Present: Administration: Chancellor Gerald L. Bepko, Dean William Plater. Deans: John Barlow, Angela McBride, Doris Merritt, Robert Shay. Elected Faculty: Larry Abel, Margaret Applegate, Susan Ball, Ulf Jonas Bjork, Lynn Broderick, Paul Brown, Kenneth Byrd, Lucinda Carr, Michael Cohen, Jeannette Dickerson-Putman, Carlos Goldberg, William Hohlt, Dolores Hoyt, Michael Klemsz, Raymond Koleski, Golam Mannan, Rebecca Markel, Dana McDonald, Bart Ng, Michael Penna, David Peters, Richard Peterson, Rebecca Porter, Ken Rennels, Virginia Richardson, Edward Robbins, Bernadette Rodak, Jane Schultz, Jerrold Stern, Stephen Stockberger, Karen Teeguarden, Kathleen Warfel, Kathryn Wilson, Richard Wyma, Charles Yokomoto, Susan Zunt. Ex Officio Members: James Baldwin, Juanita Keck, Robert Lehnen, Justin Libby, Steven Mannheimer, Byron Olson, Carl Rothe, Martin Spechler, Richard Turner, Rosalie Vermette, Marshall Yovits. Visitors: Dean Erwin Boschmann (Faculty Development Office), Mark Grove (Registrar's Office), John Kremer (School of Science, Psychology), Joseph McConnell (Allied Health Sciences/Medical Technology), Doris Merritt (Acting Dean for Engineering and Technology), Melinda Phillabaum (Staff Council Representative).
Alternates Present: Deans: Ann Richmond for Walter Daly, J. M. Kapoor for Roberta Greene, James East for Kathy Krendl. Elected Faculty: Betty Jones for Elizabeth Evenbeck, Glenda Hood for Karen Gable, David Lewis for William Orme.
Absent: Administration: J. Herman Blake. Deans: A. James Barnes, Trevor Brown, H. William Gilmore, P. Nicholas Kellum, Norman Lefstein, John Rau, David Stocum, Philip Tomkins, Donald Warren, Charles Webb. Elected Faculty: Charalambos Aliprantis, W. Marshall Anderson, Merrill Benson, Joseph Bidwell, Diane Billings, Jana Bradley, Zacharie Brahmi, Thomas Broadie, Timothy Brothers, David Burr, Timothy Byers, David Canal, Paul Dubin, Naomi Fineberg, Patricia Gallagher, Joe Garcia, Bernardino Ghetti, Robert Havlik, Antoinette Hood, Nathan Houser, Henry Karlson, M. Jan Keffer, Missy Kubitschek, Stephen Lalka, Miriam Langsam, Debra Mesch, Fred Pavalko, Richard Pflanzer, Brian Sanders, Mark Seifert, P Kent Sharp, Ananatha Shekhar, Jay Simon, Akhouri Sinha, James Wallihan, Karen West, Mervin Yoder. Ex Officio Members: Henry Besch, Ronald Dehnke, S Edwin Fineberg, Paul Galanti, Carlyn Johnson, Stephen Leapman.
AGENDA ITEM I CALL TO ORDER
TURNER: I am calling this meeting to order. I would like to remind you to identify yourself by name when you speak so the minutes can reflect what you have said.
AGENDA ITEM II ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT - Chancellor Gerald Bepko
BEPKO: I have a couple of items. First, Martin Spechler asked last time about data on SAT scores for entering students. We were going to have that information today; however, due to some data recovery issues, we haven't been able to get that ready yet, but we will have it next time. Mark Grove is signaling that we will have it at the November meeting. Perhaps, before, if you are interested, you could call and we could send it to you directly.
Secondly, something we do have to present to you today is a new dean and I think he is attending his first meeting as a dean of one of our schools, but he has attended these meetings many times as dean for Research and Sponsored Programs or as an associate dean in the School of Medicine. As you probably know, Al Potvin resigned as dean of the School of Engineering and Technology and we were successful in recruiting the best person that could ever be conceived of to be the acting dean of the school and a person with extraordinary experience and a good friend of us all -- Dr. Doris Merritt-- who is a professor of pediatric medicine and associate dean of the School of Medicine and all sorts of other laurels in her career, including a stint with the National Institutes of Health where she was the first director of the National Institute for Nursing Research. Doris has already become a leader of the Engineering and Technology faculty. The faculty seem very happy with her leadership and I would like to welcome you as a school dean, Doris.
