2017 – 2018 Motions

September 20, 2017

 

 

October 18, 2017

 

 

November 15, 2017

PCRRC Recommendation Regarding the Proposal to Reorganize the Maine Business School November 15, 2017

Background:

A pre-proposal to reorganize the Maine Business School was submitted by Provost Hecker to the PCRRC on September 11, 2017. After a two-week period for comments from UMaine faculty and staff, eight responses were received. Based on concerns of the PCRRC and respondents, the committee recommended moving the issue to formal review. A full proposal was submitted to the PCRRC on October 6, and Clayton Wheeler, PCRRC Chair, asked the Provost to clarify the relationships between the various faculty groups, the proposed undergraduate and graduate Deans and the Provost. A revised proposal was submitted, along with an organization diagram, on October 9. These documents were posted on the PCRRC website, and written comments were solicited from UMaine faculty members and administrators. One written comment was received. A public meeting was held on October 25 in which the Provost presented the proposal, and five MBS faculty members presented arguments opposing the proposal. The speakers were Richard Borgman, Nory Jones, Stephanie Welcomer, John Mahon, and Martha Broderick. Almost all the comments were opposed to the proposal.

Summary of potential positive impacts in the proposal and expressed by the Provost:

•  Aligns  with  UMS  “One  University”  concept  by  eliminating  competition  between  UMaine   and all UMS campuses for MBA students and involving collaboration between UMaine and USM.
•  Maintains positive relationships with external donors (Alfond Foundation).
•  Broadens  UMaine’s  impact,  presence,  and  accessibility  across  the  state  which  is  in   
fulfillment of our Land grant mission.
•  Establishes infrastructure in Portland and Orono to facilitate synchronous delivery of 
curriculum in either direction.
•  Increases number of faculty in MBS. 
Summary of concerns from written and oral responses submitted to the

PCRRC:

•  The proposal must be viewed in conjunction with the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), a legal document between the Chancellor and the Alfond Foundation which defines the program and the role of the Foundation.
•  Curricular decisions belong to faculty, and the proposal does not seem to be in line with this shared governance process. The memorandum of understanding suggests that faculty governance of curriculum is at risk.
•  Hiring faculty, as well as tenure and promotion process must belong to the shared governance process that UMaine currently follows. This is unclear in current proposal.
•  The two-dean structure that is currently being proposed separates undergraduate from graduate programs. Emphasis is placed on the Portland MBA, but negative effects on the Orono business undergraduate program are ignored. Faculty are integrally engaged in both graduate and undergraduate studies and feel this administrative structure would likely lead to   competition for faculty and resources and degrade the rapidly growing undergraduate program. Furthermore, this       structure could endanger AACSB accreditation.

PCRRC Recommendation Regarding the Proposal to Reorganize the Maine Business School November 15, 2017

•  The two-dean structure is costly and inefficient. The business faculties of UMaine and USM are willing to work together to develop a joint MBA offering in Portland under one dean situated in Orono.
•  UMaine’s  MBA  is  already  accessible  to  Portland  students  via  online  offerings  and   continues to show significant growth in enrollment.
•  The proposed reorganization/expansion with a focus on full-time residential education is not supported by a market analysis of the future for such programs, which are declining nationwide.
•  The increase in faculty resources is only directed toward graduate education. As pointed out by accreditation agencies the undergraduate program at UMaine has seen significant growth with student to faculty ratios which were recognized at the extreme high range of peer institutions. There are no resources proposed to mitigate this related issue and there is     concern that this new program may compete with already needed and documented resources. AACSB accreditation is        threatened due to faculty insufficiency.
•  The  proposed  organizational  structure  develops  a  “class”  of  faculty  members  who  only   participate in graduate education and will be isolated from the undergraduate education mission. Similarly, a group of undergraduate-only faculty will be developed. This division will hurt retention and recruitment of quality faculty.
•  The Business School faculty are concerned about the future of the MBA program in Orono. The MOU indicates that it will be closed. The Provost, in his presentation, states it will not be in jeopardy of being closed and indicates it can keep its current curriculum.

