45th Faculty Senate
October 14, 2010 – 3:30p.m.
Robert C. Voight Faculty Senate Chambers – 325 Graff Main Hall
Vol. 45, No. 4
I. Roll Call.
Present: M. Abler, C. Angell, J. Baggett, J. Bryan, B. Butterfield, G. Cravins, T. Gendreau, K. Hoar, J.
Holman, K. Hunt, S. Jessee, E. Kraemer, D. Lake, R. LeDocq, C. Lee, M. Leonard, W. Maas, M. Rott,
S. Senger, S. Shillinger, M. Tollefson, and B. Van Voorhis
Excused: D. Buffton
Absent: E. Kraemer
II. Minutes of September 30 FS approved.
III. Reports:
a. Chair (Becky Ledocq): No Report
b. Chancellor (Joe Gow):
 Update on alleged sexual assault case (with Paula Knudson). There have been many
concerns relating how this case is being dealt with, both on campus and in the media.
Paula and the Chancellor responded to these concerns and questions as best they
could, but they are restricted in what they are allowed to say. Please be assured that
both the university and the city police are carefully investigating all aspects of this
incident. People can follow the criminal case in the news. As far as the campus
disciplinary process, the campus police, as well as Paula and her team, are trying to
get as much information as possible to determine how best to proceed in dealing with
everyone involved. The investigation is continuing.
 SAH Dean Court Case Update: The final appeal final arguments are being heard on
November 30.
 Get out and vote.
 The impacts of the delay in the Cowley Hall project are being heard in Madison.
 Ongoing concerns with textbook rental: The interest of UWL administration is to
have a rental system that works for both students and faculty, but $180 per year does
limit what we can do. Work continues to try to make the system work for all.
c. Provost (Kathleen Enz Finken: No Report
d. CFO (Bob Hetzel): No Report
e. Faculty Representative (Becky Ledocq): This was the first meeting of the year. The next
Faculty Reps meeting is October 29. Please contact Becky if you have issues that you would
like her to bring up at the meeting.
 Changes in Extramural Fringe Benefit Percentages: The rate for faculty at the
comprehensives went from 44.5% in 2009 to 58.7% in 2010-11. This rate was
effective June 1 and was applied retroactively. This increase makes us less
competitive when applying for grants and makes it difficult to cover the increased
costs for existing grants. Rebecca Martin (UWS Academic Affairs) suggested that it
would be beneficial for Faculty Senates to consider writing resolutions against the
increase.
 eCampus Portal: This system is scheduled to launch soon. eCampus Portal is a
system intended to showcase fully only degree programs across system and market
these programs to in-state and out-of-state students. Some campuses are concerned
about the flow of money between campuses when students use the portal to find
individual online courses to take from other campuses. UWS does not anticipate any
such problems.
 Budget Update: The 2011-13 budget request has three parts: More Graduates for
Wisconsin, More Jobs for Wisconsin and the Competitive University Workforce (i.e.
our pay plan). While they say that the pay issue is foundational in the sense that it is
required in order to accomplish the other two, System is still moving forward with
More Graduates for Wisconsin. Their near-term focus is retention and graduation
rates...they consider these the low cost portion of the proposal. They have received
two grants from the Lumina Foundation for Education to help fund projects aimed at
these issues. For more information, you can read the meeting minutes when they are
posted, or look up these projects on the UW-System website.
 Collective Bargaining Update: UW Superior has voted on a constitution; while UW
Eau Claire has not yet voted on one.
f. Student Association Liaison (Cate Urbos): No Report
IV. New Business.
a. Online SEI Report (Bob Hoar, Karry Auby & Dave Koster – Mathematics, TJ Brooks –
Economics, Peggy Denton – Health Professions and Janice Ward – Interim CIO):
 History: In October 2008, the Economics department requested to use paperless SEIs.
In December 2008, Faculty Senate established a task force to look into the issue. The
task force report resulted in a pilot of online SEIs with the Economics and Mathematics
departments volunteering to take part. While both departments used Qualtrics surveys
to gather the data, they used different tools to development SEI reports. Math sent out
three email reminders, while Economics sent out only one reminder.