MERRITT: Thank you.
BEPKO: We have an event that will be taking place this weekend at the American Cabaret Theater. I thought that Bill Plater might mention the event.
PLATER: Tonight is the opening night for "Eyes" which I hope all of you have heard about. It is a musical written by a local poet and part-time faculty colleague, Mari Evans, based on the novel of Zora Neale Hurston Their Eyes Were Watching God. This is a very special performance in that it involves a lot of very talented people who are joined together as a partnership between the University and the community. The music is being written and provided by David Baker, who is an extraordinarily well known and very talented jazz musician and a distinguished professor from Bloomington, along with other colleagues in the School of Music. Darrell Bailey from our music program has been making all of the arrangements; Dorothy Webb (Communications Department) has been providing lots of support. It is an event that has brought a lot of people together to make this evening possible. The performances will be tonight and then Friday and Saturday nights and Sunday afternoon -- this weekend and next weekend. It is also being sponsored as a part of the Wordstruck program, which is a city wide event. There will be some other activities associated with Wordstruck including opportunities to talk to Mari Evans and people in the cast. But, as a part of our own contribution to the event, on Friday (tomorrow) there will be a symposium that will take place in two parts. The morning session at 9:30 will be led by Missy Kubitschek from the English department involving a panel of scholars from other universities who will talk about the play itself and the issues related to taking a novel and converting it into a play and musical. It should be a very interesting discussion.
In the afternoon, Claude McNeal, another of our colleagues from the English department, and the director of the American Cabaret Theater, which is also a partner in the production, will talk about the issue of funding for the arts and the changing political climate. So, this will be an event going on for a few days. We hope that you will participate in the symposium tomorrow and will have an opportunity to see "Eyes" during one of the eight performances.
BEPKO: We hope that you will participate in one of the performances or in the symposium tomorrow. Next we have some committees that have been appointed that I will call your attention to. We have copies of the rosters of some of these committees available on the table in the back if you would like to pick them up as you leave.
First, we have at long last the review committee for the Dean of the School of Science -- David Stocum. Laura Jenski is the chair. Laura is from the department of biology. You can see a list of the persons who have been appointed based on the recommendations of the school faculty and the agenda for the Executive Committee of the IUPUI Faculty Council. We have invited the persons listed on the sheet, in addition to Laura Jenski as chair, to serve as this review committee.
Secondly, the review committee list is not printed up, but I can tell you who is on the review committee for the Office of Vice Chancellor for Undergraduate Education. Sheldon Siegel will serve as chair and the committee will include Gayle Cox (Social Work), Kit Foster (Undergraduate Education Center), Ron Johnson (Retired Eli Lilly Executive), George Kuh (Professor of Education, Bloomington), Raima Larter (Chemistry), Bart Ng (Mathematics), Helen Schwartz (English), and John Snyder (Dean of the School of Allied Health Sciences). That letter has not been sent out yet so, among others, Bart Ng is here. He doesn't know that he is being invited to serve on this review committee; since he is smiling, I guess he will accept. [Laughter]
Also, we have search committees, one of which has just been appointed. Of course, Doris [Merritt] is Acting Dean in the School of Engineering and Technology. We just appointed a search committee for the deanship in Engineering and Technology. It is chaired by Antoinette Hood who is associate dean in the School of Medicine. She is a faculty member in the department of pathology and also dermatology in the School of Medicine. The membership of that search committee is listed on a sheet that you can also pick up at the back of the room as you are leaving.
