process for
Administrators and recommends the ATTACHED version.
(b). There was a discussion on whether the Vice-Chancellor for
Administrative Services should be included in the list of Administrators to
be evaluated. Majority of the committee members maintain that the
Vice-Chancellor has both staff and research links to the faculty, and
therefore should be evaluated. The committee decided to refer the
matter to the Administrative committee of the Faculty Senate for
further discussion and clarification.
New Business
Joe Kan (Dean of Graduate School) was invited to share his views on the
appeal procedure for candidates rejected for admission into the graduate
program. He cited situations that would necessitate his overturning
Faculty Review Committee's recommendation supporting candidate's
application for admission to the graduate program. The Faculty Appeals
& Oversight Committee recommends that the same procedure for
"Appeals Policy for Academic Decisions" should apply in this case with
the following amendment: the word STUDENT should be replaced with
CANDIDATE where appropriate.
ATTACHMENT 97/13
UAF FACULTY SENATE #97
OCTOBER 30, 2000
SUBMITTED BY FACULTY DEVELOPMENT, ASSESSMENT & IMPROVEMENT
Faculty Development, Assessment & Improvement Committee Meeting
Report
The Faculty Development, Assessment & Improvement committee held
its second meeting on September 26, 2000 as an audio-conference from
11:30 - 12:30 in the Chancellor's Conference Room. Those present: B.
Cooper, L. Curda, R. Dupras, D. McLean-Nelson, E. T. Robinson, A. Rybkin,
J. Collins, R. Norris-Tull, C. Price. Absent: B. Butcher and J. Morrison.
Two items were circulated prior to the meeting: Summary Report of
1999/2000 Faculty Reviews by Provost Reichardt and the Memorandum
of Understanding between the University of Alaska and the Union as to
Article 9, Faculty Status:Appointment, Evaluation, Promotion, Tenure,
and Termination.
Carol Gold, History, was the guest of the committee. Her involvement
with Article 9 and her interest in faculty development made her a logical
choice to discuss the Article and related items.
Introductions were made as the meeting was called to order by chair, E.
T. Robinson. The new meeting time appears to serve the committee well
and those present favored the conference room as our meeting place.
Carol Gold highlighted the areas contained in Article 9. A very lively and
informative discussion followed with a number of items addressed.
Article 9 in synopsis form deals with 9.1 Faculty Appointment, 9.2
Evaluation, 9.3 Responsibilities, Rights, and Privileges of Tenure, and 9.4
Termination of Appointment. The discussion centered on 9.2 evaluation
as this is of most concern and interest and comprises the majority of the
document.
Items and concerns related to evaluation were to make the process a
useful exercise for both the faculty member and the University of Alaska
糖心vlog官网. Some approaches this committee may consider are to seek
innovative and effective ways to determine the performance of faculty.
Getting faculty development up and running with a renewed emphasis is
a positive step forward. There are number of items to address from
review of annual activity report formats to the procedures to be followed
with post tenure review. The procedure of voting at all levels for post
tenure review should be addressed. The desire is to make the effort of
evaluation a positive process for all concerned. Providing helpful
feedback in the peer review process needs emphasis. Merit as an issue
and in the process was discussed. Salary compression and market
adjustment in a number of areas remain concerns
A number of items will be discussed at the next meeting including, but
not limited to, speakers, instruction assessment surveys, and items from
the last meeting to address the evaluation process. The next meeting is
to be held at 11:30 - 12:30, Tuesday, October 17, in the Chancellor's
conference room. It should be noted that the committee welcomes and
invites interested faculty to join the membership. Contact the
governance office (7964) or chair, E T Robinson at 6526 or
ffetr@uaf.edu.
The meeting was adjourned. Respectfully submitted, E. Thomas
Robinson
ATTACHMENT 97/14
UAF FACULTY SENATE #97
OCTOBER 30, 2000
SUBMITTED BY CURRICULAR AFFAIRS
Curricular Affairs Committee Meeting Report - Ron Illingworth, Chair
The Curricular Affairs committee held meetings on September 27 and
October 11, 2000 as an audioconference from 1100 to 1205. Our next
meeting is scheduled for 25 October, 2000 from 1100-1200.
All meetings will be audioconferenced as well as face to face as several
members of the committee are from outside 糖心vlog官网.
We began by addressing prioritized issues from our list of issues for
discussion this year.
Issue 1: Course prerequisites - are they accurate and valid in the
catalog and can they be enforced?
Status: The Registrar's office has devised a memo which will be sent
to each department and which will identify the prerequisites for each
course listed in the catalog. Departments will be requested to verify the
validity and accuracy of these prerequisites. Their input will be returned
to the Registrar's office and the catalog updated.
Then, during registration, the Registrar's office will run a program which
will check a student's records with the prerequisites listed for the course.
Students will not be restricted from classes solely on the basis of this
computer generated sort. However, questionable areas will be identified
to the instructor for resolution before the beginning of the class. This
process will be beta tested in the Engineering Department before
implementation.
Issue 2: Status of formation of BAS oversight committee.
Status: This committee of the Faculty Senate has not yet been
formed. In its place several ad hoc committees are attempting to guide
the development of the BAS. This operation seems to be occurring
outside of Senate intentions. Senate leadership intervention appears to
be necessary to either change the Senate position or to bring these ad
hoc committees together under Senate leadership.
Issue 3: Institutional integrity in the area of course offerings shown in
the catalog
Status: Two different lists have been produced; one by Institutional
Research and one from the Registrar's office. There are differences
between the two lists.
The Registrar's list will be provided, with a cover memo, to the College
and School Deans for their distribution to their departments. The listing
contains courses which may be subject to consideration for
removal/elimination based on their not having been offered since 1997.
This will be an expedited process outside of the normal course approval
process. However, all recommendations will be reviewed by the
Curriculum Review Committee prior to any removal/elimination action.
Issue 4: Transfer credit meeting core requirements for the AAS.
Status: A draft proposal is being created and will be presented at
the next meeting of the Curricular Affairs Committee on 25 October,
2000. Existing policy covers the bachelor's degree but does not address
students who possess a bachelor's degree from another institution and
come to UAF to acquire an AAS.
Issue 5: Minor student enrollment in University courses
Status: This is a carry-over from last years discussions. The
committee is agreed to the need for clarification of this policy. A draft
will be presented at the next Curricular Affairs Committee meeting on 25
October, 2000. Policies affecting both dual-enrollment and the AHEAD
program are being reviewed.
Fred Dyen from the Tanana Valley Campus, submitted a Transfer Credit
Equivalency request for adding the US Army Cold Weather Leaders and
Ski Trainers Course as an option for AVTY 231, Arctic Survival course.
This was unanimously approved.
UA