University of Alabama at Birmingham-Faculty Senate Meeting

May 10, 2011-Administration Building Penthouse CR1-7:30 – 9:30 a.m.

Chair Mark Hickson reported to the Senate concerning:

Faculty Senate Officer Annual Reports

Past Chair Mark Lockhart – Annual Report-Activities of the Past Chair position from June 2010 – May 2011:

1. Organized the second annual university-wide Faculty Open Forum sponsored by the Faculty Senate (October 1^st, 2010). Summary report given to Faculty Senate.

2. Served as senate representative to the UAB InfoEd Executive Steering Committee.

3. Continued input at Senate Executive Committee regarding issues raised during previous term as Chair.

4. Input with Dr. Plutchak and Dr. Hickson regarding Textbook Taskforce report.

5. Involvement with ad hoc research committee to address faculty concerns related to research.

6. Represented faculty senate with Dr. Chatham and Dr. Hickson on UAB Scorecard Metrics update

Secretary of the Faculty-Annual Report -May 2011

Activities completed by the Secretary of the Faculty during June 2010 to May 2011:

· Prepared and distributed agendas for Senate and Executive Committee meetings

· Prepared and distributed summary and expanded minutes for Senate meetings

· Prepared and distributed minutes for Executive Committee meetings

· Prepared Senate materials for publication in UAB Reporter

· Served as Chair of Elections Committee by conducting elections for Senate Officers, Senators, FPPC Representatives, and Senators-at-Large

· Compiled notebook of important Senate documents including agendas and minutes for all Senate and FSEC meetings

· Periodically updated tracking log of communications between the Senate and Provost

· Interacted with Senate Office Associate to organize Senate Office operations and the updating of the Senate home page and the official Senate files on common drive

· Compiles Faculty Senate annual reports [officers; chairs of standing committees; Senate representatives to University committees]

· Coordinates the annual updating of the job descriptions for all officers and general duties of standing committee chairs

· Updates the Senate Constitution and Bylaws as needed; completed Constitution amendment process 2010; updating bylaws and appendices as needed

STANDING COMMITTEES – ANNUAL REPORTS

A. Curriculum and Research – Chair Majd Zayzafoon reported:

• Expressed appreciation to the members of the committee for contributions during the past year
• The Faculty Development Grant Program review process was expanded in 2010 to include more reviewers for each proposal including experts in the topic area and invited reviewers from outside UAB were asked for assistance
• The number of proposals for the Faculty Development Grant Program received by the committee this March is 43; the review process is ongoing and the ranking of recommended proposals for funding will be completed and submitted to Vice Provost Suzanne Austin by July
• The budgeted dollars for the Faculty Development Grant Program for the 2011-2012 period is $80,000 from the Provost Office; matching funds for approved proposals will be from departments and/or deans; based on the 43 proposals the requested dollars by proposals [Provost and matching funds] is an estimated $300,000 dollars; while not all proposals will be funded the Faculty Development Program is a major faculty development and investment program to support faculty retention
• The Committee was involved with the process to separate the committee to form two committees which required Constitution and Bylaws amendments; these amendments have been completed by the Senate and approved by administration; the new two committee structure will be implemented in June for the 2011-2012 Senate term

B. Faculty Affairs Committee

Chair Sue Kim submitted the following report and Vice Chair Maxie Kohler thanked the committee members and identified two major activities by the committee during the year as the shared governance survey of faculty and the completion of the IDEA administrator evaluations for President, Provost and Deans with the implementation of the feedback process by those evaluated to his/her constituents.

Faculty Affairs Committee -UAB Faculty Senate

Annual Report -April 28, 2011

I. Executive Summary:

Ø Shared Governance Survey – A survey of faculty perceptions of shared governance was administered from Aug. 16 – Sept. 17, 2010. The results were presented to the faculty at the Faculty Open Forum on Oct. 1, 2010.

Ø I.D.E.A. Administrator Evaluations of President, Provost, Library Directors, and Deans was administered from Oct. 11 – 29, 2010.

II. Goals: In the FAC report for the June 23, 2010, FSEC meeting, several goals for the year were identified:

1) Survey of faculty perceptions of shared governance to be conducted early in the academic year, late August or so. Results will be summarized in a report and disseminated to administrators and faculty.

2) IDEA faculty evaluations of Deans (BUS; EGR; PH; HP; NURSING; DENT; JHS; other eligible Deans; and Deans who wish to participate in the evaluation), Library Directors, President, and Provost.

3) Recommend formation of University Commission on Shared Governance (including administrators and faculty) to conduct an in-depth study of shared governance at the unit and university levels (models for such a study include University of Florida and University of Arizona).

4) Continue to research and act on ongoing issues from previous year:

- faculty involvement in budgetary and hiring matters at the unit level

- gender equity in promotion and pay

- the evaluation of administrators other than chairs, deans, and the President and Provost – such as program chairs and associate deans – who have significant oversight over faculty evaluations, salaries, etc.

III. Report

A) Activities that have been addressed and completed

1. The FAC surveyed faculty perceptions of shared governance from Aug. 16-Sept. 17, 2010. The survey was administered via surveymonkey.com and publicized via the UAB Reporter, Faculty Senators, and other means. The survey questions were created by the FAC in spring-summer 2010. See Appendix A for timeline of survey and copy of questionnaire. The results were presented at the Faculty Open Forum on Oct. 1, 2010, and to FSEC and President on Oct. 5, 2010 (see Appendix B for report). A report of results by unit was also supplied to President Garrison.

2. The FAC coordinated the IDEA faculty evaluation of Deans, Library Directors, Provost, and President from Oct. 11 – 29, 2010. This year, the Provost requested that each administrator distribute a short statement to the faculty evaluating him/her. See Appendix C for a detailed timeline of the process.

The President and Provost have reported on the results of their I.D.E.A. evaluations to the Faculty Senate and individual units, and the Deans have been reporting to their faculty in a variety of ways (electronically, in meetings, etc.).

The administrators evaluated in Fall 2010 were as follows:

The response rates for each administrator were as follows:

Administrator Response Rates

Dean Response Rates

3. On Feb. 25, 2011, a committee met to discuss the various surveys (I.D.E.A., Climate Survey, Shared Governance Survey). The attendees were FAC Chair Sue Kim, FS Chair Mark Hickson, FS Secretary Pat Greenup, Past-Chair Mark Lockhart, President Carol Garrison, Provosot Eli Capilouto, Alesia Jones (Human Resources), and Larry Powell (Communications). The meeting emphasized the need for better communication between and administration and faculty. A joint faculty-administrator committee to examine shared governance was suggested, but no actions have been taken since this meeting.

B) Issues that remain to be addressed:

Follow up on the possibility of a joint faculty-administration University Commission on Shared Governance (see Appendix D). Issues such as faculty involvement in budget issues and hiring at the unit level may be addressed through such a commission. The FSEC’s monthly meetings with the Deans and Library Directors have been very informative, and such a Shared Governance Commission may be able to collect and highlight best practices from across the various units.