PCRRC’s  Analysis:

•  The PCRRC does not object to the premise of the proposal which would establish UMaine as the leader, and sole provider, of business graduate education in the University of Maine System in collaboration with the USM business faculty.
•  The proposal has been compromised by an inability to reconcile the details of the proposal with the Memorandum of Understanding between Chancellor Page and the Alfond Foundation. The MOU is a legal agreement between the system (Chancellor) and the  Alfond  Foundation.  It  appears  to  be  “binding  on  all  parties.”  It  is  the  PCRRC’s analysis that UMaine cannot fully comply with the MOU, since it violates the Faculty Senate constitution which was approved by the Chancellor of the University of Maine System  pursuant  to  Board  of  Trustees’  Policies; furthermore, it is     unclear what can and cannot, or will and will not, be followed in the MOU, which is of serious concern. For example, the proposed two-dean structure is directly out of the MOU.
•  The Business School faculty believe that having two deans is inefficient, expensive and will lead to competition for scarce resources. Our analysis is that this proposed structure is not necessary, since the two business faculties from UMaine and USM came to an agreement to offer a combined UMaine MBA in Portland under one MBS dean (See “The   Twelve Points,” which were presented on March 24, 2017).
•  The  PCRRC’s  analysis  is  that  this  reorganization  is  a  major restructuring, involving an additional dean and the division of the current Maine Business School into two parts. It proposes major curriculum changes, even if no details are currently known. The Business School faculty members have expressed concerns that the transfer of faculty

PCRRC Recommendation Regarding the Proposal to Reorganize the Maine Business School November 15, 2017

to the Portland MBA will have ramifications for the MBS undergraduate program that are not explored in the proposal; the committee is uncertain as to the extent of these ramifications.

•  The MOU includes the creation of a private entity (Maine Center Ventures), which will also share the initial $7.5 million proposed grant; the proposal is silent on the role of this entity. The  PCRRC’s  analysis  of  these  concerns  is  that, in the spirit of shared governance, the faculty would need to see much more detail than the proposal contains with regard to budget and accounting of staff, faculty, and other resources before we could support the proposal.
•  The proposal is silent on the issues of curriculum development, hiring, tenure and promotion. The MOU clearly infringes on the principles of shared governance in its treatment of these matters and violates our constitution. Consequently, the proposal should be adjusted to acknowledge the primacy of our established procedures in these matters.
•  The PCRRC feels that the decision of the faculty senate is important because this is an issue that resonates beyond the Business School. This is clearly a decision about faculty governance and donor influence upon curricula and structure. In a time of decreased state allocations, the University faculty welcome university giving and value the Alfond Foundation contributions; however, fiscal contributions cannot come with donor control and must follow the due diligence of shared governance. 
PCRRC Recommendation to the Faculty Senate: 
While greatly appreciating the  Alfond  Foundation’s continued support of higher education in the state of Maine, the PCRRC recommends against the approval of the proposal.
• Motion: 
The Faculty Senate rejects the proposal for the reorganization of the Maine Business School.

Vote: Approved

 

Motion to Align General Education Courses with Faculty

Senate Approved Criteria General Education Committee, November 2017

Introduction:

In April 2012, Faculty Senate adopted criteria broadly describing the essential components of the different General Education categories.

All General Education courses introduced since 2012 have been required to satisfy these attributes. To date, no mechanism to evaluate alignment of courses that existed before 2012 has been developed. This has led to a de facto grandfathering of some courses while courses created after 2012 have been required to meet new general Education criteria. In order to provide a valuable and consistent General Education experience to all UMaine students, all of our General Education courses should be encouraged to satisfy the Senate approved criteria.

In 2009, our accreditor, the New England Association of Schools and Colleges (NEASC), requested that the University emphasize, “implementing a comprehensive approach to the assessment of student learning.” Part of the University’s response was the 2012 refinement of the criteria and new course assessment outlined above for General Education courses. The General Education Course evaluation process described below builds on this by looking at the courses existing prior to 2012.

The General Education Committee of Faculty Senate and University of Maine Administration have together developed a program of General Education Course evaluation as outlined below. This program is intended as part of an ongoing conversation between Faculty, Faculty senate and UMaine Administration pertaining to student outcomes of learning in General Education courses.

Framework:

UMaine faculty will assess the General Education program over the course of four years using samples of student work taken from regularly offered general education courses.

Working groups recruited by the Faculty Senate General Education Assessment Subcommittee have developed 9 rubrics to assess UMaine’s General Education outcomes.* The proposed approach uses these rubrics in an annual scoring session to ensure a more consistent framework through which to view student achievement. Specifically, 1) faculty will collect work as part of their normal class that reflects the general education area being measured (student work might reflect the entire category (if a final paper or exam) or a subset); 2) This work will be uploaded into an online database for scoring; 3)

Annually, faculty volunteers with familiarity of particular general education areas will score student work as part of an integrated scoring session/professional development event; 4) Scores will be summarized by the Office of Assessment and reported to Individual Faculty, the Faculty Senate and the Office of the Provost.