 Results: Both departments are pleased with the results and will not go back to paper
SEIs.
o Response Rates: Math had a response rate of 83.3% with their last paper SEIs
in Fall 2008. In Fall 2009, they had an 84% response rate with their online
pilot and 89% in Spring 2010. Response rates for Economics was lower at 66%
(slightly lower than their in-class response rate). The university average
response rate is in the mid 70% range.
o A survey of Mathematics faculty showed that the online version was viewed as
beneficial in both class time management and in the quality of feedback in the
form of written comments.
 Health Professions: The department of Health Professions is very interested in online
SEIs, as they have cohorts of students who are off campus at SEI time and have fully
online programs. Unfortunately, they have not yet found a tool that will work with
their programs due to the fact that they have multiple programs with multiple
accreditation requirements, team taught courses, non-traditional semester start and end
dates, etc. They will continue to work with ITS to try to develop a workable tool.
 ITS: The current system used for generating SEI reports from in-class scantrons is no
longer supported; therefore, we will need to do something with the system. ITS would
like to work with faculty to chose a system that will meet our needs – whether it be for
online or classroom SEIs. There are multiple options for online SEI report-generating
software – Math and Econ each developed their own, a MSE student is working on
another program and there are third party commercial products on the market.
 Discussion:

o What about response fatigue if all classes go to an online SEI? How would
response rates be affected? Is there a way to promote response – such as
withholding grades or not allowing students to view their final grade online
until they have submitted SEIs? Can Qualtrics provide complete anonymity – or
is there a system that could? Can students submit more than one response? No,
they can only access the survey one time per invitation – they get one invitation
per class. How would this work with team-taught courses? Students would get
multiple invitations (one for each instructor of the course). How many emails
would be generated? The program being developed in C-S is a single email
with one link. When the student clicks on this link, they would get a full list of
courses to evaluate. What about a pilot in CLS? Psychology has shown
interest.
Senators should bring this topic back to their constituencies for further discussion. A
pilot should be run in CLS before any campus decision is made. Once the MSE
student has a working demonstration, it will be brought to Faculty Senate for
demonstration and further discussion.
b. Undergraduate Research Committee Recommendation (Kathryn Birkeland): The UGR
committee manages the Journal of Undergraduate Research. This journal has moved from a
paper periodical to an online version. Undergraduate research on campus has gone from a
small subset of disciplines submitting to the journal to all disciplines. Unfortunately, the
editor does not have the capacity to properly review all articles; therefore, only copy-editing
takes place at this time. Submitting to the journal is optional, and students are asked to submit
only a one-page summary of their project to allow for publication in other journals as well.
The committee is proposing a change from publishing all submitted reports to soliciting one
project to highlight from each division.
Proposal
The Undergraduate research and creativity committee proposes to remove the current
format of the JUR and replace it with an online resource tentatively called “UWL
Highlights of Undergraduate Research and Creativity”.
This website will present one project from each Department* chosen by the Department
and submitted to the Office of the Provost. The source of the project’s funding is not
important. The emphasis should be on the quality of the work presented. An online
format has the advantage of being able to display images, audio or video more easily than
previous formats. Additionally, it can be easily linked to on a student’s resume or
job/school application.
The committee strongly encourages each department to establish/continue their own online
display of research or creativity for undergraduate students. Because we’re no longer
going to publish multiple projects from a department, we recommend departments publish
other submitted work on their own website.
The committee has chosen “Highlights” for specific reasons. With the burgeoning of field
specific undergraduate research journals, a mentor or student may prefer to publish in a
National Journal. In some fields, any “publication” may prevent further use of the
material in other publications.
Therefore we can avoid these issues, by producing a version of the work that is not
identical to the version published elsewhere.
The committee recognizes that different disciplines have different presentation formats and
suggests that each Department regulates the format their projects will conform to.
An approximate timeline for publication would be as follows:
Student submission to Department: end of Spring Semester
Department submission to Provost’s Office: first week of Fall Semester
Publication on Website: third week of October.
* We use the word “Department” to represent an organizational unit. Some
departments (e.g. those providing different degrees or very large departments)
may choose to be represented by subgroups. It should be noted that each
“subgroup” will be listed on the “Highlights” website each year and so it is
recommended these subgroups are large enough to be able to produce more
than one project each year.
Motion to table discussion. Motion approved.
V. Old Business.
VI. Adjournment at 5:18 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Kerrie Hoar