Minutes of the Faculty Senate

Main Content

Meeting convened at 1:01 p.m. by Meera Komarraju, President.

ROLL CALL

Members present: Ira J. Altman, Ken B. Anderson, Kimberly Asner-Self, George E. Boulukos, Rita Cheng (ex officio), Tsuchin Chu, Terry Clark, Mark J. Dolan, Anthony T. Fleege, Edward Gershburg, Stephanie Graves, Heeyoung Han (for Nicole K. Roberts), Edward J. Heist, Eric J. Holzmueller, Holly S. Hurlburt, Scott Ishman (ex officio), David M. Johnson, Farid Kadyrov (for Blaine Bartholomew), Michelle Kibby-Faglier, Carolyn G. Kingcade, Meera Komarraju, John T. Legier, Douglas W. Lind, James A. MacLean, Nancy L. Martin, James Mathias (for Bruce A. DeVantier), Diane Muzio, John W. Nicklow (ex officio), James W. Phegley, Matthew Schlesinger, Brooke H. H. Thibeault, Stacy D. Thompson, James A. Wall, Rachel B. Whaley, Terri S. Wilson.

Members absent without proxy: Connie J. Baker, Qingfeng Ge, Jyotsna Kapur, Mingqing Xiao.

Visitors and guests: James Allen (Associate Provost for Academic Programs), Karla Berry (Center for Teaching Excellence).

M. Komarraju welcomed two new Senators: Nancy Martin, who will complete Belle Woodward's term as a Senator from the College of Applied Sciences and Arts; and Matthew Schlesinger, who will complete the term of Jonathan Wiesen from the College of Liberal Arts.

MINUTES

G. Boulukos indicated he had asked for a clarification in the July 10, 2012, minutes concerning the number of tenured faculty retirements there were. He indicated the question was answered, but the answer was not correctly recorded. Chancellor Cheng responded that there were 60 tenured faculty who retired, and the 41 new faculty hires were all tenure line hires. G. Boulukos asked that only those numbers be recorded in the minutes. K. Anderson indicated that the second paragraph under the Committee on Committees report states that the committee "has currently exhausted its list of volunteers..."; and that is incorrect. There were not enough volunteers remaining in the pool to meet the needs of the program review committees. Instead, the minutes should state that the committee "needs more volunteers...." Minutes of September 11, 2012, were approved as amended.

REPORTS

1. M. Komarraju reported: a) she attended the Board of Trustees meeting at Edwardsville on September 13. Prior to the meeting, the Academic Matters Committee heard a presentation on entrepreneurship education from SIUE's College of Business. The new SIU Alumni Center building process was updated. The proposed alternate tuition rate for high-achieving students was discussed. Board members discussed creative ways to raise revenue it appears the state will not provide more funding, and the University cannot continue to raise tuition. Unlike SIU, SIUE's enrollment increased this academic year to 14,000 students; b) she attended the leadership summit on October 4 and discussed ways to address the enrollment problem (e.g., how to involve faculty in indentifying impediments to enrollment and developing viable solutions); c) she attended a meeting held on Saturday, September 29 with George Reid, the Executive Director of the IBHE. He talked about how the state legislature views SIU and all higher education-based on the assumption that both higher education and the students entering higher ed are changing dramatically. He reported that: i) the non-traditional student, is very likely to be married, have children and a job, all while working towards a terminal higher education degree in; ii) universities will be held more accountable for the funds they spend, while appropriations will take more time to come to the universities; iii) under the Governor's initiative, "Complete College America," by the year 2025, 60% of Illinois state residents will have a college education; as of 2011, 41% had a degree; in 2012, 43%. Should the trajectory continue, it is likely the Governor's goal will be met or close to being met by 2025. The result of having a larger proportion of a college educated citizenry may help reduce the gap between the rich and the poor Illinoisan. iv) another Governor initiative is performance-based funding. Part of the rubric is to encourage college degrees limited to 120 credit hours, where only about 30 credits come from the major. G. Reid's main message was that legislators are now getting more involved in policy decisions that influence the lives of faculty members and that if faculty do not like what is happening, they have to get more involved; d) she attended a subcommittee meeting of the Chancellor's Planning and Budget Advisory Committee. The subcommittee is working on the 5/10/15 rule. There is an inconcongruence: when faculty walk into a class to teach, they are focused of teaching a special topic, one for which they feel passion; they are not thinking about how much money they are generating or how many students are needed to make money. The subcommittee noted the Form 75s have added another layer of complication. Each time faculty want to change enrollment or add a course, the Form 75 must be generated creating more bureaucratic complexity and cost versus benefit; e) the next Board of Trustees meeting is scheduled for November 8, and the fall faculty meeting/luncheon is scheduled for October 18.