The UAB Gender Equity report was released in fall 2010; copies of the report are available at http://main.uab.edu/Sites/women/news/82065/ and http://images.main.uab.edu/uabreporter/UABFacultyGenderCompNov10.pdf. Next year’s FAC will have to determine whether or not it wants to pursue any follow-up to the report.

Another issue that has been raised several times is the evaluation of administrators other than Chairs, Deans, and the President and Provost, who nevertheless have significant oversight over faculty evaluations, salaries, etc. Such administrators include program chairs, associate deans, etc. The FAC has not yet been able to find a workable solution to this problem.

The I.D.E.A. faculty evaluation of the Department Chairs will be conducted in fall 2011.

Survey of Faculty on Shared Governance Plan 2010-08-08

Text of survey:

According to the UAB Strategic Plan (2003), one of UAB’s core values is “shared governance.” As the Faculty Senate Constitution states, “The faculty members are committed to the principles of shared governance (inclusive and transparent decision-making, open communication among all members of the UAB community, accountability and mutual respect and trust) and recognize the interdependencies of all governance entities of the university as essential to achieving the defined mission, vision, values, goals, and objectives of the university.”*

This survey seeks to assess faculty perceptions of the state of shared governance at UAB.

Please assess the following statements with a number from 1 – 5, 1 being “strongly disagree” and 5 being “strongly agree.”

1) Discussions and negotiations between the faculty and the university administration are conducted openly, in good faith, and in an atmosphere of trust.

2) Discussions and negotiations between the faculty and the administration in your unit (school) are conducted openly, in good faith, and in an atmosphere of trust

3) The university administration recognizes joint responsibility for decision making in the area of long-range planning.

4) The university administration recognizes joint responsibility for decision making in the area of administrative appointments.

5) Your unit’s administration recognizes joint responsibility for decision making in the area of administrative appointments.

6) The faculty has sufficient input into budgetary decisions at the university level.

7) The faculty has sufficient input into budgetary decisions at the unit level.

8) The faculty as a whole, including faculty representatives, have timely access to information necessary to give input into policy decisions.

9) The faculty are afforded an appropriate degree of autonomy with regard to its areas of responsibility (the curriculum and decisions impacting faculty) by the university administration and governing board.

10) Resources for faculty development, reward structures, and workloads support the professional development of faculty.

11) The structures and processes that allow for faculty collaboration are clearly defined in governance documents at the university level.

12) The structures and processes that allow for faculty collaboration are clearly defined in governance documents for your school.

13) The structures and processes for shared governance function in an effective manner.

14) The Deans support shared governance at the Unit level.

15) Department Chairs support shared governance at the department level.

* The American Association of University Professors defines “shared governance” as follows: “One of the key tenets of quality higher education, this term refers to governance of higher education institutions in which responsibility is shared by faculty, administrators, and trustees. The AAUP emphasizes the importance of faculty involvement in personnel decisions, selection of administrators, preparation of the budget, and determination of educational policies. Faculty should have primary responsibility for such fundamental areas as curriculum, subject matter and methods of instruction, research, faculty status, and those aspects of student life which relate to the educational process” (www.aaup.org).

In the space below, please comment on any of your responses above.

[space for written comments]

(Partial) TIMELINE for 2010 IDEA Evaluation of Deans, Library Directors, Provost, and President – Revised 2010-09-30

Appendix B

Summary of Shared Governance Survey Recommendations

(from 2009-2010 FAC Annual Report)

According to the UAB Strategic Plan (2003), one of UAB’s core values is “shared governance.”

In March 2010, the FAC recommended that an Ad Hoc Committee comprised of both faculty and administrators be formed to conduct a survey of the effectiveness of share governance across UAB. The purpose of such a shared governance effectiveness survey is to assess current policies and practices of shared governance between faculty and administration, and to make recommendations for improved shared governance based on this study. Such a survey would examine both university-wide and unit-level shared governance.

Various models for such a study are available (Univ. of Arizona, Univ. of Florida, etc.), but the FAC agreed that the following things needed to be included in any such study at UAB:

Ø Must include definition of Shared Governance in any survey or study

Ø Two major things to assess:

1) codified structures & processes for shared governance (de jure)

2) actual processes & faculty perception (de facto)

Areas to examine:

1) policies & procedures

2) budget & salaries

3) promotion & tenure

4) hiring (faculty and administrators)

5) curriculum

6) organizational structure

C. Governance and Operations: Chair Janelle Chiasera presented the following report

D. Finance Committee: Chair Jeanne Hutchinson presented the following report

UAB Faculty Senate Finance Committee

Annual Report, May 2011

Faculty Senate Finance Committee Members: Allan C. Dobbins, Annette Wright, David Crowe, James Long, Jeanne S. Hutchison, Kathleeen Foley, Margaret M. Kain, Olivia Affuso, Pat Bucy, Purushotham V. Bangalore, Scott W. Ballinger, Stefanie T. Rookis, Yung-Tsung Hsu.

During the 2010-2011 Senate year, the Finance Committee continued to make efforts to make itself more knowledgeable about what was happening with the UAB budgeting process in general. This happened in the 2011 Spring semester. We tried to get together in the fall term to do this, but we had to abandon our efforts a couple of times when not enough members were able to attend. The Finance Committee was also concerned with fringe benefits and issued in the summer of 2010 the results of the 2010 Faculty Senate Benefits Survey which it had administered during the previous May.

Budget Education. Associate Provost Harlan Sands met with the Committee in February of 2011 and gave a power point presentation on academic budget planning for FY 11 and beyond. He had begun to do this in 2009-2010, but he was not able to complete his presentation at that time due to the many questions the committee had. The 2010-2011 committee had new members this year, so he began again at the beginning to accommodate those who had not heard the first part of his remarks. Attached is a pdf of VP Sands’s presentation.

Faculty Senate Benefits Survey. In May of 2010, the Committee sent out the Faculty Senate Benefits Survey. This survey was an update of the previous 2008 survey. Mr. Michael Maner in Human Resources assisted in putting our questions in survey form for the May mailing, and Dr. Erika Pryor in Nursing helped with the analyzing of the results done in June. Chair Hutchison and Past Chair Dr. Linda Reed presented a power point of the survey results at both the Faculty Senate meeting on July 13, 2010, and the UAB Fringe Benefits Committee meeting on July 15, 2010. Both Chair Hutchison and Past Chair Reed represented the Faculty Senate on the 2010 UAB Fringe Benefits Committee and are doing so again in 2011. This committee meets primarily in the April through August months.

The Faculty Senate Benefits Survey, as well as the accompanying e-mails, will be found at the end of this report. The results presented to the Senate in July 2010 can be found on the UAB Faculty website under “presentations.”

Submitted by: Jeanne S. Hutchison, Chair

Attachments: Faculty Senate Fringe Benefits Survey and Accompanying E-mails

FACULTY SENATE SURVEY QUESTIONS 2010

1. What health insurance plan do you currently have?

A. Viva UAB

B. Viva Access

C. Blue Cross Blue Shield

D. Health Service Foundation Blue Cross Blue Shield Plan

E. Other or no health insurance plan

2. How many family members, including yourself, are covered by your UAB health

insurance plan?

