Council on Academic Affairs (CAA)

• Council likely will have two meetings in the Summer. Current members are asked to meet until the end of Summer Quarter 2003. Council will have four new members next year and their terms will begin in Autumn Quarter.

• The proposal for a Name Change for the Department and Undergraduate Major in Human Nutrition and Food Management to be changed to "Human Nutrition" is on the agenda for action by the University Senate on June 5, 2003.
• The proposal for a PhD in Comparative Studies was approved by the Research and Graduate Studies Council of the Board of Regents on May 30, 2003. Professors David Horn, Chair, Department of Comparative Studies, Jacqueline Royster, Associate Dean, College of Humanities, and Smith, Office of Academic Affairs, were present. There was a ninety-minute discussion with questions. Many of the same issues addressed by the Council on Academic Affairs during its review were discussed. The proposal will go to the full Board of Regents for final action in July 2003.
• A meeting of all units involved with teacher preparation is being scheduled for this month. Smith will convene the group on a regular basis.
• The proposal for the Mathematical Biosciences Institute was approved by the Research Committee on May 28, 2003 and will now be reviewed by the full Research and Graduate Council. If approved there, Council will act at its next meeting.
• Smith was asked by the University Senate leadership to be part of a panel discussion at the University Senate meeting on June 5, 2003, and speak on the impacts of budget restructuring on curriculum. Additional panelists will include Professors Daniel Farrell (Chair of the Ad Hoc Committee on Budget Restructuring), Susan Huntington (Vice Provost and Dean, Graduate School); and Stuart Zweben (Senate Fiscal Committee).

• Can courses be offered in the GEC from outside the Arts and Sciences colleges? Some now are, but the non-Arts and Sciences colleges have expressed concern about the review process for inclusion in the GEC.
• The suggested Oversight Committee would not oversee the GEC, but only be advisory and make suggestions. The GEC Oversight Committee and the Arts and Sciences Curriculum Committee would report to the Council through their proposals.
• UCRC believed that the recent practice of forming an ad hoc GEC review committee every six to seven years was inefficient; it would be better to have a standing body that, as a part of its duties, reviewed the GEC on a regular basis.
• Although the recommendation for a GEC oversight committee did not receive unanimous support from within UCRC, the feeling was that a better job could be done.
• Council should invite the new Executive Dean of the Colleges of the Arts and Sciences to meet with it. Smith will arrange such a meeting.

• The word "sandpile" would be replaced, by the word "studio."
• Ultimately, Council will need to make revisions to the Faculty Rules and make changes to its two-page list of Guidelines for Establishing Academic Centers.
• It is important that the Report now be distributed and discussed across campus soon.

• The general thinking is that descriptive sections are difficult to evaluate, but can be helpful. The numerical part of a form does not always prove to be thorough.
• The challenge is to make sure all students submit forms, and that careful consideration is given. Some universities have strategies for ensuring submission and we could do the same. Some delay grades. What would happen to the quality of the SEI if this were done and how would students react? Students could choose not to participate and could get their grades immediately.
• Institutions that have moved to online versions have seen a drop in the use of the form by students, however the distribution (the curve) of scores that emerges with the lower proportion of users is the same as when a larger number is analyzed.
• The goal is to make these forms available near the end of the quarter.
• In the SEI "online" form are there options for prompts? There are and this is seen as a good feature.
• There are two reactions to these forms. Faculty have concerns that they are used in the promotion and tenure process and that the comments section could be used against them in the evaluation process, especially in numbers. There is danger too in having these forms distributed. So there are anxieties about the SEI.
  Students, on the other hand, feel no one pays attention to their responses, and that they do not get to address what they want to say. There are different attitudes towards teaching and the SEI: the more students get involved, the greater the opportunity for being heard; if a teacher is good in one subject, he/she is capable of teaching other subjects; some students do not want to be responsible for negatively affecting faculty with their comments.
• There is concern that students are not experienced enough to know what quality teaching is, and may judge unfairly. There are the generational differences, where students come from different experiences, with more media or techno-hype, which makes them less responsive to traditional teaching methods. The problem is that it often takes hindsight to know who is a good professor.
• Is the SEI a good instrument, and whose idea was it? It is useful for what it is used for, as a student assessment of teaching. It is not used consistently to improve teaching. Smith reviewed the history of the SEI and its relationship to Council. It started as a faculty-driven initiative and a committee oversaw it. A pilot study was conducted. Council reviewed and endorsed it.
• Comments to faculty can be helpful. Students cannot use the backside of the SEI for their comments, but they can write on a blank sheet. Many graduate students and teaching associates benefit from these forms.

• We need to encourage students to have a voice. It is hoped that by having easier access we would get more substantive comments.
• The University of Illinois has a bubble sheet in which four different areas contribute. Each area has access only to its set of questions. Garland felt this would be good.
• Does the University have the right to address teaching, especially given that there is variation in the grading of certain courses? Introductory courses, for instance, get lower scores than those with a smaller number of students.
• How will the process move forward? It depends on what others think. Garland said she has been talking to groups around campus. There is concern for the type of software that will be used and the cost of it, although the cost of printing hard copies is expensive. Trials could be set up – some are doing it informally to get feedback. A statement will be printed on the form to explain the SEI. Certainly it is faster to go electronically and a much smoother process. There is the problem of time – time in getting it up and running.
• Garland commented that there are other venues for commenting on faculty – some desirable and some not so desirable. The students wanted a website where they could share information on faculty. The Undergraduate Student Government adopted "Pick a Prof", where students make comments on all faculty. Garland said the committee is developing a website where faculty can be listed who have received awards - a more positive approach to finding faculty. There is a website to "Thank a Prof"- an opportunity for students to thank a professor.
• FYI and SEI should be distributed separately to get a better response from SEI.
• If faculty want to experiment with something at the beginning of the quarter and ask for feedback at mid-quarter, this would give them opportunity to make any adjustments before they are reviewed on the SEI at the end of the quarter.