D. Muzio asked if there was any discussion in the budget subcommittee about courses that do not conform to the 5/10/15 rule. M. Komarraju responded that the subcommittee is attempting to identify all courses that may not fit the rule. She welcomes any input as the group plans to meet for four Wednesdays this month, and she could take those thoughts back to the committee.

2. Chancellor Cheng reported: a) homecoming week went well; many of the college advisory board [members] were in town, as well as several alumni and Foundation executive groups. Those groups have embraced fund raising goals to address both campus operational needs and scholarship needs; b) a new vice chancellor for development and alumni relations will begin on November 28, pending Board of Trustees approval. She thanked the search committee for its hard work; c) She sent everyone on campus both the strategic planning document and the safety task force report (online). She encourages and would like to have feedback provided to her directly, to the co-chairs of the task force and/or to the strategic planning group. Such feedback is critical to the implementation phase of the strategic planning and the task force report; d) The University will be addressing a $12.8 million budget shortfall this year. Two major components are the $4 million in salary increases and promotional increments and $7 million in appropriations that did not come from the state. These two components were part of the discussion she had with the staff and deans. Those metrics will be used to begin thinking about allocating out those costs to the units across campus; e) enrollment and recruitment advertising, scholarship strategies, the timing of recruitment activities and staffing are all issues they have spent a lot of time on and in which literally hundreds of people have been involved. There has been much outreach across campus so there will be a coordinated effort across the campus on this important goal; f) an interdisciplinary research discussion has been launched on campus, and a team of faculty and administrators have been pulled together to look at McLafferty planning. The committee has been charged, and there was a tour of the site. She indicated that 80% of the books have been moved back to the library, and she was told that the project will be completed by the end of the semester. This will leave a very large and unique space available for some exciting research opportunities; g) she joined a team to visit the University of Havana a few weeks ago, and a formal memorandum of understanding was signed. This will open up more opportunities for SIU students and faculty to visit and for their faculty to visit the University. She has also been to Brazil to recruit students in the past several weeks, and may visit India to see if there are ways on the graduate student side to break down the barriers to immigration; h) an important item coming up on the Board of Trustees agenda is the alternate tuition for high-achieving students, which goes beyond the border states initiative. It is in response to a very competitive environment. Many of the Big 10 colleges have begun those types of initiatives in their states, and in order to stay competitive, SIU needs to do this as well; i) a ribbon-cutting for the Technology Center is scheduled for October 26. She suggested visiting the facility to get a sense of the quality of the learning spaces for the 600-plus students who are in the automotive and aviation programs; j) Lt. Governor Sheila Simon visited the campus yesterday to discuss college completion, affordability and other issues that are on her mind and the Governor's; k) the Heart Walk on September 29 raised $27,000; m) the University has received some nice accolades nationally. SIU is in the top 100 public universities in US News and World Report; is listed in the best Midwest universities by Princeton Review; has continued to receive praise for the number of African-American students graduated each year in Diverse Issues in Higher Education; and the Law School and Graduate School were top ranked in a recent publication. The University is also receiving accolades from another diverse magazine and in September was named as a military-friendly school by GI Jobs magazine. Chancellor Cheng ended her report by acknowledging the SIU debate team's Number 1 ranking in the nation.

QUESTION AND ANSWER SESSION

1. K. Anderson asked what is being done to attract high-achieving in-state students. Chancellor Cheng responded that all the strategies being used for out of state students are also being used for those students in-state. The University recently signed an exclusive contract with Pepsi, which included a $1 million incentive the first year and $250,000 each year for the next 10 years that will all go for scholarships. The number of Chancellor Scholarships is being increased from 25 to 35, and the next level of scholarships is increasing from $4,000 a year to $7,000 a year. Another layer of $5,000 scholarships for another 100 students is being added. The funding is welcome and most is expected to go to in-state students. Strategically, scholarship timing may be critical: Is it necessary to have as many students come in to interview for scholarships when they already have something in hand from another school; and, is it necessary to interview a student with a 32 ACT to know we want them.