A. One

B. Two

C. Three

D. Four

E. Five or more

3. Using the scale below, please indicate your level of satisfaction with the following

benefits within the last year:

4. Using the scale below, please indicate your level of satisfaction within the last six months

with access to the following:

5. Did you switch during the past year from going outside the UAB system to inside UAB for

OB/GYN services?

A. Yes

B. No

C. Not Sure

If NO, please skip to question #7.

6. If you switched to UAB for OB/GYN services from outside the UAB system during the past year,

how would you rate your level of satisfaction?

A. Very Dissatisfied

B. Dissatisfied

C. Satisfied

D. Very satisfied

7. If you have had access problems within the last six months, what specific health services within

UAB were difficult to access?

_________________________________________________________________________________

8. Using the scale below, please indicate your level of satisfaction with any interaction you have had

with either the HR Benefits Office or your HR Consultant regarding benefits within the last six months.

9. If you contacted HR Benefits or your HR Consultant within the last six months, please specify the

the general nature of the inquiry.

A. Healthcare plan

B. Retirement program

C. Leave of absence

D. Other

10. Please share other suggestions that you may have for benefits, health care improvement, or cost

containment below:

Thank you very much.

2010 Letters Related to Health Care Survey

Pre-notification letter to be sent out 4 days before the survey.

We need your help. Only you can give us information on your experiences with health

insurance providers and other UAB benefits. In a few days we will be sending you a

questionnaire and your answers will be used by the Faculty Senate to communicate the

the feelings and experiences of faculty members to the administration. These answers are

important considerations for decisions about your benefits. Please help by completing

the short survey. All of the results are confidential, and no name will be associated with any given response. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact one of us.

Thank you,

Mark Lockhart, 2009-2010 Chair, Faculty Senate

School of Medicine

This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

934-7130

Jeanne Hutchison, 2009-2010 Chair, Faculty Senate Finance Committee

College of Arts and Sciences

This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

934-2154

Post notification letter to go out 5 days after the survey is sent.

Last week we sent you a survey that is important to UAB faculty members dealing with health insurance and other UAB benefits. If you have completed it, thank you. If you have not, please consider taking a few minutes to answer the questions. These answers are important in collecting and communicating the faculty members’ needs and wants to the administration. Your opinion is important since only you can tell us about your experience. All the responses will be treated as confidential, and no one’s name will be associated with any response. The URL is

[http://www.zoomerang.com/survey/………………(the new URL is to be filled in)…]

Thank you.

Mark Lockhart, 2009-2010 Chair, Faculty Senate

School of Medicine

This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

934-7130

Jeanne Hutchison, 2009-2010 Chair, Faculty Senate Finance Committee

College of Arts and Sciences

This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

934-2154

Introduction in E-mail Carrying Link to Faculty Senate Benefits Survey

Thank you for participating in the 2010 UAB Faculty Senate Benefits Survey. Your answers and comments are important, especially in this time of great health care reform, and will be communicated to the UAB Faculty Senate, UAB Fringe Benefits Committee, and UAB administration. The survey is short and should take only 10-15 minutes. All of the results are confidential, and no name will be associated with any given response. To get started, click on the link below:

E. Faculty Policies and Procedures Committee

Chair elect John Chatham presented the following report:

FPPC Annual Report – Submitted by Chair Kristi Menear – April 27, 2011 via email

I still have 2 more meetings to chair, but here’s what FPPC has accomplished thus far this year:

Ø Completed revision of UAB Faculty Handbook and forwarded to Senate

Ø Completed revision of FPPC Operating Rules

Ø Provided feedback to administration on 4 new university-wide policies, as requested by the administration:

Identity Theft Prevention Policy

Export Control Policy

ICOI Policy

Code of Conduct

Ø On-going work on suggestions to facilitate improvements of unit level faculty handbook revisions and approvals (will be completed before new term begins)

The report from the April 15, 2011 FPPC meeting was presented by Chair-elect John Chatham:

In the April 15 FPPC meeting, FPPC members provided verbal feedback to Vice Provost Harlan Sands and University Compliance Officer Teresa Bragg on the following four university-wide policies that were distributed with the April FPPC meeting announcement:

Identity Theft Prevention Policy

Export Control Policy

ICOI Policy

Code of Conduct

As university-wide policies, these policies reach beyond application to faculty and did not have to come before the FPPC or the Senate. However, FPPC was invited by administration to provide feedback on them from the perspective of faculty. In our meeting, FPPC members were given an explanation of the requirements for these policies and an overview of plans for implementation of the policies. Following the explanation and overview, FPPC members asked Vice Provost Sands and Ms. Bragg clarifying questions and gave suggested wording on the policies. Vice Provost Sands encouraged faculty to provide further feedback on these policies at any point in the future.

University Committees with Senate representatives’ reports:

A. COMMITTEE on ACADEMIC ADVISING (CAA)

2011 Annual Report to the UAB Faculty Senate -Jeanne S. Hutchison, Ph.D. Faculty

Senate Representative to the Committee on Academic Advising May 4, 2011

The Steering Committee of the Committee on Academic Advising meets monthly and plans monthly noon-time Brown Bag events for its members as well as a longer general meeting for each of the fall and spring semesters. Several Brown Bags since September, 2010, have had a “Students in Crisis” theme. One month the video “The Truth about Suicide” was part of a presentation by the UAB Counseling and Wellness Center, and at a later session it was used as a basis for discussion and breakout sessions on students in crisis. Cyberbullying has also been a topic. The May Brown Bag will focus on upcoming changes in the catalog, English placement, and the FYE/FLC courses.

The Steering Committee worked with Nancy Walburn and Linda Luck to prepare for the Mid-South NACADA conference that UAB hosted March 13-15 at Ross Bridge. NACADA is the major national advising organization Preconference workshops were held on Sunday, March 12, and included sessions on faculty advising, retention, and service learning.

The CAA Steering Committee had originally thought that the general advising meeting this spring—or, maybe, a separate event-- might focus on “Student Engagement” and serve as a follow-up to last fall’s UAB Engagement Conference at the Caraway Davies House. This was put on hold once it was announced that an Advising Task Force had been formed to recommend to Dean DiLorenzo how advising might be enhanced and redirected to foster better retention and graduation results for UAB and student success in general.

Advising in the College of Arts and Sciences and the School of Health Professions has undergone some changes. The advisors serving students in the arts, humanities, and social sciences have joined the General Studies advisors in the Hill University Center in a expanded area. CAS advisors have all been put on the general CAS budget (as opposed to departmental budgets) and under Dr. Catherine Danielou’s direction. Undecided students from School of Health Professions, it turns out, will also advised by this central group. Undecided students in Business and Engineering will continue to be advised by their respective schools.

The elections for CAA representatives for next year have not taken place. It was decided to wait until the Advising Task Force released its report to see if changes were needed.