Finally, if you are interested, there is a search committee that has been at work for sometime and recently filed its report. We have sent a memo to the school that is involved, the School of Medicine, indicating the four final candidates who were recommended by the search committee. Those final candidates include two members of the faculty -- Evan Farmer who is chairman of Dermatology, and Robert Holden, who is chair of Radiology, and two external candidates -- Charles Krause who is the Senior Associate Dean and Senior Associate Hospital Director at the University of Michigan and Donald Nutter who is Vice Dean and Professor of Medicine at Northwestern University, School of Medicine. Those four candidates with their titles are listed on a memorandum which we have copies of in the back. Should you want that for your file, you are welcome to pick up a copy of that as well.
Finally, there is in the mail to you, you may have received it already, I hope you did. In fact, let me ask how many have received the October 2 version of the Draft Strategic Directions Charter that has emanated from this Strategic Directions Planning Process that has been underway since January. How many have received it now? [Several indicated they had] That is very good. How many have not received one and wish to have one? Dana, I will remember that. But, if others would like a copy, would you let me know afterwards and we will make sure that one is especially designated for you. They will be sent to every employee of Indiana University next week. They were sent to every member of the IUPUI Faculty Council and should have arrived by now, but if you haven't received one, we will get another one for you. Kathy Warfel may say more about this, but we hope you will look at this, read it, think about it, talk about it, talk to colleagues, talk to us, and help us make this Strategic Directions Charter the best statement of the strategic choices that Indiana University must make so that it can help us all over the next five years or so become, throughout the eight campuses of our University, "America's new public university."
AGENDA ITEM III PRESIDENT OF THE FACULTY REPORT: Kathleen Warfel
WARFEL: Actually, I don't have anything to report today. There are dozens of things cooking but nothing is done, so rather than take up time giving a long list of things that you will hear about soon, I am just going not to say anything.
AGENDA ITEM IV QUESTION / ANSWER PERIOD
TURNER: Moving onto the Question and Answer Period. We have ten minutes for this agenda item. Are there any questions?
KECK: It is not that I don't want to finish by 4:00, but for those of us who couldn't get into the new parking garage, our primary parking area, if we are on the north side of Michigan Street, is the Dental School parking lot. There is no walkway or any way to get from any of the buildings on the north side of the street to the south side without walking through the grass which is now newly seeded and muddy. Are there any plans to make sidewalks or some way to get actually to the places where we park?
BEPKO: Are you talking about the area where the Cottages used to be?
KECK: No. Just south of where the Cottages used to be. There used to be parking lots just north of Michigan Street in front of Coleman and in front of Long. That is now all grass. There is no place to walk. We have to walk through there to get from our car to where we work. It would be nice if someone put a sidewalk in somewhere so we don't have to continuously walk in the muddy grass. Are there some plans for that since they have grassed in everything?
BEPKO: That is a good point. I don't know the answer, but I will find out and if there are no plans for any sidewalks, there ought to be some. We know from experience that if you don't build sidewalks in the places where people want them, they create what is called "desire lines" in the grass. I think what we would be best advised to do is to report back and if others are interested, we will make a report at the next meeting; if not, I will send you a letter, Juanita, and tell you what plans have developed as a result of your suggestion.
WYMA: I have a question directed to Vice Chancellor Bepko not so much in terms of an explanation at the present time, but I am asking for a future clarification. I have noticed in a recent U.S. News and World Report a listing of different universities in the country and some statistical information. I am wondering if at a future meeting of this Council you would be able to give us some indication as to how these numbers originate and how they are gathered. Also, specifically, I am wondering if you would bring up the matter of SAT scores of entering students. The U.S. News and World Report indicates that entering students have SAT scores ranging from 700 to about 940 which represents a low range for all schools in tiers one through four. One thing that I was wondering is if you could comment at a future time about the fact that only 6 percent of our incoming freshmen are in the upper 10 percent of their high school class.
Another item that I have noticed is that, in terms of our student to faculty ratio, the number of students to faculty is somewhat on the high end of all schools listed in the report. The education costs expended for students is somewhere in the range of $13,700 per student which is much higher than Bloomington, for example, and other schools in our area. Also the freshman retention rate is about 63 percent at IU, but only 25 percent of our students actually graduate from IUPUI. So, when I was looking at some of these figures, it seemed to me as though they would represent some important things for us to talk about and see if we could do something about it in the future. Maybe you could give the Council some direction as to how we can tackle some of these issues. I am not asking for a discussion right now, but if you could schedule one at a future time, I would appreciate it.