M. Komarraju asked if high-achieving students from other countries would be eligible for the alternate tuition or only students from the U.S.? Chancellor Cheng responded that such a distinction has not been made at this point; this is something the campus would need to decide.

2. H. Hurlburt commented there was a story in the Daily Egyptian that suggests there is less than good news about recruitment of Latinos. Chancellor Cheng responded that she learned only this year that the University did not have any materials translated in Spanish, so that is being done as quickly as possible. Additionally, there are now two bilingual recruiters in the Chicago area. She is aware that this has been an untapped resource and is one that requires some catch-up.

3. G. Boulukos indicated the Chancellor had mentioned something about using certain formulas for cost allocation; he believes she was talking about budget shortfalls. Chancellor Cheng responded that the [Chancellor's Planning and Budget Advisory Committee (CPBAC)] had agreed to address the budget shortfall with a multiple-pronged approach; one was to ask each of the units to self-fund their salary increases. The beginning of that self-funding happened with the October payroll being a little higher than it would have been without the salary increase. The second was to mitigate, as much as possible, the impact on units across the campus; and the third was to not have across-the-board cuts in the academic colleges, but rather to expect a reduction after some proportional formula was prepared. Several weeks ago, the CPBAC presented an allocation scheme based on new students and student credit hour generation in the colleges. Some colleges will have much less of a reduction than others based on enrollment shortfalls. These three prongs were completed only after instigating an across campus salary sweep as positions became vacant. As much as possible, budget shortfalls will be addressed through open lines. What is not covered through open lines has to be covered in other ways. The shortfall will need to be absorbed at the college level using the allocation formula [(30% on new students and 70% on credit hour generation).]

J. Wall asked to what this (formula) applies; is it the entire operational budget or just a portion of the budget? Chancellor Cheng responded that [the University] started out with 12.8% shortfall, and her understanding is that it is now down to a million, a million one that is actually going to be shared among the colleges.

M. Komarraju asked if a line was lost because a faculty member did not make tenure, would it be swept with the other lines? Provost Nicklow responded the revised position request form includes a question on whether the loss is a result of a position denial. The Provost does not want tenure granted just to keep a line. The intent is to do whatever they can to get the line back if the loss is due to a tenure denial.

4. D. Johnson asked the Chancellor if she expects any layoffs as a result of this last round of budget cuts. Chancellor Cheng responded that the vice chancellors have all told her they believe they have enough from the salary sweep and other budget planning to prevent that from occurring. She cannot speak for the individual deans, but if they were listening and taking note, then there would have been a lot of conservative decision-making at the college level to avoid layoffs. Another issue: a couple of colleges will sustain bigger cuts than others. To avoid possible layoffs, Deans will need to plan carefully.. She finds it hard to believe that spring schedules would be the same with a thousand fewer students here. She has asked the deans to re-examine spring schedules and adjust as needed.

REPORTS (cont.)