Assessment Timeline:
•

9 outcomes assessed in 4 years (schedule repeats in Spring of 2022)

Spring 2018: Western cultural traditions

Fall 2018: Social contexts and institutions

Spring 2019: Artistic and creative expression

Spring 2019: Ethics
Fall 2019: Population and the environment

Spring 2020: Quantitative Literacy

Fall 2020:

Writing
Spring 2021: Cultural diversity and international perspectives

Fall 2021: Science

Assessment Method (completed by the Assessment Office):

• Course sections from a stratified random sample from the Registrar’s 
list of course sections that include the targeted general education area will be identified. To qualify, courses must have at least 10 students enrolled and satisfy the requirements for the specified general education area. The final selection of courses will include: 
10 course sections from lower division courses
10 course sections from upper division courses (as possible, 
some General Education areas do not have large numbers of course sections offered at the 300-400 level)
• From each course, 10 students will be randomly selected

Department/Unit/Faculty participation:

• Participation in the assessment of the General Education Program is 
strongly encouraged by Faculty Senate of all Units where General Education courses are taught should their course be randomly selected.
• Faculty are welcome to volunteer their courses for evaluation by this process.
• Units submit de-identified papers (or other assignments) that are aligned to the specified general education area.
• Individual faculty will not be asked to participate in more than one learning outcome assessment per academic year.

Data collection:

• Student assignments will be submitted using a simple web interface. • Instructions for student assignment de- identification and upload will 
be simple and provided (by the Assessment Office) to all participating Units. 
Scoring:
• Faculty volunteers familiar with the particular general education 
area will be provided targeted workshops/webinars to examine the 
rubrics, assignment alignment, and data collection.
• Faculty will be recruited to score student work as part of an annual 
professional development & scoring session held in May (3-hour 
session per learning outcome).
• Scoring instructions will be simple and provided (by the Assessment 
Office).

Results and reporting:

• Course/student level results will be reported back to individual 
faculty members.
• Aggregate results by General Education area will be reported 
through the Faculty Senate and Office of Assessment. 
Ongoing Review:
• It is intended that this process will be reviewed annually in order to 
fine tune or modify student work collection, refine the scoring rubric, faculty scoring of student work, General Education course descriptions.
• Faculty may also monitor campus trends and decide that certain General Education courses are not meeting requirements of the area’s attributes or student learning goals. If such patterns exist, it will be the responsibility of Faculty Senate to develop a response to address them. 
* The link to the faculty-developed rubrics is: 
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B69P9704XdkHRXRkc2g4NTMyUEE

 

Motion:

The Faculty Senate of the University of Maine, in the spirit of ensuring that General Education courses are in alignment with criteria approved by the Faculty Senate in 2012, move to adopt the mechanism described above in order to periodically review all UMaine General Education courses. After each General Education area review a report on the assessment outcomes will be submitted to the Faculty Senate Academic Affairs and General Education committee.

Vote: Approved

 

December 13, 2017

 

 

February 7, 2018

 

 

March 7, 2018

 

Observation of Religious Holidays and Events and the Academic Calendar

Introduction

The sub-committees of Faculty Senate (Academic Affairs and General Education) have reviewed the recommendation from Judaic Studies Advisory Board and agree with and value the proposal from Judaic Studies and agree that the following language should be included as an addendum to the system wide calendar and that dates should be highlighted to recognize religious holidays or events. While we support the proposal, the main concern revolves around already bloated syllabi that require a wide range of university policy. The overwhelming recommendation of the committee is that a web link is established by the university administration that include up to date information regarding university academic policy. This link should be presented when covering the syllabus and faculty should walk students through the link. This link would include the recent motion and language from Judaic Affairs Committee.

Language for Syllabi

The University of Maine recognizes that when students are observing significant religious

holidays, some may be unable to attend classes or labs, study, take tests, or

work on other assignments. If they provide adequate notice (at least one week and

longer if at all possible), these students are allowed to make up course requirements as

long as this effort does not create an unreasonable burden upon the instructor,

department or University. At the discretion of the instructor, such coursework could be

due before or after the examination or assignment. No adverse or prejudicial effects

shall result to a student’s grade for the examination, study, or course requirement on the

day of religious observance. The student shall not be marked absent from the class

due to observing a significant religious holiday. In the case of an internship or clinical,

students should refer to the applicable policy in place by the employer or site.

