FAEC Minutes 2/21/2018

Faculty Assembly Executive Council (FAEC) Meeting Minutes

February 21, 2018

ASB 008 Room

10:30am to 12:30am

Attendees:​ Christina Connor, Donna Flynn (for Cristina Perez), Roark Atkinson, Kathryn Zeno, Tae Kwak, Gladys Torres-Baumgarten, Kim Lorber, Eva Ogens, Renata Gangemi

Excused: Cristina Perez

Secretary:​ Hugh Sheehy

Guests:​ Provost Barnett, Vice Provost Williams

1.     Minutes approved
2.     Eva Ogens will fill in for Tae Kwak in the event he is unavailable at meetings in the next few weeks. FAEC needs a new VICE PROVOST for 2018-2019. FAEC members are actively seeking members for next year’s FAEC committee. FAEC members are still seeking Unit representatives for OER committee. Steve Rice, Donna Flynn, and Nick Salter have volunteered to work on the Strategic Plan Committee.
3.     Task Force to Redesign Course Evaluations: There are concerns that online course evaluations present a number of problems, ranging from a low response rate to studies indicating that online course evaluations tend to be less statistically significant. The Committee is unanimously agreed that the final two qualitative questions on the evaluation instrument require revision. FAEC members expressed hope that these concerns will be addressed as the College migrates from paper evaluations. FAEC members in HGS and TAS will seek volunteers.
4.     Provost and Vice-Provost Visit: A committee member asked the VP about her vision for the future of the College. The VP replied that she takes stock of an institution’s mission and place before making suggestions for change; after a semester, she is working on moving assessment forward; she is concerned with reaccreditation; she is interested in helping faculty tell the story of Ramapo’s mission and progress to Middle States. She has reached out to conveners to hold one-on-one meetings; she believes “it is faculty who move the institution” and that “the ground floor work needs to be supported by administrators.” States her expertise lies in assessment and reaccreditation, which she has been working in since 1991. States that central concern in her work on any project remains a school’s students.

A committee member asked the VP about her vision for shared governance at Ramapo. VP replied that she saw a meeting focused on SG when she first came to Ramapo. States that each institution approaches this topic differently. States that each institution has its own sense of the meaning of the word “share”. A committee member asked what are some of the existing obstacles to SG. The VP replied that new leadership figures must understand College’s goals as they stand in relation to untracked transformations in need across the College.

A committee member asked the VP about coming changes in the College’s assessment program. The Provost interjected that there seems to be a difference in what Middle States expects and what ACSB is prepared to deliver: MS wants evidence of effectiveness at the level of the course. A committee member stated that some faculty have the perception and concern that coming changes in assessment are migrating to instructor-based assessment as opposed to course-based assessment. The VP replied that there is no effort to make assessment instructor-based; stated that the assessment must be course-based and that evaluating instructor performance lies in another area. A committee member stated that the system requiring course section information should blind assessors to that information; a committee member stated that this should be made clear to all faculty. The Provost stated that the nature of the College’s contract with AFT makes using that information against personnel off-limits.

A committee member stated that communication between administration and faculty has been improving at Ramapo and could be improved further; the committee member commented specifically on the faculty’s preference for a system of relatively horizontal faculty-to-administrator communication over a vertical system.

The Provost stated that it is important to revisit College’s governance structure in the interest of ensuring vehicles for communication exist. A committee member raised the issue of the possible College Senate. The Provost stated that the idea has been shelved but remains a possibility. A committee member noted that this particular FAEC has worked especially well with SGA and that preserving this spirit of collaboration would be a worthy priority. The Provost stated that she feels this is a worthy pursuit.

A committee member stated that the goal of shared governance mission of the College is something they hope will be carried over into GEIT. A committee member stated that the faculty is seeking clarification on what office in the College to consult regarding curricular changes. The VP stated that the role of the Deans is to work with Faculty on curricula and assessment that it is the purview of the VP to ensure that the assessment programs adopted by the Schools will be effective and serve the students. The VP sees her work as “working closely” with the Deans as the Deans are working cooperatively with the Faculty. The Provost stated that a meaningful difference in the new VP’s vision is that Deans are empowered. The Provost asserted that Deans are in a better position to oversee the curricular and assessment work in their Schools.

The Provost stated that she sees “various levels of integration and scaffolding across disciplines”: some majors are more highly structured than others and that this is discipline-dependent. A committee member stated their appreciation of the clarification of this new program empowering Deans. The Provost stated that Middle States will be looking for a “more sophisticated” program of assessment now that the College has progressed from where it was a few years ago.

A committee member asked whether MS has stated any interest in seeing Ramapo doing a longitudinal study of skill acquisition. The Provost replied that MS does not make specific suggestions for assessment; it checks to ensure that a college’s assessment practices are legitimate; she stated that we do have the power to undertake a longitudinal study but may not yet be in a position to do so. A committee member inquired as to whether MS does offer guidelines in instances where it finds assessment practices wanting in rigor; the VP replied that MS gives broad instruction; the Provost stated that she has only seen MS criticize lack of rigor in cases where institutions relied too heavily on secondary sources.

A committee member stated that she hopes the College is in a good position, assessment-wise. The Provost stated the College has progressed from where it was a few years ago and that MS has encouraged the College to continue to develop its “culture of assessment.” The Provost stated that the College struggles to produce a steady flow of assessment data because of differences across courses (including co-ops); it is easier with standardized courses. The Provost stated that the College does not and has never standardized courses. She does not anticipate that the College ever will standardize them, and when she asked the Vice Provost whether “moving in this direction,” the Vice Provost shook her head to confirm the College is not moving toward standardization. Barnett stated that the assessment program could use “simple fixes” in the form of faculty input tailored to courses and co-ops.

A committee member inquired whether differences in pedagogy resulting in assessment difficulties might be a sign of health and whether placing a value on simplicity of assessment doesn’t do a disservice to students. The Provost stated that Learning Outcomes for programs cannot capture the whole scope of any College major’s learning experiences; rather, they outline what Faculty believe students in their respective disciplines should learn. A committee member stated that qualitative aspects of an education are more often important than quantitative ones; the Provost stated that she agreed. A committee member related the foregoing concern to the phrase “backward course design,” in which courses are designed with assessment outcomes in mind; the Provost stated that Learning Outcomes are created by Faculty and that the College always has and always will value academic freedom and diversity.

A committee member requested that VP be open to collaboration on projects with the faculty in the future. A committee member stated that they hope that the College can work on an Emergency Preparedness team and can address much-needed security upgrades. A committee member asked whether Deans can change grades; the Provost stated the rules for grade changes in the College have not changed. The Provost stated that there were several instances in which faculty members refused to change grades and which the Deans felt compromised by a lack of supportive paperwork; the Provost asserted that her sympathies lie with the Faculty but that she needs support from Faculty in the form of documentation of scores contributing to final grades.

5.     Meeting adjourned 12:37.

Categories: Uncategorized