3. Provost Nicklow reported: a) David DiLalla has been named Associate Provost for Academic Administration, a half time position. He will remain half time as the associate dean of Liberal Arts. D. DiLalla started his new position last week; b) as a result of the lengthy discussion at last month's Senate meeting regarding the tuition on grants policy, the Provost and Vice Chancellor for Research John Koropchak brought a proposal to the Chancellor that essentially suspends the out of state tuition charge. Tuition rates will remain the same through December 31. The additional time will be used to investigate other practices and determine a final policy. J. Koropchak is working with what is primarily the research subcommittee of the Graduate Council, supplemented with additional resource people, to look at what other institutions are doing, whether the briefly suspended policy will have harmful repercussions, and if other models should be pursued; b) he thanked the UEPC, the Senate and all who chimed in on the ICE review. The ICE re-design team is taking those comments and looking at a pilot. The group members are very thoughtful, analytical, and deliberate in; c) eight programs identified under the program changes review process will undergo a full review. The review committees will be made up of individuals from campus, comprise of, he believes, three faculty, a chair and a dean. He believes the protocol was that those programs not meeting IBHE-mandated metrics were identified for submission for a program of improvement. After reviewing those programs' plans of improvement with J. Allen, it was determined that eight programs need additional work. The other programs will be watched closely to make sure their plans are being implemented; d) predictive analytics (and regression) are being used to help identify an appropriate applicant pool and how to encourage them to commit to SIU. In addition, the University is working to determine the most efficient and appropriate offer package that will entice an individual to commit while conserving resources for additional packages. The search for students started very early--the earliest this institution has ever searched on a wide scale. Materials have been sent to just under 600,000 high school students. Campus visits are up, and some key indicators look good; however, other indicators are not clear. For example, the strike that occurred in the Chicago public school system had a major impact on applications from the Chicago area. It is unclear whether SIU will get all those students who would have applied, apply 3 or 4 weeks later, or whether they will not apply at all. The Colleges have gotten involved: Deans and recruitment and retention coordinators are in regular communication with applicants at the front end, and follow them through to the senior year. A retention working group to look at best practices is in the process of being formed and will focus on predictive analytic algorithms to determine who will become a successful Saluki and how to entice said individual to SIU. Each College will house a retention working team for efficiency purposes.

QUESTION AND ANSWER SESSION (cont.)

1. G. Boulukos asked if a graduate program is undergoing a program review, will Graduate Council be responsible? J. Allen responded that there will be two members of each committee for each graduate program being reviewed, and there are four of those. He went on to explain that, in fact, all degrees are so intertwined and connected that the masters' programs will have discussions about undergraduate degrees. Because they often have close relationships--students are often recruited from the undergraduate majors--there will be a wide-ranging discussion of all these programs.

2. M. Kibby asked why there is no Faculty Senate participation on the committee that will be looking at the tuition on grants policy. Provost Nicklow responded he has no objection and will speak with J. Koropchak about it, but he does not see an issue. He believes the committee should be as inclusive as possible in taking a close look at policy. M. Kibby asked if there are people on the committee who specifically have NIH and NSF funding who can advise the committee. Provost Nicklow responded that there are a couple of people on the committee, but the committee will need to reach out to those individuals, as well as individuals from Medicine and Science to make sure they understand the differences among granting agencies and foundations.

3. H. Hurlburt reported she received an email this morning concerning a complimentary practice and academic efficiencies survey requesting feedback for departments about what courses might be designed. She felt this is a good idea; however, she would like to why this survey, why now, and why there is only a one-day turnaround to return the survey. J. Allen responded that the survey was initially sent out last week. He would like to get as much feedback as possible, as the input is valuable in order to insure that the recommendations coming from the task force will be grounded in input from colleagues across campus. Once he reviews the surveys, he would like to set up focus groups, college by college. In some of the larger degree programs on campus, he would like to follow up on the survey results so that faculty will have a sense of the wider conversation. For example, there are more than 3,000 courses identified by the key term"design"; Those are sorted to come up with a shorter list so that faculty who deliver those courses can have an opportunity to talk with each other about their learning objectives, the textbooks they use, the assignments they make, etc. Colleagues across campus can come together to talk substantively about courses they teach and how they might make their courses more efficient and effective within the larger university community. This is another component of what will happen later this fall. J. Allen noted that if they do not get enough people responding to the survey, it will be sent again.

4. D. Johnson commented that there are eight programs that will receive the full-fledged program review treatment; he asked if there are rough figures on how many programs were flagged, but then got passed. J. Allen responded that there are eight degrees, but only five departments are actually participating in the reviews. Provost Nicklow added that he believes there are five other programs that submitted plans for improvement and have indicated they are making significant progress.

EXECUTIVE COUNCIL

1. T. Clark reported the Executive Council met on October 9. Aside from the reports already heard, the Council discussed: a) the new policy on incompletes; and b) the Saluki First Year Reader, which led into a conversation about the First Year Experience and University College and whether the whole exercise, is not devolving onto the backs of people who are teaching for the first time; and further, whether colleges are in fact just putting anyone into those courses. T. Clark noted that he was involved early on in the First Year Experience when the intent was to have really good classroom performers teaching the classes; however, in light of budget troubles, retirements, etc., he is concerned whether this initiative is possibly another boondoggle.