Motions:

1. The Faculty Senate of the University of Maine, move to include the above statement in syllabi that includes the observation of religious holidays without academic penalty.  Furthermore, we move that all required syllabi language be placed on a web page created by UMaine administration and to which syllabi can be linked.

https://umaine.edu/citl/teaching-resources-2/required-syllabus-information/

2. The Faculty Senate of the University of Maine, move to include a University of Maine addendum to the University of Maine System calendar that highlights recognized religious holidays and events as well as other important dates specific to the University of Maine.

Vote:

Motion 1: Approved, 1 No

Motion 2: Approved, 1 Abstention

 

Motions from Academic Affairs and General Education
Teaching Evaluations

“No evaluative judgement of a faculty member’s teaching, either formative or summative, should be based on Student Evaluations of Teaching alone. Evaluation should be based on multiple measures”.

Introduction

Drawing on published, peer reviewed literature, data from UMaine teaching evaluations, and committee discussions a set of recommendations were proposed by the Gender and Teaching Evaluations Committee. The conclusions of the committee’s findings were shared with the sub-committees of Faculty Senate for General Education and Academic Affairs.

Academic Affairs and General Education recommend that as units revise their promotion and tenure guidelines that they consider including the recommendations presented by the Gender and Teaching Evaluations Committee. Specifically, we recommend that the evaluation of teaching should draw on multiple measures and not be based solely on Student Evaluations of Teaching (SET). Departments/units are strongly encouraged to review these recommendations and to develop explicit guidelines for evaluating teaching. Our committee feels it is up to the individual academic units to determine the number or amount of these measures of teaching.

1. Departments/units should develop criteria standardizing how SETS are administered.

a. How SETs are introduced may influence student ratings. A script describing why SETs are important, how they are used, and the need to sign comments for the faculty’s record could address this issue.

b. Additional considerations are the presence of the instructor during SETs and timing of SETs relative to exams and the end of the semester.

2. When interpreting SETs, consideration of both central tendency and variability is recommended.

a. While mean scores must be included when interpreting SET scores, in cases of small class size or response rate, the median, which is less influenced by extreme scores should also be included.

b. Variability in responses (distribution across response options) should be considered in addition to central tendency. For example, a rating of 4.5 with many 1’s and 2’s tells a decidedly different story that the same average with all 4’s and 5’s.

3. Interpretation of SETs should be based on a clear standard.

a. SETs should be interpreted relative to a clearly articulated and publicly available departmental standard.

b. Departments/units should determine when SET values signal concern (e.g., specific absolute SET value; number of SET scores below value; pattern of SETs).

c. Caution should be exercised when comparing item SETs for a particular instructor within a specific course or across courses. Small differences should not be given significant weight. Is the change (or difference) in SET values statistically unlikely or practically important?

4. SETs should be considered in full view of relevant contextual information regarding the course. For example:

a. Class size

b. Course difficulty

c. Required or elective course

d. Instructors experience with the course

e. Demographics of the course (e.g. students primarily of one gender/race/ethnicity and faculty member of a different race/gender/ethnicity).

f. Extenuating life circumstances of the instructor.

5. Signed student comments directly relevant to teaching may be considered.

a. Departments/units, Chairs, and peer committees may only have access to signed student comments on SETs for evaluating faculty (per AFUM contract).

b. Comments relevant to teaching should be emphasized over comments not relevant to teaching (e.g. appearance, warmth, personality). Evaluators should be vigilant for evidence that irrelevant comments disproportionately appear as a function of gender, ethnicity, nationality, or any other demographic consideration.

6. No evaluative judgement of a faculty member’s teaching, either formative or summative should be based on SETs alone. While this is always important, it will become increasing important as the university considers moving toward electronic SETs. It is imperative that teaching evaluations include other evaluative measures. It is up to the Departments/Units to decide how often additional measures beyond the SET are utilized. For example, departments and units may consider to include 3 peer evaluations prior to promotion and tenure, 1 review of course materials, but expect to see SETs and Self Evaluation of teaching annually. The above is just an example and the amount of peer observations, review of course materials and Self Evaluations should be determined by the unit.

a. Evaluations should be based on multiple measures beyond the SET including, but not limited to the following:

i. Peer Evaluation: periodic evaluations by a teaching and/or subject expert.

ii. Assessment of Course Materials: course syllabi, graded student work, online resources, etc.

iii. Self-Evaluation: self-appraisal of teaching performance.

