FACULTY SENATE MINUTES
 FOR November 14, 2000
 (Vol. XXX, No. 12)

 

I. Call to order by James Tidwell at 2:08 p.m. (Conference Room, 2540 Buzzard Hall)

Present:  W. Addison, R. Benedict, J. Best, G. Canivez, J. Dilworth, C. Eberly, P. Fewell, B. Fischer, F. Fraker, N. Greer, R. Gruber, G. Kelly (S), J. Tidwell, M. Toosi, B. Young, and A. Zahlan.  Excused:       Guests:  J. Ryan, L. Wall

 

II.  Approval of the minutes of Oct. 31, 2000

Motion (Gruber/Fewell) to approve the Minutes of Oct. 31, 2000. Yes: Greer, Gruber, Tidwell, Toosi, Young, Zahlan, Addison, Benedict, Best, Canivez, Dilworth, Eberly, Fewell, Fischer, and Fraker.  Passed.

 

III. Communications

A. Minutes of Staff Senate--Oct. 11, 2000
B. Minutes of the COEPS Curriculum Committee--Oct. 23, 2000
C. Minutes of the Council on Academic Affairs--Oct. 26, 2000
D. Agenda for the Nov. 9, 2000 CAA meeting
E. Letter from President Surles to Chair Tidwell concerning computer problems--Oct. 31, 2000
F. Minutes of the Council on Graduate Studies--Oct. 31, 2000
Made a requirement of 2.75 undergraduate GPA to gain a Graduate Assistantship, but student must maintain a 3.0 to keep the GA.  Taking 3 credit hours during summer school rather than 6 credit hours can now hold summer GA’s.
G. Minutes of the Intercollegiate Athletic Board--Oct. 19, 2000 and Nov. 9, 2000
H. Other communications

 

IV. Old Business:

A. Committee Reports

1. Executive Committee:  Tidwell said that during the Forum, President Surles said she has been meeting with people in ITS about the computer issues, and they are making progress.  As Surles said,  "They [ITS] did not deny any of the problems that you brought to my attention

2. Elections: No report

3. Nominations:  Canivez: Tony Brewer is the new Student Chair for the Apportionment Board.  Two voice messages were sent to Brewer to confirm Bill Joyce’s' appointment to that board, but Brewer has not replied.  If Joyce has not been appointed, then we will nominate him.  Canivez wants to wait until Joyce's appointment is confirmed before other faculty members are nominated to serve on the committee.

4.  Student-Faculty Relations: Kelly: The External Relations Committee met last Wednesday.  We are not the Alcohol Coalition; that is another group.  The Mayor is proposing some zoning ordinance changes within the city, for signs on Route 16, and plans to impose a University Influence Area south of Rt. 16.  Kelly will work to keep Senate posted on the issues discussed.  Tidwell:  Did the new Student Conduct Code go into effect last fall?  Kelly:  Yes, and it was well received.  Kelly: Dec. 6 at 5:30 p.m. is the next meeting of the External Relations Committee.  All are welcome to attend.  It is an open discussion and should be at the University Union.

5. Faculty‑Staff Relations:  No report

6.  VPAA Search Committee:  Best: The VPAA Search Committee met on Nov. 3, 2000, to discuss and finalize information that will appear on the Web site for the Provost search.  The URL for the Web site is http://www.eiu.edu/~vpaasc.  We have placed an advertisement for the Provost position, and the ad should appear in the Chronicle of Higher Education appearing this week and the following two weeks.  We're developing checklists that match the criteria list for use in reviewing the applications as they come in.

 

7.  Steering Committee for Technology Enhanced and Delivered Education:  Tidwell: TEDE has met regularly the past two weeks.  We now have eight possible models for the new unit to oversee technology in the classroom, including one that Tidwell authored.  We have had a preliminary discussion, and plan to meet eight hours in one day after Thanksgiving.  We have five possible grant proposals that faculty members can apply for.  They are: (1) Faculty Development in Instructional Technology Grant (up to$2,000), (2) Development of Technology-Enhanced Courses Grant (up to $5,000), (3) Development of Technology Delivered Courses Grant (up to $10,000), (4) Development of Technology-Delivered Programs Grant (up to $50,000), and (5) Expansion of Existing Technology-Enhanced Courses Grant (up to $8,000). 