B. Athletic Advisory Committee

Dr. Larry Powell submitted the following report as the Senate’s representative to the Athletic Advisory Committee

In terms of the Athletic Advisory Committee, progress has been made in several areas.

1. The University has received broad approval of its long range plan. That plan includes the construction of an on-campus football stadium.

2. UAB’s APR scores have improved over the last two years. The goal is to have an average that exceeds minimum requirements by Fall

C. Commission on the Status of Women

Senator Annette Wright as the Senate’s representative to the Commission on the Status of Women submitted the following report:

· The CSW just completed their first Brown Bag Series. In conjunction with UAB Human Resources and Training and Development, the CSW hosted eight seminars throughout the 2010-11 academic year. The topics included Business Etiquette, Communication Power, Power of Positive Emotions, Calming the Chaos, Work Life Balance, Listen First, Negotiation. The CSW hopes to continue this seminar series next year.

· The group met in February, 2011 and discussed moving forward on the following items:

o Continue to make progress toward gathering and analyzing the data for the Diversity Report that was initiated by the first Commission. Continue to work with UAB Human Resources in gathering this data.

o Work with Dr. Louis Dale’s office to obtain the Strategic Plan regarding Gender Diversity on campus in order to effectively plan and coordinate CSW activities in the future.

· The CSW will meet again in May, 2011.

D.UAB Fringe Benefits Committee

Fringe Benefits Committee report was submitted by Senate representative Jeanne Hutchinson

UAB Fringe Benefits Committee May 2010 through April 2011

The UAB Fringe Benefits Committee met during the summer of 2010. As a result of health care reform legislation, two major changes were instituted in the UAB plans for January 2011: (1) dependent children up to 26 were to remain on the plan regardless of whether they are full-time students; and (2) over-the-counter medications would no longer be allowed under the FSA plan.

The Spring 2010 Leave Benefits Ad-hoc Committee had submitted some recommendations to the UAB Fringe Benefits Committee related to employee leave. Those dealing with the consistency of definition of family, and the expansion of sick time and sick time donation in certain FMLA leave situations were generally endorsed. Support was given to an upgrade or replacement of the monthly employee leave tracking tool as well as to further study of a short-term disability program and the associated costs.

The ad-hoc committee also discussed vacation benefits and accruals for 9-month faculty. There was no consensus reached by it or the Fringe Benefits Committee on this topic.

Two things were done to hold down health care costs. A dependent audit was completed for all employees covering dependents on the medical, dental, or vision plan. Dependents totaling around 1227 were scheduled to be removed at the end of the summer, and a direct savings of $841,356 was projected. However, it was recognized that some ineligible dependents could become eligible to come back on the plan the following January.

In July of 2010 costs were reviewed for the first half of 2010. Recommended increases for 2011 were 0% for Viva UAB, 3% for Viva Access, and 5% for Blue Cross. The projected $1.5 million in pharmacy savings was taken into account to keep premium rates as low as possible. There was no rate increase for the vision plan, but there was a 4.5% rate increase suggested for 2011 in the dental plan which hadn’t had an adjustment since 2006.

The UAB Fringe Benefits Committee has just started a series of meetings to plan for 2012. Dr. Linda Reed and I were appointed by President Garrison back in March of this year as the faculty representatives. The composition of the committee has not changed since last year. At that first meeting we looked at current participation rates in the various medical, dental, and vision insurance programs and at demographic trends over the last seven years. We reviewed state legislative actions (think DROP, TRS Participation Rates) and how they will affect us. We were given some tentative topics for the May, June, and July meetings. It is at these later meetings where UAB will have a better idea, and the committee will be able to review, how UAB is covering its costs in the pharmacy and medical plans.

Respectively submitted, Jeanne S. Hutchison Senate Representative to the UAB Fringe Benefits Committee May 9, 2011
*****************************************************************************

E. University Safety Committees – Senate representative Pat Greenup submitted the following report:

a. University Biosafety Committee

· Attendance and participation at monthly meetings

· Agenda items include: OH&S Employee Health; SEBLAB Update; Legislative Updates; Project Review

b. University Safety Committee

· Attendance and participation at quarterly meetings; alternate Dr. Wes Granger has attended when teaching schedule conflicts

· Agenda items include: Reports discussed include UAB police; incident reports, student safety; construction; campus safety; emergency planning

c. Radioisotope and Radiation Safety Committee

· Attendance and participation at quarterly meetings

· Agenda items include: Reports from Subcommittee Human Use Reviews; SOC Quarterly Update; Quarterly Reports related to standards compliance and uses of radioisotopes in patient care and research laboratories

d. Chemical Safety Committee

· Attendance and participation at quarterly meetings

· Agenda items include: chemical inventory system; structure and function/mission of this new committee; identification of legacy chemicals; research project review

e. Emergency Planning Subcommittee

· Attendance and participation at meetings

· Agenda items include: campus emergency plan; training and implementation of Incident Command System training for campus and administrative leadership involved with emergency management decision making

During the past year communications with Max Richard, Assistant Vice President for Occupational Health and Safety have focused on how to improve communications with faculty about the structure and function of the above committees to support the UAB enterprise with focus on research activities and to assure safety in the learning settings. Plans are in progress for revisions to the home page for the Department of Occupational Health and Safety to include descriptions and links with information about how the above committees are essential to risk management for the University and all employees and students. The goal is to have this information available in the coming months.

Core Curriculum Steering Committee Report to Faculty Senate (2010-2011)

The Core Curriculum Steering Committee (Attachment 1) met monthly to review QEP grant proposals, review capstone proposals, and discuss other matters related to QEP activities. In addition to the regularly scheduled CCSC meetings, the committee met with representatives of the UAB Faculty Senate Executive Committee to discuss concerns expressed within the QEP Subcommittee Report of the Senate’s Curriculum and Research Committee. The committee also produced informal reports related to each of the emphasis areas of the QEP; Quantitative Literacy, Writing, and Ethics and Civic Responsibility.

Regarding QEP grant proposals, awards were made for cycles eight (August 2010) and nine (January 2011). Minor modifications were made to the application to enhance clarity. The deadlines for the applications were standardized to better fit faculty schedules and are now set at December 15 and June 15 of each year. The cycle 10 deadline is June 15, 2011. See Attachment 2 for a listing of approved QEP proposals for cycles eight and nine.

Capstones were approved for a total of 11 majors/program concentrations. In some instances, a given major may have as many as four capstone options from which to choose, while other majors specify a single capstone course. Although capstones were originally intended to address all three QEP areas, in rare instances, a capstone may now be approved with only two of the three areas. In these cases, a detailed and program-specific rationale must be provided. See Attachment 3 for capstones approved from May 15, 2010 through May 14, 2011.

University-wide committees, each chaired by a current or former member of the CCSC, generated reports related to Quantitative Literacy (Attachment 4), Writing (Attachment 5), and Ethics and Civic Responsibility (Attachment 6). The documents were for internal CCSC use and all reports addressed assessment of QEP objectives.

