Minutes for April 16, 2003
4 PM Faculty Center
||Gordon McIntosh (Chair), Bert Ahern, Joel Eisinger, and Greg Thorson
||Carol Marxen, Michael Benson, and Nick Peterson
The meeting began at 4:00 PM. McIntosh asked for comments or approval of the FDC minutes dated 3/26/03. The minutes were unanimously approved.
Faculty Center budget
Ahern noted that the reduction of the Center's budget was 6% of the non-salary portion. He said that $500 would come from the computer and travel funds for year one, and the following year it would be taken from the travel funds. Ahern also noted that the funding was not reduced for the Faculty Enrichment Program or the Fall Faculty Retreat. Copies of the budget will be sent to the committee members.
Fall Faculty Retreat
Ahern announced that the contract for Peters Sunset Beach was signed today. He said that Klinger and O'Loughlin have been reviewing the 25 surveys that were returned. He said that he would meet with Klinger and O'Loughlin to discuss the retreat. Ahern noted that:
People have been identified to lead the interactive workshops.
Advising and Technology will not be set up as a session, but people will be able to stop by and look at it.
An outside speaker has not been identified at this time.
Ahern said that he will request from Klinger and O'Loughlin an outline of the retreat (as complete as possible), and that this outline will be discussed at the next FDC meeting on April 30. Thorson acknowledged that he is pleased that the Retreat will be an off-campus event.
Thorson said that he had met with Bowers, and that a product may have been found that will work behind the X500 form. He said that Bowers is in the process of testing the product to verify that it will work with the X500. Thorson also noted that this product is already in use on campus. Bowers will be invited to the next meeting for discussion of this product.
Faculty Affairs Committee
McIntosh said that he had discussed with Finzel the memo in regards to the Faculty Affairs Committee that was forwarded to him a few weeks ago. Finzel said that the Consultative Committee fully endorses the Faculty Affairs Committee. Ahern said that he would forward the memo to the Dean with the support of the Consultative Committee, the Faculty Development Committee, and the Faculty Sub Committee.
The committee discussed suggestions for language change in the UMM Constitution By-Laws. McIntosh and Ahern will meet to write the language change, and will be reviewed by Thorson. It was noted that the memo for language change should be sent to the Executive Committee this year, for inclusion in the fall agenda.
Web-based Scholarship and Pedagogy
Members discussed and approved the memo drafted by McIntosh in response to the Dean's request. The following memo will be sent.
(End of memo)
|To: John F. Schwaller, Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs and Dean
From: Gordon McIntosh, Chair of the Faculty Development Committee
Date: 17 April 03
Re: A Response to Your Request
At your request the FDC has reviewed the evaluation and reward of web- or technology-based pedagogy and scholarship. To carry out this review the FDC obtained copies of the Criteria and Evaluation Procedures for Promotion and Tenure Review of Regular Faculty from each division. Comments concerning the application of the criteria and evaluations were requested from the division chairs. Each division chair responded.
The comments from the division chairs were quite similar. In each division it is the quality and effectiveness of the pedagogical, research, or service activities that are evaluated. Web- or technology-based activities are treated as another form, or medium, for faculty activities. The division chairs emphasized that quality, not simply innovation, is valued. If evidence of high quality web- or technology-based activities is provided, those activities are appropriately rewarded. The experiences of the members of the FDC are consistent with the comments of the division chairs.
With regard to service learning, study abroad, and internationalizing the curriculum similar criteria are used for evaluation. High quality innovations - programs, courses, or activities - are valued and rewarded.
Each division's Criteria and Evaluation Procedures for Promotion and Tenure Review of Regular Faculty prominently lists effective academic advising as a part of the teaching role of each faculty. Advising is a factor in the annual review of every tenure track faculty.
To emphasize the importance of advising this fall's faculty retreat will deal with advising. One session of the retreat will deal specifically with the evaluation of advising.
Ahern reported 3 applications for UMM Instructional Technology Mentorship Project and 8 applications for the Faculty Enrichment Program have been received. Ahern noted that each program has funding for 5 mentor/mentee partnerships of $500 per person. He said that the 8 applications for the Faculty Enrichment Program are from 3 Divisions, and also noted that 2 of these applications had interest in instructional technology. Ahern noted that if these two FEP applications were transferred to Instructional Technology, the funding could be divided evenly. Ahern said that last year there was 8 applications, and all were accepted. He said that the money was divided equally, each participant received $300 instead of $500. McIntosh requested Ahern to discuss with the 2 FEP applicants if they would be interested in and willing to switch to the Instructional Technology Program.
McIntosh said that in the past, if the committee felt that if an application was weak, the person was requested to re-submit the application. Each application for the FEP was reviewed and discussed. Two of the applications seemed to be a good fit with Technology, and these applicants would be contacted by Ahern to ask if they would consider switching to the Technology project. It was agreed that one applicant would be asked to re-write the application to be more responsive to the program, and that it should be re-submitted in a week for consideration.
A committee member asked for what the FEP funding could be used. Ahern replied that the money could be used for the cost of the Collaboration Conference, professional conferences, and buying software and library materials that supports professional development, generally for expenses supporting the recipient's professional development.
The committee discussed the three applications for the UMM Instructional Technology Project. All agreed that each contained a significant amount of detail. Ahern noted that funding for the IT Mentoring Project must be used for instructional technology.
Thorson noted shifting some of the FEP applicants to the IT Mentoring Project would allow the funding of all equally. He said that all that applied are good investments, and that the committee should consider pairing down the money to make if the shift of two to the IT program did not work. He said that all applicants should be funded at a lesser amount, rather than eliminating any from participating in the mentorship program.
Ahern noted that if the application is approved, the applicant is asked to submit a plan early next year. He said that applicants would be requested to submit the name of their mentor by April 30, indicting that their teams have been set up.
The final FDC meeting will be April 30, 2003. The agenda will include:
Fall Faculty Retreat
Bulletin Board (John Bowers)
Faculty Affairs Language
Revised FEP proposal
Meeting adjourned at 4:51 PM.