Baruch College Faculty Senate Plenary Meeting
Minutes of November 6, 2014
MINUTES
Senators Attending: E. Axelrod (Law), C. Bellamy (Soc/Anth),M. Carew (Eco/Fin), A. Croker (S/CIS),
B. Ferns (S/CIS), W. Finke (ModLang), K. Frank (ENG), R. Freedman (ZSB), M. Goodman (COMM),
A. Grein (Mkt/Int’lBus), K. Guest (Soc/Anth), C. Hessel (Eco/Fin), R. Jain (S/CIS), G. Jurkevich
(ModLang), S. Korenman (SPA), C. Kulatilleke (NatSci), A. Levitus (CNSLNG/PSY), T. Main (SPA), T.
Martell (Eco/Fin), J. O'Keefe Bazzoni (COMM), R. Ormsby (LIB), A. Pearlman (PSY), L. Rath (LIB),
M. Seltzer (SPA) M. Stark (SPA), A. Vora (Eco/Fin), Yin (MGT), R. Yue (S/CIS) .
Senators Absent: C. Christoforatou (ENG), S. Dishart (COMM), C. Gengler (Mkt/Int’lBus ), D.
Howard (Math), S. Johnson (PSY), D. Jones (PolSci), W. McClellan (ENG), B. Murphy (HIS), M.
Ozbilgin (ACC), G. Petersen (Soc/Anth), P. Sethi (MGT), J. Weiser (Law), S. Wine (S/CIS), S. Wong
(MTH), J. Ye (ACC) X.
Thirty additional members of the faculty noted their presence.
The meeting was convened at 12:45 p.m. in VC 14-250 by Professor Chris. Hessel, Chair of the Faculty
Senate.
I.
II.
Approval of Agenda: The agenda was approved by assent.
Approval of the Minutes: Minutes of Special Meeting of October 2, 2014 were approved by
assent.
III.
Report from the Chair: Professor Chris Hessel reported the positive attendance at the General
Faculty meeting. He then explained the failure to approve the proposed committee on Educational
Policy, which will be submitted to the March 2015General Faculty Meeting
He then outlined the efforts to set the concerns set forth by the faculty as specific agenda items in
future Faculty Senate at meetings. He noted that pursuant to the request of the President, the next
Faculty Senate meeting on December 4th will be dedicated to the College five year Global
Strategic Plan.
IV.
Elections of Members of the CUNY Common Core Curriculum Committees: Professor Kevin
Frank named the nominees to the committees; their election was moved, seconded.
Subcommittee 1: “English Composition,” “Creative Expression,” and “Individual and Society;”
Eric Gander, WSAS/Department of Communication Studies
Subcommittee 2: “Mathematical and Quantitative Reasoning,” “Life and Physical Sciences,” and
“Scientific World;” Helene Eisenman-Barbour, WSAS/Department of Natural Sciences
Subcommittee 3: “World Cultures and Global Issues” and “U.S. Experience in its Diversity;”
Thomas Main, SPA
1
Professor Ashok Vora inquired as to the chairs of the committees. Professor Frank responded that
when the chairs were elected they would be announced. The motion of election was approved
V.
Election of Members to the Faculty Senate Committees:
Enrollment Management Committee Kevin Frank named and moved the approval of the
election of the nominees to the committee.
Edward Adams, Senior Registrar or designee
Angela Anselmo, SEEK
Cherry Aung, Undergraduate Student Representative
David Birdsell, Dean of SPA or designee
Ben Corpus, VP for Enrollment Management or designee
David Christy, Provost or designee
Kevin Frank, Chair of the Committee
Robert Freedman, Zicklin/Dean’s Office
Michael Goodman, Vice-Chair of Planning and Finance
Fenwick Huss, Dean of Zicklin or designee
Mary Kern, Zicklin/Management
Jeffrey Peck, Dean of WSAS or designee
Michael Seltzer, SPA
Mona Zamfirescu, WSAS/Mathematics
Ex officio: Kieran Morrow, Chief Diversity Officer
The motion was seconded and approved.