With regard to the meeting of the Faculty Senate Executive Committee and CCSC, the groups reached an agreement that if the CCSC has questions or concerns regarding a capstone proposal, the CCSC Chair will contact the appropriate person (normally, the department chair) to communicate the questions and concerns and/or offer suggestions, rather than voting to deny the proposal. Further, the CCSC will invite the department chair or designee to a subsequent CCSC meeting to speak to the questions and concerns, as needed. These agreements are reflected in the November 2, 2010 memorandum from the Faculty Senate Executive Committee to the QEP Subcommittee of the Senate’s Curriculum & Research Committee and the September 9, 2010 follow up email from Marilyn Kurata to the aforementioned committee and subcommittee.

One final note is that faculty are encouraged to visit the QEP homepage at http://main.uab.edu/Sites/DOE/QEP/. The homepage has complete QEP information, including the quarterly QEP Newsletter.

Core Curriculum Steering Committee

QEP Grants (May 15, 2010-May 14, 2011)

Cycle eight (August, 2010) funded three of six proposals. Cycle nine (January 2011) funded five of eight proposals. A listing of all funded proposals (rounds 1-9) and summary data for grant applications and awards can be accessed via the QEP website at http://main.uab.edu/Sites/DOE/QEP/36590/

Approved Capstones (May 15, 2010-May 14, 20110)

Pilot Project to Assess Student Work Products in Quantitative Literacy

Ed Cook, QL Committee Chair

July-August, 2010

Background and Purpose

During the 2008-2009 academic year, faculty committees began to designate courses in the three target areas of the QEP. Simultaneously, Marilyn Kurata, Dave Corliss for the Office of Planning and Analysis, and the leadership of the three QEP “domain” committees (Alison Chapman, Writing; Harold Kincaid and Colin Davis, ECR, and I) began discussing in detail how best to assess learning outcomes in these three areas at the institutional level. Such assessment is necessary because UAB must submit an Impact Report in which it demonstrates the impact of the QEP on student learning as defined in the plan.

Recognizing that the assessment needs were beyond the scope of existing committees, in April of 2009, Dr. Way constituted an Outcomes Assessment Committee comprised of the above-named individuals. The OAC was charged with planning and coordinating assessment activities that would proceed along two lines:

1) We would gather and evaluate student work products originating in course-embedded assessments in QEP designated courses, and to use them to generate a report that could support improved student learning.

2) We would develop additional test items that would cover QEP learning outcomes that were not covered by ETS’s Measure of Academic Proficiency and Progress, which was already being administered to UAB students at various points in their academic careers.

The OAC met regularly during the summer of 2009 to chart the course forward. There was considerable discussion of who should evaluate student work products from designated courses (Approach #1, above), and it was concluded that this task was best done by the QEP domain committees. Committees were familiar with the courses because they had approved their designation in the first place, and committee rosters represented each of the schools from which these work products would come. A simple and general strategy was also established whereby each committee which evaluate work based on the learning outcomes that were reinforced in the course and assessed (according to the instructor’s report) in the assignment, test or other evaluation to which the students were responding. Basic principles such as confidentiality for students and instructors were established, and methods for materials collection and dissemination were established.

Despite considerable planning, many aspects of the data collection and evaluation were necessarily uncertain until the committees actually had some of the “raw data” of student work products in hand. It was therefore determined that a pilot/feasibility study would be undertaken in 2009-2010. The present report summarizes the methods, results and findings of that pilot/feasibility study by the QL Committee.

Method

Timeline. The project was introduced to the QL Committee at its October 9 and October 30, 2009, meetings. Progress on materials collection was reviewed at the November 6 meeting. Student work products were discussed at meetings on December 4, 2009, and on March 29, April 12, and April 30, 2010.

Identification of Candidate Courses and Solicitation of Materials. On October 12, Dr. Kurata sent a letter to all instructors of courses that were QL (or Writing or ECR) designated and were being taught during the Fall 2009 semester. This letter thanked instructors for their contributions to the QEP, gave them an overview of the pilot project in the context of ongoing QEP activities, and encouraged them to participate in the pilot project if they were contacted.

The QL Committee chair then identified the 28 QL-designated courses (43 distinct sections) that were being offered during the Fall 2009 semester and that met the following additional requirements:

1) The course number was 200 or higher;

2) The course enhanced one or more broad QL Competencies 3-6, the rationale being that Competencies 1 and 2 were already being assessed via the MAPP (now PP, Proficiency Profile); and

3) There were at least 10 students enrolled in the course.

The courses thus selected were distributed across most schools with undergraduate programs. Table 1 shows the number of courses identified and ultimately solicited from each of the seven schools represented:

The decision to solicit one extra course each from Natural Sciences and Mathematics and from Social and Behavioral Sciences was based on the fact that these schools offered more designated QL courses than the others.

QL Committee members chose the courses within their schools from which assignments would be solicited and made contact with the individual instructors to solicit participation. Following a format that was similar across the three QEP domains, instructors were asked to indicate the broad QL competencies that were assessed in the assignment, provide a copy of the assignment itself, and provide 10 randomly-selected and ungraded responses to the assignment. Instructors, QL committee members, the QL chair, and Judy Baker in the Office of Planning and Analysis worked together in various ways to ensure that identifying information was removed from each student response before it was posted for review on the QL committee’s Sharepoint site.

Ratings and Discussion Format. Each of the sets of student work products was assigned to three reviewers. The primary reviewer for each set of materials was a faculty member from the same school as the course from which the materials had been submitted. Especially where assignments were highly technical or specialized, an attempt was made to select additional reviewers from related disciplines. All three reviewers rated each of the 10 submitted assignments in each set that was assigned to them. Assignments were rated on the following scale for each of the six broad QL competencies that the instructor had indicated as being assessed in the assignment:

0=absent, 1=weakly present, 2=definitely present.

Committee members were directed to rate a broad competency as present to the extent to which any of the specific competencies associated with the broad competency was present.

Reviewers were also asked to provide more qualitative reactions to each set of student work products: “Considering the set of papers as a whole and the particular QL competencies that the assignment was intended to assess, please identify common strengths and weaknesses in the students’ work. Please write in terms that are not specific to the course or the discipline, but might inform QL instruction across the curriculum.”

Primary reviewers led the discussion of each set of materials and each reviewer presented his or her ratings and qualitative reactions to the committee. These presentations then served as a basis for discussion. Discussion of each set of materials required about 15-30 minutes.

Quantitative Results

Competencies assessed, according to instructors and raters. Table 2 indicates the QL competencies assessed in each of the 10 sets of student work products.

Note: “X” = competency indicated by the instructor. “?” alone = at least one reviewer felt that an additional competency was manifest in the assignment. “X?” = at least one reviewer felt that the assignment did not allow for assessment of a competency that the instructor had indicated. “-“ = competency indicated by the instructor but not among the competencies for which the course had been designated.

As shown, in about 25% of instances one or more raters disagreed with the course instructor regarding the competencies that were assessed by a particular assignment. Of less concern are the eight “?” cases (35% of instances in which an instructor did not indicate that a competency was being assessed) in which the committee member felt that student responses to the assignment could be rated on an additional competency. It is possible that the instructor simply chose not to evaluate students on one or more competencies that were manifest in the responses to the assignment.

