College of Education Senate
November 3, 2006, 9-11am
Minutes
Attendees: Paul Baumann (Alt Grad. Stdnt Rep) ; Clarissa Coughlin (Admin. Prof. Rep) ; Francine
Hultgren
(EDPL)
; David Imig
(At large)
; Dennis Kivlighan
(Dean)
; Courtland Lee
(EDCP)
; Peter
Leone (Chair-Elect) ; Robert Marcus (EDHD) ; Robert Mislevy (EDMS) ; Natasha Mitchell (EDCP) ;
Sean Simone (Grad. Stdnt. Rep, recorder) ; Carol Anne Spreen (EDPL) ; Mike Stieff (EDCI) ; Bill Strein
(Chair) ; Christy Tirrell-Corbin (At large)
I.
Approval/Modifications of Today’s Approved Agenda a.
Agenda approved without changes by consent.
II.
Approval of Minutes of Senate Meeting October 6, 2006 a.
Minutes approved without changes by consent.
III.
Updates and Dialogue with the Dean a.
Dr. Kivlighan requested to open the discussion so he may be able to answer questions of concern to the Senate. b.
Course evaluations – did the committee tasked with developing the campus evaluations consider the impact of their decisions on grade inflation or other similar pressures? Why are some questions public and some not? i.
Questions for the evaluation were developed using other institutions. Dr.
Kivlighan would have preferred an instrument with known psychometric properties, but we are developing our own. ii.
Questions aren’t all public because of a quirk in the Maryland law.
Information that is used for personnel decisions (including tenure) cannot be made public.
1.
A suggestion was made to evaluate the questions. Is there still time to change the questions?
2.
Decisions were made for the private questions based upon what would be most useful in making tenure decisions. This process is currently being reviewed by the Campus Senate. We in the college do not have the option to choose the items to review or not, our option is to add questions in addition to the campus evaluations.
Any changes at this point needs to go the Campus Senate.
3.
There were some individual concerns over the public questions.
Those concerns should be directed to the campus representative.
4.
Questions are currently being piloted in departments on campus.
5.
A number of senate members held concerns about the process concerning the approval of the course evaluation items. Each faculty meeting should make sure that their Senate representative keeps them informed of campus issues.

6.
Grade Inflation: issues were raised at the task force but there were no strategies to address. There is no empirical data to verify that this is a problem or to lead to a solution.
IV.
Discussion of, and Voting on, Proposal from Steering Committee for a Spring 2006
Pilot of a New System for Evaluation of Instruction (See Attachment B) a.
Departmental Discussions i.
EDCI Faculty Meeting: Department raised made many concerns over the
SEEQ items. The concern is the sheer number of items and students in the class. Will students answer, how much time will it take students, and who will evaluate the data? The department voted unanimously not to include
SEEQ items so much so that the department will opt out if they are approved by the Senate. ii.
EDSP Faculty Meeting: Feedback was mixed. One individual stated that campus questions were fine; another suggested just selected some questions off another instrument. There are also concerns over the number of items on the survey if approved. No clear consensus on the direction of the evaluation process. iii.
EDCP Faculty Meeting: Most faculty had concerns over the SEEQ items.
Other people believe that response rates are going to be a concern especially when decisions are used for P & T decisions. Suggestion was to also administer a paper administration. Some suggested to use the
SEEQ internally for research purposes and not evaluative. The SEEQ seems to be for more traditional courses and doesn’t seem appropriate for all courses (like internship courses). There is definitely trepidation in adopting SEEQ items. iv.
EDHD Faculty Meeting: No one had objection, but unsure if faculty really got into the discussion. Faculty didn’t seem troubled by the SEEQ items. Weren’t particularly concerned with the number of items. Perhaps add a question to the pilot study to better understand if a student is felt inconvenienced by the number of questions. v.
Talked about response rates in online administration of the evaluation. vi.
Vote to pilot questions. A majority vote favor of piloting SEEQ and campus questions in some classes/departments in the college.
V.
Update from the EPG Doctorate Group, and Discussion of Proposal for a Symposium a.
Powerpoint of presentation will be sent on the COE Senate listserv. b.
Senate drew a charge to study the doctorate degree. Five charges: i.
Study current offerings in the doctorate degree in COE. ii.
Gather information regarding doctoral experiences. iii.
Host a series of forums on condition of the doctorate. iv.
Explore what peers are doing to strengthen the doctorate v.
Develop recommendations to strengthen the doctorate. c.
Detailed multiple reasons why the entire higher education sector finds a need to evaluate the doctorate

d.
Three pools of doctorates: i.
People who go to or back to PK-12 schools. ii.
People who go as researchers or faculty into research extensive universities/laboratories. iii.
People who go to other higher education institutions (other than Research
I) or other organizations. e.
New thoughts about practitioner focused degrees: Professional doctorates.
Balancing research degrees with practitioner degrees. f.
The changing professorate: Less than half of the faculty in the United States is in non-tenured positions. g.
Next steps: We have asked for data on graduate student enrollment; we want to compare student profiles with other institutions. We are also planning to create a faculty forum to discuss these issues. h.
Goal is to create involvement in the campus and system governance to get buy-in for focusing on the quality of the doctorate. i.
Faculty should begin to discuss their vision of the doctorate at the department level in preparation of the forum. j.
Report will be submitted with recommendations to the Senate about reforming and strengthening the doctorate degree.
VI.
Update from Dean’s Search Committee Members a.
Committee is looking to inform the public about the position. Any suggestions for where to post the position (listservs and publications) would be appreciated. b.
December 15 th
is the target applications deadline. c.
If you have any individuals to nominate, please inform the committee. d.
Target offer date for new Dean is in April. Target interviews set for February.
VII.
Proposed Change of Meeting time for Senate a.
Proposed change to start meeting at 10am instead of 9am. b.
Since two people are unable to attend, meeting time will remain at 9am.
VIII.
School Violence a.
A statement has been circulated to professional organizations to address school violence. Propose putting this statement on the education website to encourage discussion on the topic. b.
Statement will be circulated on the listserv. Please respond over email and electronic vote on endorsing statement.
XI.
What do we want to see in a Dean? a.
Add an agenda item to the next meeting to discuss this issue. This is very important because there are people on the committee who are unaware of the what being a dean entails. Come to the next meeting ready to discuss. b.
Graduate student representative will attempt to get feedback from graduate students.

XI.
Adjournment. 10:40am.