Educational Policy Committee: Kevin Frank named and moved the approval of the election of
the nominees to the committee. The motion was seconded and approved.
VI.
Report of the Provost: Provost Christy reported the process of evaluating the “three peat” policy
of repeating enrollment. He noted the initiative of Chancellor Milliken. The raising of the issue of
appreciation of student honesty and compliance continues to take place as an ongoing activity.
Provost Christy missed General Faculty meeting due to another college event. The issue of the
“three peat” policy raised by Zicklin is important. Data indicate that the problem is limited to
seven Zicklin courses, each of which is used as a criterion for entry into two majors: Accountancy
and Finance. I will work with Dean Huss to consider strategies to address this issue, because it
underpins the motivation for three-peat behavior by students. Modifying three-peat rule for all
ZSB classes in order to address this specific issue is problematic.
Doctoral education in science—meeting with Chase Robinson, President of CUNY Grad Center to
explore alternatives. VC Gillian Small and Pres. Robinson charged with developing a plan by Jan
15. Provost Christy has a list of Natural Science faculty who have special interest in this issue.
Graduate Enrollment workshops: We must turn around graduate enrollment. To assist faculty, staff
and deans, we have developed four workshops.
2
a. Enrollment
b. Revenue
c. Program costs
d. Marketing/core benefit proposition
Student Affairs: Dean of Students Art King has lead discussions on three issues:
a. Services for enrolled students who are veterans
b. The future of Greek social fraternities and sororities at Baruch
c. Title IX sexual assault training using HAVEN software for Baruch freshmen and student
athletes; eventual inclusion of other groups of students.
Provost Christy was directly involved in this academic integrity opportunity:
d. Academic Integrity video contest (cosponsored by Provost and USG)
Executive searches
Executive Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs—Christy and Martell (rep. UFS)
Deputy to Chief Diversity Officer Kieran Morrow
VII.
Teaching Effectiveness Evaluation Committee Report: (The report of the Committee has
been appended as part of the minutes). There were three factors to be evaluated. First the “best
practices’ being pursued in other institutions.
Professor Thomas Teufel presented the first two recommendations that first that a standard binder
of evidence as to candidates competence composition. The second recommendation concerns a
candidate’s meaningful statement on teaching. Professor Martell questioned whether the
presentation addressed the issue of student evaluation, given the sharp drop in student evaluation
participation. He expressed his hope of what can be done to improve student participation.
Professor and Deputy Provost Slavin indicated the measures being taken to improve participation
through experimentation and incentives. Professor Frank responded to Professor Martell question
by noting an equally important point that the study was directed to the meaning and effective ways
of evaluation other than student performance in subsequent semesters. Professor Levitcus said that
we should avoid “reinventing the wheel,” in that what the committee is recommending already
exists. Professor Martell wondered about the quality of peer evaluation. He noted that peer
evaluators need training in evaluation.
Professor Stephan Dilchert presented the recommendations concerning the evaluation tool. The
committee started by reviewing the literature on teaching evaluation. In addition the evaluation
forms over the last two decades were examined to measure the history of evaluation. He then
presented the new evaluation form that was developed based on the review. Professor Frank raised
the issue of bias appears in the peer evaluation. In that there is evidence that student evaluation
does reflect personal subjectivity. He suggested that this be considered. Professor Hampshire –
History suggested that the quality of teaching be described as part of the evaluation. She
encouraged that qualitative evaluation be included. It was responded that the narrative section of
3
the form few forms reflected actual meaningful evaluation. Professor Guest thanked the committee
questioned how the improvement in teaching would be addressed. Secondly, he inquired whether
an effort would be forthcoming to provide for teaching improvement. Professor Hessel noted that
the new form employed by Econ-Finance Department had the negative of the use of a five point
scale of measure rather than a six point would be appropriate. The fourth recommendation was the
peer evaluation is done by someone outside of the Department. Professor Engle-Friedman
questioned whether the form required review with the evaluated teacher. Professor Levitcus noted
that outside department evaluations would be a violation of the PSC contract.