We need to make sure that there are no problems with UPI dealing with the grants. We were going to set a deadline for the first round of the proposals by Jan. 12, 2001.  It is pretty fast, but we have $500,000 to spend, and there is no way any of that money will be spent on personnel this year.  Some of the money will be spent on remodeling and equipment, with the rest used for grants to faculty for development.  Toosi: It looks like the grants are similar to what other universities are doing.  Instead of making grants general and campus wide for all faculty members, it is necessary for faculty to write the grant.  Tidwell: You are not getting money for your pocket, but to purchase hardware, software, etc., and for release time to develop courses.  That is not defined as compensation.  Toosi: We do not know who will be selected, we have to sit down and write grants, with the hope that we will get it.  If one is rejected, all the work is demolished.  When they do not get it, they do not learn the selection procedure.  Tidwell:  It is not compensation; we determined that yesterday.  We are still working on the criteria for selection.  I am still a little leery about where this is going. I am assuming that the committee will make the selections. I was told yesterday that it would be brought up with the UPI.  The grant has to be for hardware, software, etc.  Fischer: Hardware and software does not cost that much, it is the time that costs.

8.  Electronic Gradebook:  Fraker:  The EG intention is not to have a grade book, but the ability for instructors to turn in grades on-line.  We go to the website, enter our grades, click, and it is a done deal.  Fraker distributed a handout of sample websites of gradebooks to consider for adoption.  The major concerns are flexibility and security.  We will look into how to make allowances for incomplete grates, late registering students, etc.  This was the first meeting, and the committee is interested in faculty comment.  Tidwell:  The first reaction is that most people already have what they want, and many would be disinterested in being forced to use a particular grade book.  Fraker:   Initially the idea was that the only capability you need was to get on-line.  Faculty would enter grades, and it is a done deal.  The committee's idea was if we have to go get something to be able to do this, why not look at what is possible.  The major idea is that grades can be submitted from a remote site, and what is the secure, flexible mode of doing this?  Toosi:  Will this mean that grades are sent to students sooner?  If so, it is a good suggestion.  Tidwell: It would be nice if marks would automatically transfer to a student's report card.  Fraker: It has to go into an overall database first, before being sent to an individual student.  Addison:  If this system is more efficient, it would be nice if faculty could be given a little bit more time to get their grades in the system, perhaps up to midnight on Saturday.  We constantly have complaints from faculty to get their grades in, particularly with essay exams.  Best: They did extend their hours to return grades on Friday evening.  Fraker:  With this system, grades could be submitted via the net after staff members were no longer in the office.  Kelly:  Michigan Tech students are able to check their grades at any point in the semester and get a current idea of their progress.  Fraker:  Not with the current system, but from the meeting was in this morning, perhaps.  I am not sure what capabilities there are in the WebCT system.  I think it would be up to the professor.  Fraker referred to the handout, the programs that are highlighted seem to be better than others.  Sue Harvey and Gail Blank gathered them for the committee.  Fewell: Gail Blank is from ITS, and he constructed the faculty workload database.  Young:  Isn't it true that we have to turn in our grade books when we retire?  Will this affect that obligation?  Fraker:  There is a print function so we can keep our grades.  Sue was checking into the accrediting function as far as signed sheets are required.  So far, it appears that it does meet accrediting requirements.  There was a concern about hackers.  Tidwell: Do most of you use a grade book system?  Most Senators said they used spreadsheets.  Tidwell: I've always worried about having to turn in grade books.  I wonder if they will accept a disk?  Fraker: In general would there be support to be able to turn in grades at a website?  Fischer:  Why can't there be another sheets with a blank to enter a grade within the present system?  If we could add a sheet to the ""SM" codes, that would be just as easy.  Gruber:  Has anyone considered an optical scanning form that we could sign?  Fraker: That was discussed, and there was a concern about the data being properly filled in, and faculty would still have to hand carry the marks across campus.  Gruber:  It would respond to the security issue.  

9.  CASL Committee:  The committee has invited Dr. Barbara Wolford to come to Eastern on Friday, Jan. 19, 2001, to lead an assessment forum.  She is a nationally recognized person in assessment.  Addison:  Her specialty is primary trait analysis to make use of classroom-based assessment data, and also use that for academic assessment.  She is from Notre Dame,

10.  Other Committees:  IBHE Faculty Advisory Committee:  Tidwell distributed Les Hyder’s report of the IBHE Faculty Advisory Committee meeting on Nov. 3, 2000.  Tidwell announced that Senate would schedule Dr. Keith Sanders, IBHE Executive Director, for a visit to Senate early next semester.  Zahlan:  There are recommendations made within the report, so Senate might decide to endorse them.  The ACF conditions at Eastern are better than those described here due to the contract.

11.  Parking Committee:  Dilworth:  e-mail from Dean Ivarie said the Coleman lot would be completed by Dec. 1, 2000.  They are waiting for the lights to be installed.


