THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT ASHEVILLE Faculty Senate Minutes November 9, 1978 A special Faculty Senate meeting was held on Thursday, November 9, 1978, at 3:15 pm in RL1. Dr. Robert Trullinger, First Vice Chairman, presided. Senate Members present: Dr. Boland, Dr. Cole, Dr. Dorr, Dr. Gillum, Dr. Hart, Dr. Otti, Dr. Remington, Dr. Seitz, Dr. Shoaf, Dr. Stevens, Dr. Trullinger, Mr. Wengrow, Dr. Wilson. Senate Members absent: Dr. Browning, Dr. Reed, Dr. Squibb, Dr. Stern. Visitors: Dr. Iovacchini, Dr. Kramer, Mr. Parsons, Dr. Mock. The minutes of the October 26 Senate meeting were approved as published. Speaking privileges were extended to visitors. Dr. Trullinger explained the purpose of the meeting. At the May 4, 1978 Senate meeting the motion to accept the report from the Committee to Study Student Evaluations of Faculty and Courses and to implement the evaluations as of the first term of the spring semester (1979), was tabled. At the October 26, 1978, Senate meeting a motion was made and passed to bring the motion back to the floor for discussion and that a special Senate meeting be held for this purpose. He opened the floor for discussion. Dr. Stevens distributed and moved adoption of a substitute motion (revised first page of the original document). Dr. Gillum seconded the motion. There was lengthy discussion. Some Senators expressed their views against evaluations. They felt such a process was invalid, that all faculty could not be judged by the same questionnaire, and that there should be more emphasis put on attempts to measure student learning and performance in the way of institutional testing. It was also felt by some that parts of the proposed evaluaton were too near to the evaluation done in the past and that it was also too long. It was pointed out that the questions attached to the report were only suggested questions and did not mean all questions would be used. The reasoning behind dropping the evaluations in mid 1977-78 was discussed (the breakdown in mechanics) and it was felt that the mechanics of the proposed procedure would be left up to each individual department. It was also pointed out that some departments which had been giving their own departmental evaluations had had to stop doing this due to the lack of manpower and it was doubted if staff workload would decrease. It was felt that results of evaluations did not necessarily need to be numerically summarized, that faculty and department chairmen interested in the results coould merely turn pages to see what was there; that simply because machinery was not available to do tabulated results was no reason why there should not be student evaluations. The question was called on the substitute motion and it passed: in favor - 10; opposed - 1; abstaining - 1. Discussion continued as to multiple choice questionnaires, individual interviews, and administration of the evaluation. Dr. Stevens referred to Section III, B, C, D, E, regarding administering the evaluation. One Senator asked why this was being done, why attention was focused on this. He understood that a committee was set up to review the matter, but over the years have the evaluations been worth the time and money as opposed to institutional testing? Dr. Stevens referred to Section I, Objectives of the Evaluation. The status of evaluations was discussed. When evaluations were being administered it was mandatory that they be given in every class every term but the question was brought up as to whether this still held true. It was pointed out that somewhere in the Tenure Document and also in the University Code it speaks to evaluations. The question at hand seemed to be whether the requirement to have evaluations disappeared when the policy was suspended. Dr. Trullinger read the following memo from Dr. Riggs to the faculty dated December 9, 1977: "At its meeting on Thursday December 8, the Faculty Senate passed the following motion: Given the fact that there is great dissatisfaction with the present system of student evaluation of faculty, and given the fact that there is at present a committee working on this evaluation process, compulsory all-university administering of the questionnaire for student evaluation of faculty shall be terminated at this time. Faculty members wishing to use the questionnaire as it is currently being used will have that option for this term. In view of this action, course evaluations will be administered this term at the discretion of the individual instructor. If the evaluation is conducted, the forms should be handled in accordance with the instructions contained on the packet." Dr. Trullinger said he felt the Senate was voting on the policy as well as the motion. Dr. Stevens presented and moved adoption of a second two-part substitute motion (distributed copies). Dr. Dorr seconded the motion. There was discussion as to how this policy differed from the first policy and also how it differed from the original student evaluations suspended in December 1977. Dr. Dorr felt that evaluations needed some uniformity. The basic questions, those used for faculty personnel decisions, should be the same in order to protect the faculty member as well as the University. Questionnaires could be developed by departments which could be made to look as though they were devised for particular faculty. He said he would like to work closely with a committee to set up these questions. It was pointed out that once something gets put on paper that it becomes a relevant item of data. Also, it has been assumed that the student evaluations carried more weight than peer evaluations. The question was asked if there could be protection against this. Dr. Dorr felt that one way of doing this was to try to avoid summing up a faculty member by a number and asking that peer evaluations be addressed to particular points. Dr. Seitz felt there was some confusion, that there were two different procedures being discussed and that there was no policy. He moved to table the motion until the Senate voted on a policy. The motion, seconded by Dr. Wilson, carried as follows: in favor - 7; opposed - 4; abstaining - 1. Dr. Seitz then moved that the Senate adopt a policy of student evaluations of courses and instructors. Dr. Cole seconded the motion. The motion carried as follows: in favor - 10; opposed - 1; abstaining - 1. Dr. Seitz moved that the substitute motion be brought back to the floor. The motion carried, 10-2. There was discussion concerning Part B, whose hand it would get into, how it would be used, etc. Dr. Hart moved to amend Part B as follows: first paragraph, first sentence, first line, delete "very short." Second paragraph, change the period to a comma and add the following: "it will be returned to the Senate for discussion and approval." The motion was seconded and passed unanimously. It was pointed out again that there was no way to uniformly evaluate all faculty members and use the data university wide, that if all the departmental measures were removed there would be no use for having the evaluation. Dr. Dorr felt there were certain things that were normally expected from all faculty but it should be remembered that this was just one element in the evaluation process. Dr. Trullinger asked Dr. Dorr if the Senate could assume that he would proceed with the faculty evaluation procedure soon. Dr. Dorr said yes, he would. The question was called on the second substitute motion, as amended, entitled "Policy for Student Evaluation of Faculty and Courses." The motion carried: in favor - 9; opposed - 1; abstaining - 2. The next regular monthly senate meeting was scheduled for Thursday, November 17, at 3:15 pm. The meeting adjourned at 5:10 pm. APPROVED: Jack Wilson Jacquelyn Peterson Faculty Senate Secretary Secretary