Professor Sandeep Sreekumar reported the last two recommendation specifically number five
where the chairman’s report on the candidate’s general evaluation of how well the candidate has
responded to recommendations. Recommendation six is concerned the statement of governing
principles of teacher performance. Professor Frank stated that he did not see whether general
principles operated to achieve significant teaching improvement. It was responded that the “unimmeasurableness” of something is that we are attempting to measure should not impede the
process of improvement. Professor Engle-Friedman appreciated the use of metrics in evaluated
“Best practices” or “better practices” might be better achieved by mentoring rather than formal
metrics
Professor Ferns expressed the concern that what is being evaluated does not deal with a probable
majority of our instructor adjuncts and instructors.
Professor Hessel brought the discussion to conclusions as a continuing discussion as we move
through the Spring; he reminded the meeting of the important topic, the Strategic Plan at the
December 4th session.
VIII.
IX.
New Business: None
Announcements: None
Meeting Adjourned at 2:12 pm
Respectfully Submitted
Michael G. Carew, Faculty Senate Secretary
4
Report, Task Force on Teaching
Baruch College
Fall 2014
The Task Force on Teaching met 3 times in late spring 2014 to discuss possible new measures and
observations of teaching that could contribute to its assessment in the reappointment and tenure and
promotion processes. The contributing members of the task force were: Professors Stephan Dilchert
(Department of Management), Ted Joyce (Department of Economics and Finance), Sandeep Sreekumar
(Department of Philosophy) and Thomas Teufel (Department of Philosophy), and Associate Provost
Erec R. Koch. Professor Ken Guest (Department of Sociology and Anthropology) was able to
participate in the task force’s first meeting but had to withdraw thereafter due to other service
commitments. The task force presents its findings as recommendations listed below.
Recommendation 1.
Beginning in the first year of appointment, the candidate should begin constructing a teaching portfolio
(in a multi-ring binder) that contains evidence of teaching quality. The binder should contain:
- a complete list of courses taught at Baruch College;
- sample course syllabi, especially for new or significantly revised courses;
- examples that illustrate new or enhanced methods or techniques of instruction;
- new instructional materials;
- examples of graded work from courses;
- a grid of appropriate student evaluation scores;
- a grid of peer evaluation scores;
- evidence of teaching and advising effectiveness (e.g., performance of
students in subsequent courses, tangible results and benefits);
- a list of honors and awards received for teaching;
- a list of undergraduate and graduate theses or research supervised.
In departments where comprehensive reappointment binders are prepared annually following the
format of the College’s P&B Guidelines
(http://www.baruch.cuny.edu/facultyhandbook/documents/CollegePBGuidelinesRevFeb5-2008.pdf),
those sections from the above list not already included in the P&B Guidelines should be included in
the teaching section of the reappointment binder instead.
Recommendation 2.
The candidate’s statement on teaching should address not only teaching philosophy, but that
document should also address the following questions and assess success in doing so.
1) How does the area, level, breadth, and extent of your teaching fit the
mission and goals of the department, school, and college?
2) Discuss growth in your teaching, especially as concerns the development
of new courses, innovative or enhanced instructional techniques and
methods, and significantly revised courses. Have you learned new skills
5
related to teaching? Have you set and met goals for instructional
improvement?
3) Optional measures of teaching quality
a. Have you contributed to the quality of instruction beyond your
own teaching, such as assisting newer faculty members with their
teaching programs, coordinating a large multi-section course for
the
department, supervising graduate teaching assistants, or
participating in a graduate teaching assistant seminar?
b. Do you effectively reflect on, assess, and improve
teaching practices?
c. Do you effectively integrate teaching and learning with
student research, scholarship, and creative activities?
d. Do you use teaching methodologies and strategies that
effectively engage students?
e. Do you set and achieve appropriate learning goals for students?