BEPKO: When you say "tackle some of these issues," do you mean reconciling the data?
WYMA: I guess with only 6 percent of our incoming high school students in the upper 10 percent of their class have ramifications in terms of our Honors Program. How difficult is it for us to get superior students, and what are we doing to encourage top notch students to come to IUPUI? Also, are the students that come to IUPUI as freshmen as well prepared as incoming students in other schools of our area? There are all kinds of questions that come to mind when you look at these statistics. Maybe you could give us some guidance on how the data may be interpreted.
BEPKO: But, your interest is in delving into the actual experience that we have rather than to analyze the scoring system of U.S. News and World Report?
WYMA: Well, the question that always comes up is how valid is this data? As a reader, I would have no idea as to how to interpret that.
BEPKO: The reason I ask is I think there are two separate questions. One of the questions that came immediately to our minds was how did we score in this third tier? In the previous U.S. News and World Report we had not been classified as one of the national universities. I think we are put into a regional category. Now, we have not only moved into the national universities category, but we have also moved into the third tier which was quite pleasing and we talked about this a lot in public. We pointed out where other institutions were. We said just one level above us were Bloomington and Lafayette in the second tier and just one level below us were institutions like Ball State and Indiana State. We thought that was probably a very accurate characterization of where we should stand as an institution. But, we also noted some errors. You haven't mentioned the one that probably is the most egregious and that is the one that specifies the amount or the percentage of alumni support. I think it is phrased in terms of alumni giving to the university. Our number is one of the highest in the whole national university listing. It is way higher than Bloomington. We are not sure if that is an accurate number. [Laughter] But, we did not protest the ranking. You asked where did they get these data? They get these data from the Indiana University Central Administration. Sometimes when data go from the University Central Administration to outside organizations we end up feeling that we have been disadvantaged because of the way it has been classified. For example, if you look in the Chronicle of Higher Education and you see the reports on research support for universities, you will find Indiana University listed. It doesn't say Bloomington or Indianapolis, it just says Indiana University and, of course, everyone thinks Bloomington but, in fact, a significant amount of our research seems to be included in that. We think that is probably a disadvantage in the way the data is reported for Indiana University. In this case, we think that the data may have favored us a little bit. U.S. News and World Report got it right when they put us in this third tier of working our way up into a higher tier in the national university rankings.
We will be happy to "unpack" some of these categories for you, but I think what you are primarily interested in is how do we stand and how many of our entering students are in the top 10 percent of their high school class and how does that compare with other universities that we like to think of as our peers? I think that would be a good thing to discuss.
One thing which was listed in that U.S. News and World Report study that I think is unesteemingly valid, it is not distorted in any way, and that is the ranking that was given to us by presidents of peer institutions. We were rated 129, I believe, out of the 240 national universities. That is not based on some data flaw. That is based on what people think of us and I think that is quite good. That puts us solidly into that third tier if not toward the top of that third tier. I think there are others in the third tier that have lower rankings in the estimation of university presidents.
TURNER: That is our 10 minutes for this item. We will now move on to our next agenda item.
AGENDA ITEM V IUPUI FACULTY COUNCIL DISCUSSION: Strategic Directions Draft (IUPUI Circular 95-42)
TURNER: This item calls for a discussion by the Council of the Strategic Directions Charter draft. Although we have tons of confidence in your abilities as quick readers, we think that, if you received it in your mail today, you may not be ready to talk about it as a body. What I would like to do is take 10 minutes or so to ask you for a brief discussion of the document drawing on the knowledge of those who have read it. I thought it might be useful if people could speak, at least from what they know of it, at this point, to the kinds of questions or concerns that they have about the Charter. What are they going be looking for when they read the actual draft? If we could do that, and if we could collect some kind of wisdom going into it, perhaps we could create some kind of study guide. That will make it easier for us to deal with the draft of the Strategic Charter at the November meeting. We would like to make sure that everybody is familiar with it. Then we can get a sense of the Council in terms of the degree to which the Council is supportive of the Charter or has significant concern that they would want addressed. It is not a matter of coming up for an up or down vote, but rather of getting a general sense from this body as to what we expect from it and how we think this will serve the needs of the University and our own needs. We can collectively generate a list of specific concerns or ways in which the final draft will be shaped. I thought we might be able to enhance that discussion if we spend some time today at least collecting what we know so far about the Strategic Directions Charter. I would like to open it up for people who have had some experience with the Charter. The Faculty Council has developed this schedule in order for an orderly and timely consideration. May I ask those of you who are familiar with the Strategic Directions Charter draft in whatever stage to speak to that in order to help us prepare for our reading it?