H. Hurlburt asked if the incomplete policy is in effect now for some people and not others. She has asked six people about the incomplete policy and received six different answers. She believes this may be another instance where the information is not being communicated. T. Clark responded that the Executive Council discussed that incompletes have been used in the wrong way. Provost Nicklow clarified that the policy will not change until the next catalog year. The catalog is associated with summer, so next summer when grades are assigned in August, is when the policy will change. He pointed out that the current policy is that the incomplete stays on the student's record for one year; that is being moved to one semester. He believes what T. Clark is referring to is that incompletes are being used in all kinds of different ways to accomplish all kinds of different tasks. Incompletes should only be assigned when work is passing, the student is near completion and there are extenuating circumstances. He would like to see a better job done on communicating what constitutes an incomplete

M. Komarraju reported that there was also discussion in the Executive Council about deferred grades. Provost Nicklow responded that it is primarily for certain graduate courses. A better job needs to be done of communicating to students the implications of changing from a year to a semester; faculty need to know that up front.

K. Anderson commented that he had raised the issue of incompletes in Executive Council because he was contacted by several chairs in the College of Science. Their concern is that students are being offered incompletes for one semester for courses that may only be offered once a year. In such cases, there is no opportunity to finish the course the next semester because lab classes and things that require physical setup and access to resources which may not be available during the subsequent semester. This means the grade will automatically convert to an F, unless the departments pick up the costs of setting up those labs. J. Wall added that another part of the discussion was that this not only could apply to labs but to students in undergraduate level courses that are only offered once a year. It is conceivable that, if a faculty member goes on sabbatical, for example, there may be a problem with students completing within a semester. Chancellor Cheng reminded Senators that the definition of an incomplete is that a student has essentially finished a course and has a passing grade, but has an assignment to complete; then, some extenuating circumstance occurs. The student would not be expected to take the class again. K. Asner-Self commented that, if she remembered correctly, an incomplete grade is for students who have already passed the withdrawal deadline and are very near course completion. Provost Nicklow indicated that after looking at 15 or more institutions' incomplete policies, if appears SIU is an anomaly. Some institutions give four weeks for completion, some two weeks; but, most were at a semester. Data shows that the longer an incomplete is on the record, the less likely a student will complete. There is also the possibility the student's course knowledge will fade affecting his or her learning. There is also the likelihood of hitting financial aid difficulties.

BUDGET COMMITTEE -- J. Wall, Chair

J. Wall indicated the committee has had difficulty finding times to meet; however, he has attempted to keep everyone up-to-date through email. J. Wall reported that, as the Chancellor mentioned, there continues to be a budget shortfall. In the operations budget, there is an approximately $12.8 million shortfall. Some cost-saving measures have already been identified and implemented, which left approximately $6.8 million--although the Chancellor has indicated that number has been whittled down quite a bit since then. Another initiative the Chancellor's budget committee is involved in is a review of the subcommittee that is reviewing the non-academic areas, particularly those that receive state support. A number of measures have been implemented in regard to shared business services; for example, the coming together of Payroll and Human Resources. There is another subcommittee reviewing the 5/10/15 rule, though nothing has come forth so far in terms of a report or recommendation. Another subcommittee presented the proposed budget reallocation model for the various colleges (this issue was raised earlier). Both will use metrics based on new student enrollment growth and total credit hour generation, with the possible addition in the future of another metric that was bantered about before graduation but is not in place at this point.

UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION POLICY COMMITTEE -- D. Johnson, Chair

1. D. Johnson reported J. Allen met with the committee, which has been struggling with just what an online certificate is as opposed to just a certificate. The words "online certificate" are newish and scary, so he had some difficulty getting some resolutions ready. However, he did have to present for approval the Resolution to Recommend Approval of a Specialization in Law and Economics in the Department of Economics, College of Liberal Arts (included as Attachment A to the Agenda).

Resolution was approved on a voice vote.

2. D. Johnson presented for approval the Resolution to Recommend Approval to Change the Name of the Department of Radio and Television to the Department of Radio, Television, and Digital Media, College of Mass Communications and Media Arts (included as Attachment B to the Agenda). G. Boulukos asked that the quotes be removed from the word "brand," to which D. Johnson agreed.

