2011-2012 - December 14, 2011
FACULTY SENATE MINUTES
DECEMBER 14, 2011
Present: Richard Borgman, Emmanuel Boss, Dick Brucher, Marcia Douglas, Dylan Dryer, Janet Fairman, Paul W. Ferguson, Michael Grillo, Gordon Hamilton, Susan Hunter, Melvin Johnson, Deborah Killam, Dennis King, Kurt Klappenbach, Bill Livingston, Stuart Marrs, James McClymer, Robert Milardo, Michael Peterson, Andrew Reeve, Steve Reiling, Thomas Sanford, Michael Scott, Scott See, Howard Segal, Roy Turner, Janet Waldron
Absent: Douglas Bousfield, Ian Bricknell, Sudarshan Chawathe, William Congleton, Robert Dana, Benildo de los Reyes, David Dvorak, Eric Gallandt, Robert Gundersen, Ramesh Gupta, Duane Hanselman, Dan Harrison, Samuel Helmke, Clarissa Henry, Steven Kimball, Irv Kornfield, Judy Kuhns-Hastings, Molly MacLean, David Marcincowski, Jennifer Moxley, Martha Novy-Broderick, Harlan Onsrud, Tina Passman, Anne Pooler, Paul Rawson, Bob Rice, Phillip Silver, Kathryn Slott, Robert Strong, Claire Sullivan, Shihfen Tu, Mark Wells, Vivian Wu,
The meeting was called to order at 3:20 pm.
Finalist for the Chancellor position have been announced:
Resumes for the candidates can be found at: http://www.maine.edu/board/ChancellorSearch2012.php
I. Approval of the Minutes:
The minutes for the November meeting will be available at the January meeting.
II. Committee Reports:
BOT Rep – Robert Rice
Academic Affairs – Judy Kuhns-Hastings
A review of documents from the last meeting will be discussed at the January meeting.
Constitution & Bylaws – Harlan Onsrud
Research & Scholarship – Janet Fairman
First request for internal review is out. Planning a poll of faculty in the spring regarding limitations on external grant opportunities.
Finance & Institutional Planning – James McClymer
University Environment – Mike Scott
Met with Janet Waldron, Stuart Marrs, and Elaine Clark on the state of the classrooms. Elaine will provide a list of upgrades since 2006 and John Gregory will provide a list of technology upgrades.
Library Advisory – Howard Segal
President Ferguson mentioned Dr. Page has stepped down from the Strategic Planning committee since he’s a finalist for the Chancellor position. Regarding the Mission Statement/vision, several proposals for change but it’s still early.
Service & Outreach – Deborah Killam & Claire Sullivan
Will be working over the next semester to see what can be accomplished. Some projects will be transitioned to next year.
Committee on Committees – Roy Turner
There are two committee openings for Cultural Affairs – need people from NSFA and LAS
There are two openings on the Inaugural Committee
Program Creation & Reorganization Review –Scott See
General Education – Tina Passman
Tina has withdrawn from the committee. Tom Sanford and Bill Ellis will be Co-Chairs. Their next meeting will be January 3.
Committees of the Administration Representatives
Ad Hoc IT Advisory — Irving Kornfield & Mike Scott
Gail Garthwait reported:
Items from the IT COUNCIL
– The faculty laptop program (9th) year increased number to 150.
– Work has begun on the UMS data center (behind Neville)
– The UMS portal project group meets weekly; you may provide input and suggestions
– Faculty stipends (12 th year) via Faculty Development Center due march 9
IT STRATEGIC PLANNING COMMITTEE
– In May 2011 the consulting firm Berry Dunn produced a Current Environment Report
– The Core Team will meet Dec 21 and expect a draft to be available in the future in order for the campus conversation & feedback
– 4 IT Core Team Members are also on President Ferguson’s leadership Council.