Of more concern are the seven “X?” situations (19% of indicated competencies) in which the committee rater did not feel that the instructor-indicated competency could be assessed. Such situations may reflect misunderstanding on the part of the instructor or the committee rater of the nature of the broad competencies. This is an issue to be pursued in further evaluations of student work products, although it may also or instead be useful to pursue this issue at the course-designation or renewal phase, by requesting examples of evaluations of competencies that the course intends to enhance. As a caveat, raters were not charged explicitly with evaluating whether indicated competencies were tapped by the assignment, but did so somewhat incidentally. A separate and explicit rating of this aspect of fidelity between courses and the UAB-defined concept of quantitative literacy would be useful in any future instance in which assignments come to the committee for review.

Competencies assessed by submitted assignments compared to those that the course is intended to enhance. Another aspect of the fidelity issue is the degree to which competencies that instructors indicated were assessed in their assignments are among those indicated that the course would enhance. In six cases the instructor indicated that the assignment assessed an aspect of QL for which the course was not designated. Causes of such discrepancies could be benign. For example, a course as taught by some instructors might enhance and assess more aspects of QL than were noted in the original application, or the extent to which the competency is present in the course might not have been judged to rise to the “emerging” level. Alternatively, such discrepancies could reflect misunderstanding or ambiguity in the core competencies. Some such ambiguity became clear in the process of discussing the submitted materials. For example, statistical decision-making involves probabilities and risks (Competency 3.3), and it also involves data analysis (Competency 3.5). Following discussion, the consensus of the committee was that statistical analysis falls under 3.5, but instructors would not have the benefit of such discussions.

Mean Ratings. One goal of the pilot project was to develop a method for evaluating student work products for evidence of quantitative literacy. To quantify these evaluations, averages were computed across raters for each of the competencies that course instructors indicated as being assessed by the submitted assignments. These averages are shown in Table 3.

Ratings reflect the degree to which randomly-selected student papers show definite evidence of quantitative literacy (rating of 2) versus the absence of such evidence (rating of 0). Although there is wide variation, most competencies for most courses were rated as at least weakly present (mean ≥ 1) when averaged across students and raters. It should also be noted that these were not in general ratings of students in terminal or capstone courses in the major, although all but one (QL007) were at the 300 or 400 level. Presumably most students whose work was reviewed have time before graduation to acquire greater competence with these aspects of quantitative literacy.

There is some variability in mean ratings, from a high of 1.60 for 3.1 Computation to a low of .93 for 3.3 Probabilities, costs, benefits and risks. Statistical comparison of these means is difficult because each set of materials was evaluated by a different set of raters, and is probably not worthwhile because the sample of courses is small and non-random. Even within sets there are discrepancies because, as noted above, some raters did not feel that all competencies indicated by the instructor could be assessed on the basis of the submitted work. Ratings were prepared prior to discussion and no attempt was made to reach consensus on numerical ratings.

For ratings such as these to be meaningful, they should be reliable in the sense that there should be agreement among raters on the appropriate rating to assign to each student’s work. There are multiple methods for assessing such agreement when there are ordered ratings (0,1,2). Percent agreement was used to get some preliminary “feel” for the reliability of these ratings. Percent agreement was computed as the percent of ratings of the same student paper on the same competency that were identical. These percentages appear in Table 4.

It should be noted that, given three possible ratings, agreement of 33% among ratings will occur by chance. Most agreements are comfortably above 33%, but such is not the case for 3.3 Probabilities, Costs, Benefits and Risks. Moreover, most of the others (excluding 3.1 Computation) are not at a level that inspires confidence, because when corrected for chance agreement (e.g., using Cohen’s kappa) they fall below 50% (i.e., they fall below (33+100)/2). These findings suggest that more needs to be done before such ratings could be used as a basis for tracking changes in quantitative literacy over time.

Summary of Discussion and Narrative Responses

1. The purpose of doing this pilot project and of reviewing student work products more generally was the topic of considerable discussion within the QL Committee. Questions were raised about

a. the degree to which such a project could evaluate undergraduate QL without judging course quality,

b. the ability of the relatively small committee to judge QL across a wide set of disciplines, and

c. the reliability and validity of any ratings that would be obtained.

All committee members participated actively in the rating procedure, though for some the value of the process appeared to have more to do with understanding the wide range of student work that falls within the general domain of QL, than with any sort of assessment of student competency. As the preceding material suggests, the discussion was also focused on determining what constitutes QL and how it is best assessed.

2. In most cases the assignments were judged to evaluate some aspect of QL even though, as noted above, the specific competencies indicated by the instructor did not always match those judged to be assessed by the QL Committee raters. In one case (QL003) there was general agreement among reviewers that the assignment did not assess QL, or did so to a very limited degree.

3. Specific difficulties were noted with some QL competencies.

a. Effective communication of quantitative concepts in words was highly variable in most assignments that assessed this competency. Committee members noted that it was sometimes difficult to separate quantitative literacy assessment independent of writing quality. It was also suggested that instructors be cautious in including Competency 3.6 when little in the way of written communication is required by an exam or assignment.

b. In a few cases raters noted that students had difficulty in understanding scales of measurement and in recognizing the inappropriateness of using percents to describe changes in ordinally-scaled variables.

c. When called for, most students’ responses did not reflect an ability to evaluate research designs critically.

d. Students’ responses reflected difficulty in understanding the logic of statistical hypothesis testing, including p-values, alpha levels, critical values, and differences among mathematically-defined distributions (e.g., normal versus chi-square).

e. Students had trouble identifying the most appropriate statistical procedure to use to answer a particular question.

4. Examination of materials from one course suggested that desirable properties of measurements (i.e., reliability and validity) should be added as another QL competency. Understanding of scales of measurement (see 3b, above) could also be included in this new competency, which does not appear to be covered within the current list. The QL Committee charged me with drafting an additional subcompetency (3.5.3) that deals with these issues, which will be submitted to the QL Committee for approval.

Additional Comments and Recommendations regarding the Review and Evaluation Process

1. A difficulty in the pilot project was that we, and instructors, had limited samples of student work because we began the data collection process about 2/3 of the way through the semester. Future solicitations of student work products should be solicited at the beginning of the semester. We might also want to prompt specifically for work products that reflect the competencies that each course purports to enhance. Not only is this likely to result in a better sample of work products for the committee to evaluate, but it is likely to focus instructors’ attention more deliberately on QL enhancement.

2. Further care will need to be taken to ensure that instructors understand what they are to submit, and in what format. Initial experience does not bode well for having faculty just submit materials without the help of a knowledgeable committee member; on the other hand, improving our instructions, asking earlier in the semester, and repeating the process to increase general familiarity through accumulated experience may eliminate some of the challenges encountered in the pilot project. Although flexibility in the format of submissions is desirable from the perspective of instructors submitting materials, some greater consistency would ease the burden on reviewers. In particular, materials submitted in spreadsheet form may require some pre-processing to 8.5 x 11 format for committee members who prefer to review from paper copies. Also, materials need to be numbered consistently, and irrelevant material removed to the extent possible, prior to submission for review. As a general point, the pilot project demonstrated that continued analysis of student work products will require dedicated staff support.