 

 


           

B.  Fall Forum: Tidwell:  I thought we might split up into the three groups and review the summary statements.  Then we could make some recommendations for further study.  Addison: Could we talk first about the preface to the Forum?  Errors in the descriptions of the task forces on technology enhanced and delivered education were noted for the record, to be corrected when the Forum minutes are approved.

Tidwell recognized Provost Wall's presence at the Senate, and asked her to explain the grants to be made by the TEDE Committee.  What about time to submit the grant?  Wall:  You can request time in the summer, and if you wanted to have someone teach your course, you can buy out the time.  Toosi:  So the major part of the grant will go for the time compensation.  Wall: You can write it any way you want to write it.  We are trying to leave it as open and flexible as possible.  It is hard to give out the money because we are running into contractual issues.  Toosi:  My concern is that the interested person has to go through the process of writing the grant, and grant writing at this institution has not been easy.  Faculty members will still not know the possibility of getting that grant.  Second, the selection process for distributing the money is unknown.  Wall: I look at it differently.  My guess is that most people who apply will have an opportunity.  The steering committee will prioritize and bring the proposals to the entire committee to determine the awards.  Grants are for this year, and then we can see where the need is and modify for the following year.  Best:  One of the things about grant writing is getting feedback about what is not understood about the grant.  I have written grants where I did not get them, and never got any feedback.  Getting good feedback  would be more of an incentive for people to get involved.  Tidwell:  We have no idea of the response we are going to get with this.  Toosi:  I have written many grants without success, so any time a grant comes up, I am not interested.  It would be better to make a general rule that if you are interested in course development, specify a sum of money a faculty member will receive.  I think you will get much more response that way than through a grant writing process.  The variance in setting grants is setting the institution in an unknown direction.  If the goal is to develop courses on the web, make the rules very clear to faculty as to what has to be done.  Wall:  This is not for everyone.  Few people will have an interest in it.  Tidwell:  This will not be as formal as a grant through Bud May's office.  Toosi:  Then call them proposals.   Tidwell:  If I have anything to do with it, the rules will be very clear.  Zahlan:   The competitiveness is somewhat distressing.  In the forum session, people talked about institutional priorities.  What is the composition of the committee?  Tidwell read the members of the TEDE committee to the Senate.  Zahlan: So it is like half faculty, half administration.  Benedict:  It is nice to have the seed money.  I don't know about accountability. If I am to get a month's release time, then will I pony up with a course?  Wall:  If you go for some of the development, then you might make a presentation to others, a brown bag, if you will, so we can learn form other's experience.  Some of the grants could be just a report of your activity.  Benedict:  Can it be done in a month?  If I am to apply for $5,000 to develop a course, can I do all that work?  Eberly: My understanding is that it takes 350 hours to develop an on-line course.

Canivez:  A lot of the discussion gravitates to the development of a web-based course, but my understanding is that it is to develop and enhance regular courses with on-line technology. The purpose is not necessarily developing a web-based course.  Wall: We have tried to take it from all perspectives, from web-enhanced courses to web-based courses.  Fraker:  One of the discussions revolves around release time, which would mean a lot of part-time faculty.  If there is a lot of money, I think chairs will be between a rock and a hard place finding faculty.  Tidwell: We discussed that yesterday, and it could be a problem. 
Tidwell: Let's divide into Forum groups for about 30 minutes and look into the summary statements from the forum minutes.  Eventually we can do a complete report to the University with a set of recommendations.

Young:  What about Barlarlou's request dealing with last year's Senate?  Tidwell:  Yes, we probably need to look at that and create a report. 

Committees broke into groups to discuss the Forum.  Tidwell: Each recorder is to get something in writing, then e-mail to the rest of your committee.  On the 28th we will look at what each group has recommended, and then adopt some recommendations.  The main homework then is for Canivez and Zahlan and Dilworth.  Tidwell: Did anyone find any major flaws in the minutes?  We can wait to approve the Forum minutes until next week.

Tidwell:  Jill Nilsen cannot be here next week to discuss the Radio/TV issue, so she can attend the special session of the Legislature.  Rep. Righter will be here on Dec. 5, 2000.  Best:  What is the purpose for Righter’s visit?  How do we want to present ourselves; what do we want to present, etc?  Addison: Why don't we talk about that next week.

C.  Other Old Business: None

 

V.  New Business: None

 

VI.  Adjourn: Dilworth (adjourn) 3:54 p.m.

 

 

Respectfully Submitted,

 

Charles G. Eberly, Recorder

 

Future Agenda Items

 A.  State Representative Dale Righter will meet with the Senate Dec. 5, 2000