Graduate Student Government
Increased funding by 20% last year, graduate students volunteered to increase fees for the increase. There is a grant process; all graduate students are eligible if their departments are involved. The Grad Expo is held every spring in conjunction with Undergraduates. Last year there were 120 presenters and looking for more this year. Awards of $4000 and the President instituted a $1000 award for a student with $1000 going to that student’s advisor. There is an award from the Dean of the Graduate School in hopes of raising interest from undergrads in the Graduate School at UMaine. Judges are needed, faculty or post-doc.
III. Questions to Administrators
Q. Mike Scott asked if there a larger amount of students with holds on their accounts?
A. No, about the same as last year or less.
Q. Mick Peterson commented – No longer responding to parents or students regarding curriculum, they will be passed to dean or administration from now on. Mechanical Engineering had eight of 12 faculty leave, enrollment has doubled, using instructors instead of faculty and two TA’s. Yet, in Brunswick there will be a full-time tenured faculty hired for a facility with no students.
A. Susan Hunter commented that she couldn’t go point by point but given a heads up she’ll talk to the entire Senate regarding the issue.
Comment – Department was denied hiring two TA’s instead of an instructor. Maybe a formal process regarding previous decisions can be revisited.
Q. Dylan Dryer received a notice regarding matriculation agreements. UMaine System and Community Colleges have a conference set for February regarding minimal requirements. English wasn’t notified and the Chair wasn’t aware of it.
A. Susan Hunter said she wasn’t exactly sure what the notification was for but what they’ve been working on was communicated to the Deans.
Stuart Marrs commented that a faculty to faculty meeting to facilitate transfers has been discussed. Issue of rigor across Community Colleges and the UMaine System comes up regularly but need to check to see specifics of what is being referred to. Names of faculty have been requested for a meeting but the timing doesn’t sound like the same thing.
Use curriculum in loose manner, need close look at the department level because it seems some see it as “plug and play” with classes but they don’t always translate between campuses.
Articulation agreements need faculty involvement,
Faculty must be involved in what is acceptable and what isn’t,
Need faculty to volunteer when asked,
UMaine System needs to bring disciplines from other campuses together to have these discussions.
Q. Any insight on Joe Carr’s replacement?
A. There is a team in place, Margaret Nagel and Julie currently and figuring out a search for University Relations is in the works.
Q. Has anyone checked the Wikipedia listing for the University of Maine? The entry lists sports and Greek life where UNH lists is about academics.
IV. Old Business
University of Maine Faculty Senate Motion for Principles Governing
Distance / On-Line Learning
As a residential campus, the University of Maine must meet its students’ expectations of having up to date and cutting-edge technologies within the traditional course structure, including the use of hybrid and innovative modes of delivery. Given the core role of emerging technologies in responsible education, research, and public outreach, distance / on-line education serves best as part of a continuum of offerings, one that complements on-campus classes, which very successfully continue to serve our students.
Honoring our role as the Land- and Sea-Grant flagship campus, we continue to strive to make our research and teaching openly available to our diverse constituencies across the state. We must balance providing the highest quality residential program, using the most efficacious course deliveries to sustain this quality, and our responsibility to assist the University of Maine System in providing all constituents the best education possible.
In all questions of teaching, research, and outreach, including questions regarding the delivery of education through distance / on-line modalities, it is incumbent on us to reiterate that the primary responsibility for curricular matters lies with the Faculty at the University of Maine, working collaboratively with our Administration.
We concur with the AAUP (American Association of University Professors) that: As with all other curricular matters, the faculty should have primary responsibility for determining the policies and practices of the institution in regard to distance education. The rules governing distance education and its technologies should be approved by vote of the faculty concerned or of a representative faculty body, officially adopted by the appropriate authority, and published and distributed to all concerned.
The applicable academic unit–usually a department or program–should determine the extent to which the new technologies of distance education will be utilized, and the form and manner of their use. These determinations should conform with institutional policies. (Retrieved 9/3/11
Therefore, University of Maine Faculty shall have primary responsibility for all distance / on-line education originating from the University of Maine.