7. Evaluation of teaching should be considered with a developmental context, particularly for pre-tenure faculty. Is their evidence of improvement in SETs and other measures of teaching? Is there a relationship between SET data and teaching innovation? Is there a relationship between teaching evaluation data and a professional development plan?

Motion:

The Faculty Senate of the University of Maine would like to support the findings of the Gender and Teaching Evaluations Committee and move to endorse the recommendations described above in order to more equitably evaluate faculty teaching and further recommend that these guidelines be included when revising Promotion and Tenure Collegial Review Documents.

Vote:  Approved

 

Motion to begin the process of amending the University of Maine Faculty Senate Bylaws Article IV: Standing Committees 

Introduction:

The Ad Hoc IT committee has been in existence since about: 2008.   The bylaws state: Section 3. Ad hoc committees. The Senate may create ad hoc committees to address specific short term issues as deemed appropriate and expedient at the time. Such ad hoc committees will report to the Senate at appropriate intervals and in writing at the conclusion of their charge. Such ad hoc committees will disband at the conclusion of their charge.

Since 2015 the following IT initiatives have been drafted:

1. Proposal and implementation of consistent IT in classrooms, student platforms and clear classroom instructions- HDMI chords and projectors in all classrooms (less than 5 years old).
2. Survey of faculty about LMS, and email systems- behind the final resting place of FirstClass.
3. Proposal for a method which allows for tracking technology in classrooms (if something is not working right- it can be reported) that can be viewed by faculty using the rooms.
4. Proposal to make IT leave a note when they come fix something in classrooms; and to offer the idea that IT fix faculty office computers in faculty offices.
5. Proposal and implementation of wireless printing.

To continue the committees efforts, the IT AdHoc committee request to be transitioned into a standing committee of Faculty Senate.

The Proposed standing committee of information technology shall 1) Monitor and assess proposals and ongoing Information Technology systems, with respect to the impact on faculty scholarship (defined as: teaching, research and service). 2) Represent the Faculty Senate to committees of the University of Maine administration and to University of Maine System committees pertaining to Information Technology. 3) Periodically survey the faculty at the close of each academic year to identify pressing IT issues to work on the following academic year.

The IT committee will work with appropriate organizations to provide awareness to all faculty about:

• Present and future technology platforms available for scholarship.
• Technology changes, and updates that will impact scholarship.
• Changes to, or potential issues with Learning Management Systems, classroom technology and logistics.
• Changes to or potential impact of changes to media services, classroom technology support and lab support.

The IT committee will also provide critical interface between faculty and committees of the administration with respect to IT, specifically but not limited to:

• Learning Management Systems (LMS), On-line and distance learning applications; video conferencing and recording.
• Information and communication platforms (e.g., Gmail, Google Drive, Box, Mainestreet, myCampus Portal) utilized by faculty in their assigned duties.
• Determine potential impacts on teaching workload and student evaluations of changes to IT, and classroom technology, per the AFUM contract.
• Provide insights to faculty about campus wireless network and bandwidth capacity.
• Provide insights to faculty about hardware and software selections that impact faculty.
• IT-related issues such as security, privacy, intellectual property, and IT-related policies relevant to faculty’s duties

Motion:

The Faculty Senate of the University of Maine recommends that the Constitution and Bylaws Committee formally submit the following addition to the Faculty Senate Bylaws Article IV: Standing Committees.

Proposed changes to Article IV follow:

ARTICLE IV.    STANDING COMMITTEES

Section 13: Information Technology Committee

Function: The Information Technology Committee will review and make recommendations to the Senate in regard to academic Information Technology matters impacting faculty. Specifically, but not limited to: the planning, use and availability of technologies in support of classroom and distance education, monitor and assess proposals and ongoing Information Technology systems with respect to the impact on faculty scholarship (defined as teaching, research, and service).

Membership: The members of the IT Committee are at least one Faculty Senator from each college and cooperative extension, and one Undergraduate and Graduate Student, the head of Campus IT and Chair of the ITSC (or future campus wide Technology Committee).

Vote: Approved, 2 abstentions