3. Submissions to the QL Committee need to be complete and self-contained. For example, if students are writing reviews of abstracts or research articles, then those materials must be available to the committee along with the student work products. Some committee members felt that solutions, answer keys, and/or grading rubrics should also accompany submissions.

4. Prior to evaluating the degree of student QL in a set of responses, it is necessary to evaluate the extent to which the assignment or exam is actually assessing QL. If the assignment does not assess QL, then there is little point in evaluating student responses.

a. We may want to modify the scoring sheet and instructions to allow for this separate and preliminary judgment.

b. The question arises of what to do when an assignment purported to assess QL actually doesn’t do that according to the criteria. It was agreed that instructors should be informed, but this needs to be done in a careful way that acknowledges that failure of an individual assignment to assess QL does not mean that the entire course does not assess QL. This may be addressed in part by soliciting materials closer to the beginning of the semester. The Committee understands there will ultimately be a re-review process for designated courses to ensure that courses are continuing to enhance and assess QL, as described in their applications for QL designation.

5. The system of having 3-member review teams for each set of materials generally worked well.

a. Most members sent ratings and narrative ahead of the meeting and a few brought them along. There was some ambiguity about whether committee members should bring copies for everyone. Most reviewers didn't do that and it didn't seem like an impediment to discussion, but this is one of a number of procedures that needs to be tightened up so that everyone understands the tasks to be completed.

b. Committee members were not explicitly instructed to read all materials that were being reviewed prior to each meeting, and in most cases it appeared that only review team members had read the materials. It’s probably too much to ask for a committee member to review 30-40 student responses in preparation for each meeting. On the other hand, all members could reasonably be asked to review each of 3-4 assignments and contribute to decisions regarding whether those assignments adequately assess QL.

c. About 20 minutes was required to review and discuss each set of student work products. It might take more time if there is a more explicit requirement that we decide which competencies are assessed, or change the task in some other way.

d. In most but not all cases members felt competent to provide ratings of QL from student work products in disciplines with which they had no direct experience.

6. The general descriptions in the memo that we used in the pilot project may be too broad and vague.

a. In soliciting materials in the future, we might want to use the extended list of all 15 QL competencies rather than the abbreviated list of 6 broad competencies as the checklist for QL. Competencies reflected in submitted assignments could then be identified at a more granular level.

b. Point 6a notwithstanding, even the extended list of competencies is unlikely to cover all situations. For example, neither competency 3.5.1 nor 3.5.2 refers to evaluation of the appropriateness of a statistical analysis, though this task fits the general concept of broad competency 3.5. This is a potential argument against detailed specification, or perhaps an argument for allowing competencies to be specified at the broad or narrow level. One possibility would be to add a “3.x.9” not-otherwise-specified designation within each broad competency and use it to refer to elements of the broad competency that aren’t specifically covered by the short list of detailed competencies. The detailed competencies then become examples rather than an explicit definition of each broad competency.

c. Given that the detailed listing of competencies (exemplars) is subject to modification, in reviewing assignments and student work products we might explicitly ask, on a regular basis, whether we are seeing aspects of QL that should be added to our definition. One example is characteristics of good measurements, mentioned above.

d. Several competencies remain fairly similar and difficult to distinguish, even for experienced QL Committee members. For example:

i. 3.4.1 Analyze quantitative evidence and construct an argument based on that evidence.

ii. 3.5.2 Draw conclusions from data that have not been aggregated, refined or interpreted.

iii. 3.6.2 Explain how quantitative information supports the argument in a narrative.

e. Discussion also revealed some ambiguity about whether competency 3.3 includes statistical decision-making. All statistical decision-making involves probabilities and risks, but the consensus of the committee was that 3.5 deals with statistical analysis whereas 3.3 is focused more on other forms of decision-making (e.g., economic or actuarial) based on probabilities, costs, benefits, and risks.

f. Given all of these considerations (6a-6e), the QL Committee and/or the OAC need to ensure that an optimal and consistent description of QL is provided with memos soliciting course material. Improving communication in this area could involve adding the list of subcompetencies (which was not included in solicitation memos used in the pilot study), or adding the subcompetencies but reformulating them as examples of the kinds of skills and abilities that characterize each of the broad competencies. It is recommended that

i. the OAC consider the extent to which this is a general issue that affects solicitation of materials of all three QEP domains, and

ii. the QL Committee devote time in early Fall 2010 to resolving ambiguities in the definition of QL and to considering how best to communicate the definition of QL to their colleagues.

7. The list of QL competencies is a step in the direction of a rubric, but it’s not a rubric. We don’t have explicit standards for determining whether a particular competency is present or not, nor for calibrating raters judgments to a consistent standard. This fact is reflected in the modest degree of agreement among raters that was noted above (see Table 4). We need to decide, together with QEP leadership, whether we will use these ratings to assess quantitative literacy among our students. If so, we need to focus on improving the psychometric characteristics of our ratings.

8. Alternatively, we might redirect and refocus the reviews of assignments and student work products to achieve other goals, such as to ensure that QL enhancement and assessment are actually taking place in QL-designated courses and in line with how QL is defined at UAB, or to identify needs for resources that would promote QL instruction. We need to have a clear understanding of the goals of this process and need to reshape our methods based on experience gained in the pilot project to ensure that we can meet those goals most effectively and efficiently.

August 23, 2010

To: Marilyn Kurata

From: Alison Chapman

Chair, Writing Task Force

Re: Final Report from Writing Task Force on Pilot Project

General Background:

The Writing Task Force sent a letter to a sampling of faculty members from across the university asking them to submit materials for the Pilot Project. Faculty teaching a Writing-designated course in the following 17 disciplines received this request for materials: Health Services Administration, Biomedical Engineering, Business, English, Biology, Math, Materials Engineering, Physics, African-American Studies, Civil and Environmental Engineering, History, Justice Sciences, Communication Studies, Nursing, Psychology, Sociology, and Physics. Of these courses, 9 requests were for 400-level courses, 5 were for 300-level courses, 2 were for 200-level courses, and 1 was for a 100-level course. (To help in the job of making comparisons across disciplines, the Writing Task Force had hoped for all 400-level courses. This was not feasible, however, since not all disciplines offer a 400-level writing class in any given semester.)

Twelve of the faculty who were sent letters submitted samples of student writing. The samples went directly to Judy Baker in the Office of Planning and Analysis where they were stripped of all identifying markers and posted to an online archive. This process was design to ensure faculty and student confidentiality. As a result, the Writing Task Force does not know which disciplines are represented in the twelve sets of student artifacts.