II. The Motion:
The Academic Affairs Committee moves approval of the following guiding principles regarding Faculty responsibilities with regard to distance / on-line education to reiterate clearly the Faculty’s unique purview in designing, teaching, and implementing all UMaine courses and curricula, including distance / on-line educational materials, and urges the Administration and President of the University of Maine to assure that these principles are adopted as policy wherever possible, affirmed and adhered to in all decisions relating to distance / on-line education at, or through, the University of Maine.
1. The University of Maine Faculty has primary responsibility for all matters pertaining to the undergraduate and graduate curricula, including all courses, modules, majors, minors, degrees, and certificate programs offered by the University of Maine.
2. The Faculty at the University of Maine shall be involved in the oversight of distance / on-line education courses to the same extent as in other courses with regard to factors such as course development and approval, selection of qualified Faculty to teach, pedagogical determinations about appropriate class size, and oversight of course offerings by the appropriate Faculty committee to ensure conformity with previously established traditions of course quality and relevance to programs.
3. The Faculty member (or an appropriate Faculty body) who teaches the course (or adopts a pre-existing course) for use in distance / on-line education shall exercise control over the future use, modification, and distribution of recorded instructional material and shall determine whether the material should be revised or withdrawn from use.
4. The Faculty of each department or unit will assess any balance among modalities, say, between on-line and traditional course offerings, on the basis of their expertise in all curricular matters.
5. It is well documented that there is often a significant increase in demands on Faculty time in the design, creation and delivery of distance / on-line education for Faculty members, far more than for comparable traditional courses. For example, the time spent on-line answering student inquiries typically takes more than double the amount of time required in interacting with students in comparable traditional classes. Increasing demands on Faculty time can only undermine sustained excellence in teaching and research, unless it is balanced with adjustments in other responsibilities.
6. Determination of class size shall always be based upon pedagogy, as determined by the Faculty member in consultation with her or his unit and its chairperson. Unrealistic class sizes directly work against proven pedagogic excellence, penalizing students in over-loaded courses.
7. In order to carry out their instructional responsibilities, professional development and ongoing and sustained technical support must be provided for all Faculty members who choose to develop distance / on-line education courses. The Center for Excellence in Teaching and Assessment (CETA), the Division of Life-Long Learning (DLL), and the Faculty Development Center at present provide and coordinate such efforts; other entities tasked with such responsibilities may emerge in future.
8. As a professional within her or his discipline, the Faculty member in discussion with her or his unit shall determine the specific technology or technologies employed in the delivery of the courses she or he develops and teaches.
9. The Faculty member (or an appropriate Faculty body) who teaches the course (or adopts a pre-existing course) for use in distance / on-line education shall exercise control over the future use, modification, and distribution of recorded instructional material and shall determine whether the material should be revised or withdrawn from use in conformance with the UMS Full Statement of Policy Governing Patents and Copyrights http://www.maine.edu/system/policy_manual/policy_section209.php
10. Information Technology (IT), Continuing Education (CED), Division of Lifelong Learning (DLL), and the Center for Teaching Excellence and Assessment (CETA) shall be collaborative partners in support of the educational mission of the University. Evolving pedagogical best practices in distance / on-line education shall be supported by all available resources, to cover the development and/or use of course management systems, hard- and software packages, new technologies of communication and delivery, and functions related to the efficient and seamless delivery of education, all fitted appropriately to the content and goals of the course or program.
11. Development and approval of student evaluation tools that are appropriate to course pedagogy and technology continue to lie within the purview of the Faculty as described by Article 10, B. 2. & 3. of the UMS / AFUM Contract. Student evaluation instruments other than those approved by the Faculty are not official evaluation instruments of the University of Maine.
Regarding number 4, last sentence should be removed because faculty appointment letter already has a statement regarding development or teaching distance/on-line courses may be required.
A vote was taken on the removal of the sentence: For 11, Against 9
Regarding number 5, is it “well documented” that there is a significant increase on Faculty time for the creation of new courses for on-line courses?
A vote was taken to amend 5 to read “It is well documented that there is often a significant increase…” For , Against 1
Voting Results: Unanimous
V. New Business
The meeting was adjourned at 4:45 pm.