Resolution, as amended, was approved on a voice vote. (See appendix to the minutes.)

3. D. Johnson presented for approval the Resolution to Recommend Approval of a New Companion Animal Nutrition Certificate in the Department of Animal Science, Food and Nutrition, College of Agricultural Sciences (included as Attachment C to the Agenda). K. Asner-Self asked for clarification on what is meant by "companion animal." D. Johnson responded that it would be a pet. B. Thibeault commented that there is controversy on that very issue currently ongoing within the area of agriculture, and it is hurting that industry.

The question was raised as to what the difference is between an online certificate, a certificate, and a certification. D. Johnson responded that the committee had issues with the clarity of the original proposal and believes part of it was that the committee did not know how many hours it had to have in order to call it a certificate; apparently, it is 18. K. Asner-Self commented that in her experience, students do not always understand that a certificate is just a certificate, and it is not a certification.

J. Allen explained that the IBHE has a fairly elaborate terminology for different forms of degree and non- degree instruction. It is an effort to provide some order and some semblance of logic to what institutions offer that is transcriptable. It should also be available for prospective employers or other institutions of higher education to recognize as transferable credits for applications to further graduate studies. He indicated that certificates are understood to be an informal collection, much like a minor; but, students do not have to be enrolled in a degree program in order to earn the certificate in the way they would a minor or a specialization for an undergraduate degree or concentration. An online certificate is really offered to increase the numbers for online education, primarily because the University is attempting to appeal to a broader range of students at a distance. Many of those students are place-bound and not particularly interested in earning fully developed degrees here; but, they do have an interest in a field of expertise that the institution can provide them at a distance. Certificates are increasingly of interest to people who are offering online programs that are short of a degree and also appeal to a wide range of students who may ultimately go on to a full degree program here. G. Boulukos asked if it is possible students might not know the distinction between an online certification and a certificate. D. Johnson responded that the question did not come up in the committee. S. Graves added that the Department of Animal Science, Food and Nutrition was asked if this was certified by some special organization, and the answer was no. M. Kibby asked if, for a certificate, a student has to complete the core. J. Allen responded that a student would still have to be admitted as a regular student, but they would not have to complete the core.

Resolution was approved, with one abstention, on a voice vote.

FACULTY STATUS AND WELFARE COMMITTEE -- H. Hurlburt/J. Kapur, Co-Chairs

H. Hurlburt presented the committee's report on the Proposed Revisions to the ICE. She first thanked her committee for all the thoughtful hours they put into the report, as well as everyone who provided feedback. H. Hurlburt provided a brief overview of the report and reiterated that the committee is completely in favor of revising the ICE. Their hope is that as it goes forward, the result will be that the ICE 1) is concise; 2) is flexible; 3) is geared specifically toward helping faculty improve their courses; and 4) has an a la carte section to allow faculty to go online and design their own questions specific to their disciplines. The committee also strongly believes there should be a pilot program or buy-in period so faculty can adjust to the changes. K. Anderson commented that he is on the ICE [implementation] committee, along with K. Berry, who is the chair. He thanked the Status and Welfare Committee for the report, which he believes to be very thoughtful and well-written. He indicated the ICE implementation committee is actually thinking along many of the same lines. It has also been the intention from the start to first have a pilot.

M. Kibby asked, if the ICE goes online, will there be something to mandate all students' participation? Otherwise, it is possible that only those who are unhappy with their grade will be the ones filling it out. H. Hurlburt responded that it was discussed whether there are ways to withhold students' ability to see their grades, but this would be a technology issue. G. Boulukos did not believe holding the grade would work; people evaluate things when they are really happy or when they are really upset; that kind of model is completely unhelpful in terms of learning anything of use for the class. K. Asner-Self believes there is a certain amount of peer pressure from everyone else in the room when evaluations are done face to face that will not be there if evaluations are completed online. H. Hurlburt sensed that students sometimes have really valuable conversations about what they got out of the class (once faculty leave the room). She is divided on the issue because she sees that online offers real opportunities, but she also believes it can take those opportunities away. K. Anderson indicated the concerns H. Hurlburt is raising, and the similar concern about the logistics of how to make sure the faculty member does not have access to the evaluation before grades are turned in, are implementation/logistic. The ICE committee is looking at models to see what other schools are doing in terms of publicizing the information.

