Kennedy
Presiding: Dr. Joseph
Saliba
Senators Present:
Bickford, Biers, Castellano, Cherington, Dandaneau, Doyle, Gauder, Gould, Gruenenwald, Hallinan, Hartley, Ilg, Kocoloski, Morman, Partlow, Pestello, Putka, Pyles, Rapp, Roecker Phelps, Skill, Telfair, Watras,
Yungblut
Guests: Belle,
Benson, Bork, Brecha,
1.
Opening Prayer:
Fr. John Putka began the meeting with a
prayer.
2.
Roll Call:
Twenty-five of thirty-nine Senators were present.
3.
Approval of Minutes: The minutes of
4.
Announcements
Adam Kocoloski began with the introduction of the new SGA academic senators, who will become voting members of the University Academic Senate in September 2003. They are Jennifer Bork, Kevin Moot, and Nicole Vitale.
5.
Committee Reports
Each committee submitted a summary
of their activities for the semester.
Academic Policies Committee
a.
Residency requirements document: Underwent a final review before the full
senate passed it.
b.
Quantitative reasoning document: The
committee sponsored two open meetings on the final version before the full
senate approved it.
c.
Online registration system: The committee met with representatives from
the registrar’s office to learn more about the new system to be implemented,
which should attend to some of the current system’s failings.
d.
University calendar committee: Review of calendar issues led to
recommendation for a comprehensive study of calendar priorities. It is suggested that a taskforce be formed to
study the problem; implementation is under way.
e.
Report on general education rationale and goals: Revisions to this document have been
completed and are under review. A final
recommendation from the senate is likely next fall.
f.
Report on first year experience mission and goals: The APC will hear a summary April 10.
g.
Report on status of thematic clusters: A report will be given April 10.
Faculty Affairs Committee
a.
Senate Document I-03-02: The document, which seeks to amend the
University’s Regulations on Academic Freedom and Tenure, underwent a final
review before the full senate approved it.
The document is now up for approval by all tenured and tenure track
faculty.
b.
Part time and full time non tenure track faculty: The committee also considered the utilization
and status of these groups, but has tabled the issue for future discussion.
c.
Appropriate use of intellectual property: The committee has agreed it will assist in
developing guidelines that would enable faculty members to feel confident in
using copyrighted materials for their courses while observing the principles of
fair use.
Student Academic Policies
Committee
a.
Summer course scheduling: A draft of Proposed Summer Time Schedule
Guidelines was sent to department chairs for feedback. The committee had hoped to bring to the April
senate meeting for discussion, followed up by a vote in the fall.
b.
Student Assessment of Instruction: This initiative was scheduled for review this
year. The committee sent a letter to
department chairs and deans for feedback, which would be discussed at the April
2 meeting. The Faculty Development
Committee has expressed interest in working with the committee to develop
alternative forms of evaluating teaching performance.
c.
Dean’s List Eligibility for Part Time Students: The committee reviewed the policy on this
matter and recommends no change to the current language.
6.
Strategic Planning Papers
Joe Saliba
began the discussion by thanking Drs. Curran and Pestello
for inviting the Executive Committee of the Academic Senate to participate in
the University’s strategic planning. As
part of that effort, the ECAS believes participation from entire faculty, staff
and students is crucial to the success of the planning and chose to use this
last Academic Senate meeting of the year to facilitate discussion.
Two faculty members and two
students were invited to share their thoughts about the University’s strategic
planning efforts.
Brian Conniff—3
main points
a.
Work to define academic excellence in UD’s own terms. To
define selves against list of others is self-defeating. If we give faculty the opportunity to shape
the terms of excellence, becomes more exciting.
b.Find aspects of Catholic Marianist heritage across disciplines
Examples: Social justice, interfaith dialogues
c.
Trust: current
conditions such that there is not much room for teaching innovations. Need to design and support radical teaching
& learning experiences.