BALDWIN: I am curious as to whether some of the basic premises can be questioned at this point. I have a problem with the premise that academic units should be decentralized if possible and service units should be centralized if possible. I am not sure that the assumption that service units work better through more centralized as opposed to decentralized is something that should be proven. In my own experience in dealing with centralized service units is a lot less efficient than dealing with ones that are decentralized (i.e., here.)
SPECHLER: First, to Jim's question. That assumption can be questioned, has been questioned, and has been answered. When we challenged the President on that matter, he admitted that there would be many, many exceptions. Indeed, you can see, Jim, yourself when you read the document that it is internally inconsistent on this matter.
I would like to point out two inconsistencies. On the one hand, the general rule is proposed that academic programs be decentralized as much as possible. On the other hand, among the few definite proposals is one to make academic programs and requirements uniform throughout the system. Myles Brand recognizes that is an inconsistency and in that instance we will have to have centralization of some sort. There is also inconsistency with respect to the degree to which support activities will be centralized. It is inconsistent with the notion of cost minimization and stewardship of resources. While I didn't challenge him on that one, I assume he will say that it could be a big waste of resources to decentralize. For example, buying paper in Gary, -- we would choose to minimize costs in that situation.
Now for a more general comment because I have had something to do with this and like Kathy and some others, will have a lot to do with this within the next few days. I think you should view this as a request for proposals. There are questions and answers, proposals, and a report on things that we are already doing. But, the working end, the place where the rubber hits the road, is this is a request for proposals -- $18 million reportedly is up for grabs. The people in Bloomington are already working at their proposals to work themselves into the $18 million. People on other campuses are already worried that they won't work their way in. So, I think the first thing you have to do when you read this is think about how your unit or things that you are concerned about can be worked into a proposal. The proposal does not talk, and maybe, Jerry, you can answer about this, about who is going to decide where the $18 million goes. I assume many different directions in vastly different amounts. My first general comment is that request for proposals are things that the President is thinking about. He has taken the money and he is ready to hear proposals, especially partnerships, which I think are the most important idea here. If you have proposed a partnership that fits in, you may be funded. So, that is a general comment.
If I may make one other comment, it has to do with Ways and Means. This document, if you read it, proposes many different new directions for an education at Indiana University serving new a clientele with more flexible types of degrees, more flexible types of courses. Personally, I think that is all to the good. We have to be open, we have to be creative, we have to be accessible. The question is, what are the means to do that? What is going to be given up? How are we going to do that? That is really not addressed. What are we going to give up of our present activities -- not all of which are useless, I assume -- to do these new things? That is really not clearly addressed. However, if you read between the lines, it endorses technology as one way of doing that. I think that is correct, but we have to be careful. It also enforces the idea that staff and adjunct faculty will be used more extensively in these roles. The clinical ranks are explicitly endorsed. This presents, I think, a matter of first-rate importance for any faculty: should the faculty be teaching as many or more courses at Indiana University than in the past? I worry about that. I think that is a general issue. The general issue is, can we do more with existing resources? If not, what are we going to give up? How are we going to economize to meet those desirable objectives? Thank you for your patience.
WARFEL: Marty, I think you are absolutely right in urging all of us to think seriously about putting together proposals and to apply for some of the money that is available. There is a draft process for the review of proposals and the disbursement of the funds, but it is only in a draft stage at this time. The Agenda Committee of the UFC is going to be discussing it with the President next Tuesday and I certainly assume that, as we know more exactly how it is going to work, we will let everybody.
