Faculty Policies Committee Minutes

October 5, 2009

Members present: Peter Basciano, Angela Bratton, Kim Davies, Paula Dohoney, Wally Evans, Sudha Ratan, Bruce Saul, Mike Searles, Donna Wear, Eric Zuckerman

1)   Wally called the meeting to order at 2:35pm.

2)   Minutes from 28September were approved. They will be posted soon.

3)   Wally expressed his appreciation to Sudha for her superlative efforts in organizing the New Faculty Luncheon.

4)   Kim and Angela submitted a Study Abroad Course Evaluation Instrument for consideration. Discussion topics included: best time and how to give to students; placement on the syllabus; consequences of not submitting; possibility of placing on-line; faculty use of instrument. Wally requested we modify questions to ascertain from students their estimate of study time beyond class & field trips, in order to make a comparison with traditional courses. After several recommendations were made, Kim & Angela modified the Instrument. See Attachment A.

5)   The FPC discussed shortcomings of Georgia View in using it for course evaluations. At this time, teachers could observe class responses before grades were finalized. After dismissing the possibility of using this USG system, Sudha shared a copy of an on-line evaluation instrument from the University of South Carolina. This discussion will continue next time after some other Georgia universities were canvassed.

6)   Angela submitted some proposed changes to clarify the promotion and tenure process in the Faculty Manual. The areas of concern were: necessity of background check and rewording of that document (if current one is not required by law); notations in Manual to reflect faculty wording modification dates; inclusion of instructions to submit printed & electronic copy of curriculum vitae; wording to limit supplemental documents to a total of 20 pages. This will be finalized next time.

7) The FPC discussed “early promotion” and Wally volunteered to find out how that is handled at ASU.

8) The FPC discussed a request to ban smoking on campus or alternatively, place smoking kiosks in various locations. Reference was made to a similar recommendation made two years ago by the Alcohol and Drug Abuse Task Force. It was noted that the MCG campus is tobacco free. The general consensus was that funds were not available to build the structures to protect the smokers from the weather. A suggestion was made to sell smoking permits. The discussion will continue at a later date.

9) Faculty were interested in a specific location on campus to use to exercise. The discussion topics included BOR policy and how other campuses dealt with his issue.

10)   The remaining topics will be moved to the next FPC meeting on October 12th at 2:30 in SH 1012W.

Adjourned at 4:00 pm.

Respectfully submitted,

Bruce Saul

Attachment A.

Proposed course evaluation instrument for use in Study Abroad Courses. DRAFT 10-5-09

We propose that students must complete these before their grades are released for term in same way Study Abroad holds grades if money is still owed. Also, syllabi should indicate this policy.

All answers would be the same as on standard instrument that is being proposed for traditional courses unless indicated below.

Section I:  The Student’s Role

1. What is your reason for taking this course?

2. Compared to traditional courses at ASU, the amount of work outside of class, field trips and excursions required for this course was:      Much greater         Greater      Average      Less         Much less

3. Compared to other courses at ASU, I expect to retain more of what I learned in this course.

Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree

4. Compared to traditional courses at ASU, this courses was:
Much more difficult More difficult About the same           Less difficult Much less difficult

5. How difficult has this course been for you?

6. How frequently did you complete assignments on time?

7. How frequently did you attend field trips?

8. How often did you feel that you prepared well for graded assignments, such as tests, papers,     presentations, projects, etc.?

9. My prerequisite courses prepared me sufficiently for this course.

10. My academic background prepared me sufficiently for this course.

Section II:  Course Overview

11. The course objectives were clearly stated in the syllabus or in class.

12. The course objectives were achievable with appropriate effort and preparation

1. Doing the course assignments contributed to my learning the subject matter.

2. Overall the course materials were helpful (textbooks, handouts, online supplements, etc.).

3. Tests, projects, and other graded work were representative of the content of the course materials, lectures, discussions, and other assignments.

4. The field trips and excursions were well integrated into the course.

5. This course required in-depth thinking.

6. As a result of taking this course, my interest in the subject matter has increased.

7. As a result of taking this course, my interest in international travel has increased.

8. As a result of taking this course, my interest in international issues has increased.

9. After taking this course, I see how this course relates to other academic areas and/or practical situations.

Section III:  The Role of the Professor

10. The professor stated clearly in the syllabus what methods of evaluation were to be used in the course.

11. The professor showed enthusiasm in the teaching of this course.

12. The professor encouraged students to ask questions and to participate in the course.

13. The professor was available for consultation.

14. The professor showed respect for students.

15. The professor’s teaching skill helped me learn the material.

16. The professor gave clear instructions for course assignments.

17. The professor graded in a fair manner.

18. The professor gave feedback (oral or written or both) on tests, papers, and other assignments.

19. The professor effectively used the time allotted for field trips.

20. The professor was well prepared for class.

21. During class, the professor kept the focus on material relevant to the course.

Section IV:  Overall Evaluation

22. How would you rate the professor’s overall performance in this course?

23. How would you rate your overall performance as a student in this course?

24. How would you rate the overall effectiveness of the instructional methods?

25. Overall, this study abroad course met my expectations.

26. I would take another study abroad course.

27. I anticipate that my grade for this course will be: