Draft Faculty Senate Minutes
Thursday, December 6, 2007
3:15 PM to 5:00 PM, Chesapeake 105
1. Attendance: Please check-in on the attendance roster.
2. Review the Agenda for the 12/6/07 meeting.
The agenda was approved as written.
3. Review the Minutes of the 11/15/07 meeting.
It was pointed out that the Grievance Committee is not a committee of the Faculty Senate. Mark Hubley
said he would remove reference to that committee from page 2. The minutes were approved with that
correction.
4. Calendar
Fall 2007 important dates
A. College closed or no classes
i) College Enrichment Day, no classes, Tue. 10/30
ii) Thanksgiving Break, no classes, Wed. 11/21
iii) Thanksgiving Break, college closed, Thu. 11/22—Sun. 11/25
iv) Winter Break, college closed, Sat. 12/22—Sun. 1/6
B. Other important dates
i) Last day to withdraw from 15-week classes, Tue. 11/20
ii) Final exam week, Tue. 12/11—Mon. 12/17
iii) Grades due, Wed. 12/19 by 4:00 PM
December important dates
E. Senate meetings
i) Thu. 12/6, 3:15—5:00 PM, Chesapeake 105
ii) Next meeting: Thu. 2/7/08
F. Board of Trustees meetings
i) Thu. 12/13, 7:00 PM, Kent 262
G. College-wide Forum
i) Wed. 12/5, 2:00—4:00 PM, LSC Community Room B
5. Attachments
A. Minutes from the 11/15/07 meeting of the Faculty Senate
B. Letter from Mike Gavin regarding assessment
1
6. Reports
A. Senate President
Hubley asked if anyone knew of a college policy regarding reimbursement for personal property damaged
on campus. He reported an incident in which books belonging to the personal collection of a member of
the faculty were damaged by flooding in his or her office. The books in question were owned by the
faculty member but used as part of instructional duties. Should the college reimburse the faculty member
for the damaged books? If so, is that college policy? Nobody in the Senate knew of any existing policy,
but Eldon Baldwin said the college self-insures for property damage.
B. Senate Vice President
Swazette Young mentioned that the Salary & Benefits Committee had met during the previous week, but
there was no report. John Bartles will be serving as the chair of the ad hoc committee to review the
faculty evaluation process. The committee had identified many items to review, but had not yet set a time
line. Janet Carlson noted that a member of the adjunct faculty should be part of the review committee.
Hubley said he would look into that. Hubley also said that he would like to get a student on that
committee.
C.
D.
E.
F.
Academic Regulations and Standards Committee
Representative from President’s Leadership Team
Representative from the Academic Team
College-wide Forum
i) Representative from Faculty Organization
ii) Human Resources Committee
Rik Karlsson reported that the committee is examining an “alternative work schedule” proposal.
iii) Budget Advisory Committee
iv) Campus Culture Committee
v) Learning Committee
vi) Technology Steering Committee
vii) Strategic Planning Committee
viii) Assessment Committee
ix) Facilities Committee
Rosanne Benn said the committee had been looking through the proposal from the Senate. New outside
signage had been put up on campus after Thanksgiving. There is still talk about closing the roadway
coming off Rt. 202 in front of Chesapeake Hall, but there are still concerns about emergency vehicle
access. Benn reported that Chief Walker noted that no serious accidents had yet occurred. Benn also
reported that construction of the proposed Allied Health building may cause major changes in traffic
patterns and parking. There was talk about naming our roadways and a possible new smoking policy that
would ban smoking from the entire campus.
G. Chairs’ Council
H. Adjunct Faculty
I. Representative from the Student Governance Board
7. Old Business
A. Any old business?
_________________________________________
2
8. New Business
A. Discussion of assessment with Mike Gavin and Barbara Gage
Hubley introduced Mike Gavin, Chair of the Academic Outcomes Assessment Committee, and thanked
him for attending the meeting. Gavin referred to a letter he had sent to Hubley (the text of this letter is
included at the end of the minutes). Gavin then began with two questions regarding the AOAC:
1. What is assessment?
a. This is something members of the faculty are constantly doing in the classroom.
b. It involves testing of students.
2. Where do I see the AOAC going?
a. Depends on where we are going
b. Low turnout of people
c. Participation is necessary
d. There is a need to do course assessment, not capstone courses
e. How students are performing on general education outcomes
f. We know the problems, but how to fix them is the question
Gavin mentioned that he would soon be attending a Middle States conference on assessment. Hubley
asked about the program on assessment planned for the Tuesday before the start of spring classes.
Gavin said the college had invited a speaker from Frederick Community College. Time would be allotted
for further discussion following the speaker.
Nicholas Plants suggested the success of any new assessment initiative will be linked to the need for the
college to do some structural thinking about our education philosophy, not just short-term thinking.
Furthermore, he said problems identified in Gavin’s letter stem from the lack of participation by faculty.
Perhaps the faculty does not see what benefits it has to gain from assessment (What’s in it for me?). He
then reiterated the need for a serious discussion of learning-centeredness and our core educational
philosophy.
Sandy Dunnington stated that the whole area of assessment and its many phases must be framed in a
larger paradigm. It cannot be viewed as the “flavor of the month.” The federal government and various
accrediting bodies are pushing assessment, and we risk having assessments mandated from above if we
do not do it ourselves. The more accountable we are the better. Dunnington added that she wants the
faculty to tell her what needs to be done, and she will work with us to make it happen. She does not want
a top-down approach, she wants us to work together.
Gavin suggested that the proper place to start is with the general education outcomes. Hubley asked
what could be done beginning in the spring? Plants said that what we need is the appropriate “interface”
of groups. Right now there is no functional interface between faculty, administration, etc. for dealing with
structural changes in the institution. Such discussions do not occur within the CWF. The Academic
Council has the potential to be such an interface, but it will have to avoid the pitfalls that have beset the
CWF and allow philosophical/structural conversations.
Eldon Baldwin said he does not disagree with Plants, but he sees the problem existing within the bulk of
the faculty themselves. Many of the faculty are either unaware of the problems that face us or they are
willing to ignore the problems and/or resist change. One big problem facing our students is their lack of
reading skills, and we do little or nothing to assess reading. Barbara Gage offered that a critical part of
the situation is the nature of the students who enter PGCC and their poor preparation for college.
Meanwhile, the administration gives us a mixed message about expecting excellence while increasing
retention. Faculty want to keep their jobs, and some may worry that higher standards means a drop in
enrollment. Dunnington said it is critical that we manage to keep up enrollment without compromising
high standards. Gage asked if we are willing to risk some short-term suffering in possible enrollment
drops if it means increased excellence and better outcomes in the long term. We are already dealing with
enrollment and budget problems, maybe now is the time to do something about it.
Gage then led a discussion about the exit exams we are giving some of our students, such as the
Academic Profile. She noted that this is different from the assessment covered by the AOAC. Over the
past five years, the Academic Profile has shown that our students are performing at a level below the
average, and they are particularly deficient in critical thinking skills. Gage said she would be attending
the Middle States assessment conference, and she hoped to get more information about different tests.
Currently, we are testing about 600 to 700 students annually, but we are missing important subsets of our
3
student population. We also need to make improvements in our methodology of testing. One problem is
that students know the test has no consequences for them, and many do not take it seriously.
Gavin said that one big problem is that students are being tested on outcomes of which the faculty is not
aware. Hubley added that there has never been any broad discussion of this process. The discussion of
assessment planned for the return of faculty on January 22 was being developed specifically to address
the need for such a discussion. Someone noted that the results of the test do not say anything that we do
not already know. We just don’t want to hear that our students are not doing well, as that implies that we
need to be doing more. We all want students who are smart, and we’re not happy about what we actually
get. Hubley said it is easy to have the view that “The students I pass are good enough. If students are
not succeeding it is because someone else is not doing his job.”
Gavin suggested that we are not putting enough emphasis on basic skills, such as reading and writing.
Laura Ellsworth said that adding a reading proficiency requirement to a class can be a big improvement.
Hubley said that some of his students in Anatomy & Physiology are coming out of BIO 101 with a D, and
these students who barely passed 101 are not ready for A&P. Plants offered the opinion that courses
such as the sciences are a different world from the general education curriculum. He expressed concern
that there is lack of communication between these different areas. We need to get the right people
together for discussions like the current one.
Hubley said that he has a meeting tomorrow (12/7) with Dunnington and Charlene Dukes to review the
Academic Council proposal and address comments on the proposal that Dukes had made earlier. Hubley
said he hoped to distribute a copy of the proposal to the entire faculty prior to the beginning of the spring
semester. Delegates should begin talking to the faculty about the proposal. Hubley hoped that he could
bring the proposal (with faculty support) back to Dukes for approval in February. He also hoped it would
not need approval by the CWF or the Board of Trustees. Hubley and Plants expressed some optimism
that the Academic Council could provide the kind of interface Plants had been describing.
Gage said that the faculty needs to be able to have serious discussions without fear of any penalties.
Hubley suggested that division meetings need to address important issues. He recalled no such
discussions at recent division meetings. The deans are a critical part of the equation. Ellsworth
remarked that the faculty needs to get over past problems and give the new administration a chance.
Pam Caesar agreed, saying that people need to get over their fears and get results.
Gavin asked what we do next. Hubley suggested that Plants, as chair of the General Education Task
Force, assemble a group of people for an initial discussion. Dunnington suggested assembling an ad hoc
committee consisting of the members of the proposed Academic Council. That way work could get
started quickly, with hopes that the Council would be officially approved in the spring. The Senate voted
on a motion to assemble such a committee, and the motion passed. Hubley thanked Gavin, Gage, and
Dunnington for attending the meeting.
B. One Brick at a Time project
Hubley briefly described the college’s “one brick at a time” fundraising effort, and said that the Faculty
Organization should consider purchasing one or more bricks. Some members of the Senate suggested
honoring specific members of the faculty who have passed away. Hubley suggested something more
general might be appropriate. Hubley said he would send out an e-mail asking for ideas.
C. Textbook desk copies
Hubley raised the issue of an e-mail about on-campus textbook buyers sent out earlier in the semester by
Dunnington. Hubley asked if there was any policy about selling textbooks. A discussion followed in
which it was debated whether a textbook sent to a member of the faculty was college property or property
of the faculty member. A clear verdict was not reached. There was agreement that the college can
regulate solicitation on campus. At the end of the discussion, the Senate decided not to attempt any
action on the issue.
D. Other new business?
_________________________________________
4
9. Agenda Items for Upcoming Meetings
A. Discussion with Sandy Dunnington, VP of Academic Affairs
B. Other items?
_________________________________________
10. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 5:15 PM.
5
Dear Mark,
I’m writing in anticipation of attending the December 6th Faculty Senate meeting, and with hopes
that what I say here will lead to potential solutions to the fundamental problems the Senate identified
regarding assessment as noted in the minutes from 10/18. I apologize for the length of the email, but I
think that my explanation here may allow us to move forward, rather than re-hashing issues with which I
and the Senate are both already in agreement and are overly familiar.
I see and agree with the many problems the Senate noted regarding assessment at the many
different levels at PGCC. In fact, Dr. Dunnington’s putting together of an assessment group, which I
represented on 10/30 has catalyzed multiple connections between and among assessment committees
on campus that were not speaking to each other before, with the hope that some fundamental changes
regarding assessment will be made in the near future.
In the minutes, too, there was recorded one comment that I think revealing of the origin of most of
the problems we are experiencing regarding assessment, governance, and learning centeredness. The
notion was that assessment, like learning centeredness, will go by the wayside. I really have no
investment in learning centeredness, but as an institution, we need to acknowledge where the problems
exist in order to fix them. And here is the problem: In practice and theory, assessment is supposed to be
the mechanism by which an institution is learning centered, and it is to provide working definitions of
learning centeredness. Moreover, as my presentation on 10/30 noted, course assessment cannot really
be given real and true meaning without faculty-wide consensus of an educational philosophy that is wide
understood and articulated through the Core Educational Outcomes. Finally, good governance structures
would make all this clear.
This is all to say that as an institution, we began the entire process of assessment of all kinds,
discussions of learning centeredness, and any governance issues, backwards. We should have begun
with faculty wide discussion of our educational philosophy and made the structural connections regarding
assessment after this. That is, the educational philosophy of the institution is really supposed to drive
academic assessment, make an institution learning centered, and allow governance to take place
thereafter. However, we never engaged in this discussion, despite my pushing many administrators for it
for nearly five years. And we all know that PGCC has a tendency to latch on to ideas and move ahead
without fully understanding the issue at hand or the ramifications of doing so. This discussion of an
educational philosophy would have, ideally, led to transparent and sensical connections between
assessment and governance; and uniform terminology regarding learning centeredness. However, as we
all know, the governance structure that should have begun a process that connects all of these issues
was not in place, and we are now all frustrated and lost. (It is perhaps fortuitous then that the Academic
Council is being discussed at the moment assessment is.)
My presentation on 10/30 was to begin the conversation about educational philosophy that should
have been held in 1998—a discussion that would have been the origin of assessment practices at PGCC.
Of course, there is still no governance structure for the academic side. Still, I hope I am not out of line in
singling out Gregg Weiss’ good comment that we are the ones in the classroom and know what the
problems are. He is right. At the most basic of levels, we need to understand that course assessment (I
am not talking about the Gen. Ed. assessment that measures students exiting our institution through
Academic Profile etc., which I am not a part of) is controlled by us, the faculty. If the current process is
not working for us, then we need to change it with the full realization that the pressures from external
agencies regarding assessment are not going to let up any time soon. There are department chairs who
can attest to the fact that I have worked with them to adjust the course assessment process to the needs
of a department. I am willing to do that for all departments, even on a case by case basis. In short, I
don’t think it’s the process that’s the problem. Actual participation is. And I think participation has been
stymied, partially, because assessment at the course, program, department, general education, and
institutional levels were presented to us in a problematic way. I hope that 10/30 was the beginning of a
corrective to this, and that Nick’s being head of the General Education Committee is as well.
Let me be clear: We need to shift our practices and mindset. But I do not think that the process
has been the fundamental problem per se. The fundamental problem is in how assessment first came to
PGCC and the general lack of opportunity to address real obstacles we all perceive (and have perceived
for many years). I mention this to emphasize that my presentation on 10/30, with input from committees
across campus, was geared toward taking a first step in bringing us back to the drawing board, while also
ensuring that the work of assessment continues at PGCC. It was meant to address the very issues I see
in the minutes. It was a presentation I have been waiting to make since 2004.
Although it seems we have put learning centeredness by the wayside, when external agencies
place emphasis on assessment, they are talking about learning centeredness. We as an institution really
have no understanding of this connection. The lack of such understanding is a symptom of the greater
disease regarding no governance of academic matters; no context and/or widespread understanding
6
given to different kinds of assessment on campus; and a lack of a general notion of how assessment can
be owned by faculty and part of the governance process. The healing of this greater disease begins with
the discussion and consensus on our Core Educational Outcomes that Nick is leading through the
General Education Committee. Let me say this a different way: I agree that things need to change and I
am arguing that the first step in this change is actual engagement in the discussion Nick is heading up.
However, if people do not speak to their representatives on the General Education Committee when they
are revealed, I doubt much will change.
I really have no dog in this fight in terms of process. But I think to attack the process of any of the
assessment on campus without first realizing that our structures here have been some of the most
significant problems would be to miss out on an opportunity and to invite more of the same. It would be to
treat a sneeze, when the problem is a cold.
There is some work being done at Frederick Community College that begins with what we all
know: many students are under-prepared, have problems coming on time, etc. It thus uses course
assessment to support discussion of research questions particular to the discipline. This may be a good
template for departments who are not engaging in assessment right now.
Tangentially, although I have nothing to do with tests like the Academic Profile, I, like those of you in the
Senate, think a value added test may help. Also, there were some very promising scores regarding
student self-evaluation in terms of critical thinking that tests revealed last year—why were these not
shared? Finally, it was brought to my attention that Miami Dade Community College has quite similar
CEOs as our current ones. Yet, they found that standardized tests like the Academic Profile do not
adequately measure student knowledge. They have moved to using a representative sample of student
essays to measure student knowledge of General Education. Again, this seems an issue for the Gen. Ed.
Committee as well as a governance structure--one that is not in place.
If we could begin our conversation with trying to solve some of these major problems, I think our
time may be better spent.
Best, Mike
P.S. I think it is worth noting that a substantial portion of the faculty finds course assessment worthwhile
and some of the comments in the minutes are overgeneralizations. I was struck by the fact that the
departments engaged in assessment are not represented in the Faculty Senate. Hence, the lack of a
dissenting voice regarding these overgeneralizations should not be read as evidence proving the charges
made therein.
7