K. Berry commented that the current ICE draft is much more concise and takes into account the different needs for information. It is broken down into questions relating to the instructor, to the course and also general outcome kinds of questions that can then feed into the general assessment needs for the institution. All the same questions the Status and Welfare Committee has raised have also been discussed by the ICE committee, and that committee will be making recommendations about implementation. They plan to pilot the evaluation at the end of this semester. She does not have the exact details as to how, but they are aware that faculty need to test and understand this; and certainly, those same questions about going digital have been on the committee's mind. Going digital will allow a lot more access to that technology, and so she believes they will be taking small steps as they work through this and see what the pilot reveals.

K. Anderson indicated the implementation committee was very clear that the pilot will not just be a random selection of courses; it will be a very carefully designed experiment, designed to collect data to address things like comparative response rates. It will not just be, "who wants to be a part of this test?" J. Wall commented that to some extent, it is a test. K. Anderson responded that one of the issues discussed was that they would like, for example, some courses within colleges to have multiple sections so that some sections complete the new ICE, and some sections complete another ICE, whether it is the old one or one of the various faculty versions. The comparative analyses might offer useful findings. The committee would determine if they work the same or whether having it in one form or another affects the outcome. That is something that has to be done very carefully. K. Berry added that the new form does have the Likert scale questions and the open ended, more narrative responses.

M. Dolan mentioned that he meets in a computer room where there are computers for every student. He asked whether there was a plan to pilot the ICE in a couple of those types of classes because then those people can answer it in class just as before. K. Anderson believes that would be a great idea. K. Berry agreed, noting the current plan is to pilot the ICE in Desire2Learn in SIU Online. K. Anderson noted that, ideally, it could be done on tablets, smartphones, etc., which would hopefully increase response rate.

M. Komarraju commented that in Executive Council, the two main issues that were discussed were that the Senate be given the opportunity to vet whatever might come out after the pilot test so that they see what form it might take. There is also the issue of whether the evaluations eventually do become mandatory for all instructors because she believes that currently some do and some do not. K. Anderson responded that the design is something the committee is still batting around. They would like to get input from all the colleges, lab classes and lecture classes, large and small. It will be essential to see what effect of different types of classes has on things like response rates, etc. The intent is to see that the evaluations that are returned are not biased by the ICE itself or by the manner in which it is administered. The committee has not yet decided how this will be done.

COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES -- K. Anderson, Chair

K. Anderson reported that the committee has a nomination for the Honorary Degrees and Distinguished Service Award Selection Committee; however, he needs to first confirm with the nominee that s/he is willing to serve. The committee has also appointed Todd Headrick, Professor in Educational Psychology and Special Education, to the Scholar Excellence Award Committee. K. Anderson indicated the Committee on Committees has five other committees on which to make assignments, and in the course of this meeting, that number has increased to six: University Staff Excellence Award Committee; Honorary Degrees and Distinguished Service Award Selection Committee (the result of a retirement); Search Committee for the Director of the Center for Undergraduate Research; the Student Code of Conduct Review Committee; and now the Tuition on Grants Committee. Also, at the last Senate meeting, the committee received approval to send another solicitation for new volunteers for the program change review committees. They received 18 faculty volunteers to serve.

GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE -- No report.

OLD BUSINESS -- None.

1. D. Muzio asked about the status of the committee that was to look at ranks for non tenure track faculty. J. Wall responded that the committee has been unable to meet so far this semester. It was noted that K. Asner-Self was asked to convene the committee last year, but it was passed to J. Wall.

2. M. Dolan commented that at his first Senate meeting, he raised the issue of plus/minus grades. He is curious as to why it has not been implemented. He has spoken to many faculty who seem to be in favor of having the system. Provost Nicklow responded that there has not been a formal proposal. There had been a question as to whether a plus/minus system would be technologically feasible; however, Provost Nicklow believes it would be a challenge to implement, but it would not be impossible. M. Komarraju charged the UEPC with looking further into a plus/minus grading system. 

NEW BUSINESS -- None.

ANNOUNCEMENTS -- None.

ADJOURNMENT

The meeting adjourned at 2:48 p.m.

Respectfully submitted, 
Kimberly Asner-Self, Secretary

KAS:ba