General Education: A key component to all of this is general
education. Is it at the end of its
natural lifespan? More new faculty over
the past few years, but not as many opportunities as before in building a new
curriculum
International
Education: As it is now, international
education limited. It should begin early
and extend through academic career.
Example: Darna
House
Sean Wilkinson: Challenges Academic Senate to retain a focus
on this issue and to follow through with its efforts.
Believes that the future is in faculty hands, not in
the administration’s.
The administration should look to faculty for defining academic
excellence, and the faculty should look to the administration for support in
carrying out academic excellence.
Renew and remake general education to make it more inclusive.
Identify faculty across the disciplines that are
willing to innovate. Examples of
programs that work well: Honors Program,
CORE Program. Potential
for Arts across the curriculum.
Look at the intrinsic assets, not the extrinsic
lists.
Concern that losing the energy and vitality of the
new faculty by failing to ask how they might contribute.
Jonathan Pyles and Adam Kocoloski: The Marianist
identity must be preserved in any plan
Residential learning village needs to go beyond the
classroom. Concerned that
academic and residential lives are too separate, and that alcohol is a
serious issue. One suggestion is to
cohort floors; there are currently Honors and Engineering floors, but they are
few and more opportunities should be available.
General Education:
Time to reconsider. There needs
to be ways to engage students at the start, find innovative ways.
Clusters:
Thematic clusters are great opportunities for learning communities, but
they fall short. Need to extend themes
beyond the clusters. It seems that the
University has compartmentalized humanities education.
At this point the floor was opened
for discussion.
David Wright: The Faculty Development Committee is an
important part of the conversation. He
stresses that the conversation be continued and that more people be engaged, including part-time faculty and focus groups.
Surveys indicate that there
is general faculty support for the Catholic Marianist
tradition.
There is a roadblock to the
innovation asked for today—student assessment forms. They stifle creativity; however, the FDC has
been looking at other ways of assessment and brought speakers in to address
this issue.
Q: Will
this planning process replace Vision 2005?
Who will author the document?
What is the flow of ideas: will
it be communicated to the faculty from the administration or vice versa?
A: Each school has its own strategic plan, which
will continue to be assessed and reviewed.
Vision 2005: this current process is not a radical
break. We will review what has changed,
both internally and externally. It will
be a 2-way process via Provost’s Council and the Academic Senate. Dr. Curran wants a tight, focused message by
which we can advertise the University.
Q: How will the ideas flow? Please explain the “paradigm
ambiguities.”
A: Structurally, this process will be a
hierarchy. The flow of communication, however, must go up and down. Various groups will communicate, but it must
all tie together at the top.
Pat Johnson: We should start with the understanding of a
distinctive
John Roberts: One thing that makes UD unique is its strong
foundation. Do not change the core
beliefs and culture. There is a need for
definition of outcomes, created by the parties involved.
Sean Wilkinson: The issue of process is important, especially
communication among all. The idea of
signature program sounds elitist, however.
Building programs are less important than building relationships among
programs.
Paul Benson: Good programs are ones that are fluid and
open-ended. Fixed programs are ones to
be wary of—isolated and elitist.
Fr. Putka: Do not wait
for the strategic plan to make tactical adjustments along the way.
Laura Yungblut: Concerned that the “door does not swing back
shut” after this discussion. She made a plea
to those committed thus far to remain participants through various venues and
to bring others into the discussion.
Steve Dandaneau: The consultants from Art & Science
provide the basis for a marketing discourse.
There is concern that if this is the primary form of discussion, then it
is damaging. It is important to hear
other voices.
Bob Brecha: UD is primarily an undergraduate
institution. He is worried about the
comparison with others as we grant Ph.Ds. The balance of research and teaching is hard.
Fred Pestello: The Carnegie classification system
changed. This class should not “impact”
us. It is true we do not have a good,
solid graduate study strategy. Tom Skill
will be leading a review to amend this situation. However, we will not be moving or changing
our current classification.
The meeting adjourned at
Respectfully submitted: Heidi Gauder,
Secretary of the Academic Senate.