Faculty who submitted these artifacts were also asked to submit the assignment itself (i.e., the prompt that students were given) and to indicate on the writing rubric which elements were most relevant to that assignment, such as use of outside sources, effective use of argument, etc.. The Task Force members evaluated the sets of student writing according to the writing rubric. This rubric is the same as that used to certify courses as meriting a “W” or writing designation.

This report will offer, first, the committee’s overall findings about the process of direct assessment. It will then offer justifications for these findings and then recommendations for how future direct assessment should proceed.

Overall Findings:

After several long discussions, the Writing Task Force has concluded that direct assessment of student writing is best undertaken at the department or discipline level rather than by a larger umbrella committee, such as this one. Having looked at twelve sets of student writing culled from across the university, we find that we cannot generalize usefully or reliably about the level of writing proficiency of “the UAB student.”

Justifications for our findings:

Surface features such as grammar and mechanics constitute only one part of good writing, but these are primarily what a cross-disciplinary review can assess.

The Task Force concedes that it is possible for a centralized committee to assess whether students across all disciplines are functionally literate, i.e., have a basic command of grammar and mechanics. However, the committee felt that other feature--such as logical development, rhetorical strategies, use of evidence, documentation, and writing style--are equally important to good writing at the college level. These conventions vary so widely across disciplines that a central committee is poorly positioned to assess them.

To give some examples, one faculty member thought that a given set of artifacts did not showcase students’ ability to construct an argument. Upon discussion, however, the committee realized that this was because argument is not defined the same way in all disciplines. In another case, a faculty member objected that the student writing lacked conciseness, but others pointed out that the discipline was more accepting of an ornamented style. In another, faculty did not like the fact that the student artifacts included sentence fragments listed as bullets, but in context, the group suspected that the lack of fully elaborated paragraphs was appropriate within the discipline. In yet another, a faculty member objected to what seemed the over-use of quotations, but discussion revealed that while some disciplines require students to assimilate sources and offer only brief summaries, others push students to quote widely from their primary sources.

Conclusions about writing quality, over and above control of surface features, is unlikely to be useful to departments/disciplines.

The result of such uncertainties about disciplinary conventions is that the committee’s evaluations of any given set of student artifacts may be significantly out of step with the discipline’s own norms. This undermines the usefulness of the review process. Furthermore, it forecloses on the idea of “closing the loop” since a department that encourages extreme economy of expression because that is the norm in the discipline will hardly benefit from a central committee’s decision that UAB students need to develop a more fluid writing style.

A related issue is that departments are more likely to listen to and act upon assessment of student writing done internally rather than generalized assessments handed down from a committee higher up, a committee which may or may not include a representative of that department.

Departments and/or disciplines can assess the quality of student writing far more accurately and efficiently than a committee like the Writing Task Force can.

Faculty in each department know exactly what the standards of the discipline are and are best situated to determine whether or not students are writing, researching, and reasoning in appropriate ways. Where the Writing Task Force talked at length—and with some uncertainty--about whether a given set of documents met, exceeded, or fell short of a disciplinary norm, faculty inside that discipline could likely make this determination in a moment.

Our Recommendations:

Departments should assess their own students’ writing. Since, however, institutional assessment requires a certain level of standardization, departments should assess their students’ writing according to a much simplified version of the current rubric.

The current rubric was developed in order to assess whether or not courses offer sufficient instruction in writing to qualify as “W” classes. The Task Force discovered, however, that this rubric is not a good tool for assessing individual student work. For instance, it is possible on the current rubric for the category for logical development to be unchecked. Upon discussion, however, the Task Force realized that logic was not optional in writing.

Assessment of student writing should be done at the senior level.

The Task Force found the difficulties of assessing student writing across disciplines to be compounded when the assessment was also across student level (e.g., comparing sophomores to seniors). Our recommendation is that, as much as possible, departments assess the writing of their seniors, whether in capstone classes or elsewhere. We further recommend that departments identify and assess a statistically significant sampling of student work.

Conclusion:

Our suggestion is to put departments in as much control as possible of assessing student writing. Faculty within those departments know their students and are the best ones to make judgments about the level of student work. The best role of a central committee, such as the Outcomes Assessment Committee or the Task Forces, is to offer assistance and supporting materials. If necessary for institutional assessment, the results of these internal assessments could be forwarded to those committees for university-wide tabulation. While this conclusion requires departments to shoulder yet another task, it also obviates significant problems: while accurate and informed outside review (such as by a disciplinary regulatory body) is productive, review by people unfamiliar with the relevant disciplinary conventions is not.

In order to insure some uniformity for this suggested internal assessment process, the Writing Task Force recommends that departments or disciplines do this assessment according to the same writing rubric. This rubric should be a modified and simplified version of the one currently in use.

8/20/2010

TO: Marilyn Kurata

FROM: Harold Kincaid, Colin Davis

RE: Assessment pilot from ECR committee

The ECR committee collected items from 10 courses. The samples came from English, Management, Psychology, Sociology, Political Science and Philosophy. Seven were at 100 level and three at the 300 level. Four sets of written exercises (counting power point presentations) comprising 36 items were examined. Ten were from English, 10 from Philosophy, 10 from Sociology and 6 from Management. The committee also looked at seven multiple choice exams of which two were from Philosophy, one from Psychology, two from Sociology, and two from Political Science. The materials were made available online for the committee and then the committee met in person to discuss them.

Among our findings are:

1. Identifying appropriate courses and convincing instructors to provide material for assessment was a very time consuming process. Instructors had to be contacted in person by someone they already knew in order to participate in the program.

2. One set of samples contained no obvious ECR component despite the fact that the course was approved for ECR as were all ten involved. We cannot rule out that the instructor submitting the material was confused and did not send the correct material.

3. The other nine all contained substantial ECR content.

4. Assessing the quality of ECR learning from the materials given was not something the committee felt it was well equipped to do. Some of the content was discipline specific in a way that made it difficult for the committee to assess. For example, standards of scientific integrity specific to psychology and philosophical ethical theories and their weakness involved discipline specific knowledge in the two fields that committee members did not have. Other materials showed that the course had clear ECR content but did not allow the committee to assess how well that material was learned. As a result, some members of the committee felt that it was not their place to judge the competence of instruction in specific courses. This final point is of the utmost importance and resulted in extensive discussion of purpose of committee evaluation. The general conclusion was that the committee could assess whether ECR content was included in a course and whether it was being evaluated, but that it could not fully assess the quality of the ECR content due to its discipline specific nature. The point was also made that were such detailed oversight possible and carried out, it could be construed as threatening faculty control of course content and undermine faculty support for ECR goals.

5. Some also felt that civic responsibility was not something that would adequately assessed by looking at student content knowledge. Assessing actual student responsibility would be better done, for example, by gathering information about student participation rates in civic activities.

Recommendations

1. Future assessment of ECR needs to find a more efficient way of gathering student materials and a better way of ensuring that diverse departments are involved. Perhaps chairs of select departments should be asked to provide such materials.

2. The ECR committee should assess the extent to which student materials demonstrate that ECR topics are being addressed and evaluated but not the quality of that ECR material.

3. Civic responsibility should be in part assessed by finding data on student participation in civic activities.