Do you effectively assess student learning?
f. Have you participated in seminars and workshops on
teaching? This statement should be updated as appropriate.
Recommendation 3.
The task force strongly recommends the Department of Management’s peer evaluation form,
developed by Professor Stephan Dilchert, as a model for other departments. (See the sample at the
end of this document.) Departments may adapt that form as they deem appropriate. The task force
also endorses that we maintain the distinction between evaluative and formative portions of the form.
The former is to be used in candidate evaluation; the latter for referral to CTL and enhancement of
teaching.
Recommendation 4.
The task force recommends that, at a department’s discretion and with the candidate’s approval, at least
one peer evaluation be done by a faculty member from a department other than the candidate’s. This
would be intended to enrich the evaluative perspectives and to ensure broad consistency in standards of
teaching across schools and across the College. We recommend the creation of a panel of 6-8 faculty
who would participate.
Recommendation 5.
The chair’s annual evaluation and annual report should use information gathered from
recommendations (1- (4 and from evidence in Digital Measures to address the following questions and
substantiate responses to the following questions:
1.
2.
How do the area, level, breadth, and depth of the candidate’s teaching fit the
needs, mission, and goals of the department, school, and college?
Characterize the quality of the candidate’s teaching based on data from student
and peer teaching evaluations. Compare candidate’s teaching to that of
departmental faculty based on departmental averages for teaching evaluations,
6
3.
4.
5.
comparison with other sections of multi-section courses, and other comparative
measures of quality, including interdepartmental comparisons.
Has there been growth in the candidate’s teaching, such as the teaching of new
courses; development and use of innovative or enhanced instructional techniques,
methodologies, or course materials; learning new skills related to teaching; or
setting and meeting goals for instructional improvement?
Characterize the quality of the candidate’s advising. What evidence of quality is
there from students? From peers? From alumni? From the candidate?
Optional measures of teaching quality
a.
Has the candidate contributed to the quality of instruction beyond
their own teaching, such as assisting newer faculty members with
their teaching programs, coordinating a large multi-section course for
the department, supervising graduate teaching assistants, or
participating in the graduate teaching assistant seminar?
b.
Does the candidate effectively reflect on, assess, and improve
teaching practices?
c.
Does the candidate effectively integrate teaching and learning
with student research, scholarship, and creative activities?
d.
Does the candidate use teaching methodologies and strategies
that effectively engage students?
e.
Does the candidate set and achieve appropriate learning goals
for students? Does the candidate effectively assess student
learning?
f.
Has the candidate participated in seminars and workshops on teaching?
Moreover, we recommend that the chair work from and revise the previous year’s evaluation and report
in order to maintain a continuous narrative and assessment of the faculty member’s contributions.
The task force recognizes that answering some of the above questions requires information currently not
available to department chairs (e.g., normative information on student evaluations, peer-observation
benchmarks, etc.). However, we anticipate that changes to tools currently in use (e.g., online student
evaluations) as well as the introduction of new tools (e.g., standardized peer observation forms) will
enable assessment of teaching effectiveness in such a manner in the future. The task force recommends
that processes be developed to collect, prepare, and distribute the appropriate data to department chairs
by the respective offices (e.g., Institutional Research) or newly formed committees.
Recommendation 6.
The task force recommends the appointment of an ad hoc committee that would craft a statement on
teaching for Baruch College, principles that would be included in the Faculty Handbook, in the
College.
P&B Guidelines, and in all documents pertaining to reappointment, tenure, and promotion. One model for
this document is SUNY Binghamton’s eight principles of teaching
(http://www2.binghamton.edu/academics/provost/faculty-staff-handbook/handbook-iv.html#C1
7