The proposals can certainly come from individuals or groups of faculty or schools or combined school groups, but on this campus we have put together a way of not only commenting further on the draft document, but also beginning to think about proposals in a collaborative way. Actually, Trudy Banta in her work with the Planning Committee on IUPUI Missions, Goals, and Aspirations, has evolved into this. What we are putting together, Richard and I were meeting yesterday trying to add faculty into study groups, there will be seven study groups on the campus and each of them will take a particular focus in studying the document but also take a particular focus in beginning to write proposals that we can submit from this campus. Again, we won't depend on these study groups entirely to be the source of proposals for our campus, but I think we have to get something started. I cannot recite what the seven study groups are, but two of them have to do with partnerships. One of them has to do with focusing on how we can evolve partnerships within our institutions, specifically, within ourselves on this campus and in liaison with West Lafayette and with Bloomington. Another study group is focusing on partnerships externally. One is focusing on doing a better job of letting our communities [our local, national, and international communities] know what our expertise is, what our interests are etc. One is about improving the climate of learning for students. I am not going to come up with all seven of them, but the rosters of the study groups are in the formative process right now. Certainly, if anyone on the Council has a particular interest in serving, let us know.
MERRITT: Kathy, what is the deadline for submitting these names? Are there any specific instructions?
WARFEL: At this point, there are no specific instructions for the format. At this point, the thought is that there won't be just one round of proposals and that is it -- you eight get it or you don't. It is envisioned that the funding will be available and handed out in phases. So, for example, the draft indicates that in mid February the first round of proposals will be submitted and then several months later a second round of proposals is submitted. So, it is not just a one-shot thing.
MERRITT: At first glance, it seems it would be May of this academic year.
WARFEL: Yes. The first round of proposals is envisioned coming in for review in February and funding being handed out during this year.
MERRITT: If they are, then the study groups are going to have to cram. [laughter]
(UNKNOWN SPEAKER): Could we get a list of those study groups?
KECK: They are the lists which I gave to you.
WARFEL: We chose good "crammers" for this. We had asked members of the Executive Committee to suggest names for these. The study groups are:
1) Enhancing the Climate for Learning That Promotes Students' Success;
2) Increasing Accessibility of Higher Education and Promoting Diversity Among Students, Faculty, and Staff;
3) Defining Faculty Roles for Changing Conditions (I think in the Strategic Directions Draft there is a lot about faculty roles and the changing needs of higher education and in society)
4) Developing Assessment Measures and Infrastructure for Data Collection that Promote Improvement and Demonstrate Accountability to External Stakeholders;
5) Identifying and Prioritizing Strategic Areas for Cross Disciplinary Collaboration Within IUPUI and Between IUPUI, IUB, and Purdue-West Lafayette;
6) Strengthening IUPUI Connections With Its Community, Especially Through Partnerships With Business, Industry, Nonprofit Organizations and Government Agencies;
7) Publicize the Professional Interests and Contributions of IUPUI Faculty, Students, Staff, Branch With Departments, Schools, on the Campus Locally, Regionally, and Internationally.
BEPKO: Just one additional comment. I think it is important to recognize that these seven study groups reflect an effort to merge the campus planning that has been under way to identify mission, vision, values, goals, objectives, strategies for our future and the Strategic Directions process. So, we are bringing two sets of vocabulary and ideas together.
The good news is that America's new public university, as it is defined by the Strategic Directions Draft Charter, looks a lot like IUPUI and the sorts of things that we have been talking about in the planning process that has been under way on campus for sometime. So, this merger will be a happy one and I think this is a very important process for us not only because of the potential for funding which lies just ahead, but also because it is a reaffirmation of sorts of the work that has been going on on this campus for a long time. When the study groups and other groups on campus, schools, departments, faculty, administrative units, etc., prepare their proposals, they will go through some process on campus involving these study groups, involving also Faculty Council committees, which will then be sent from the campus with a priority recommendation from the campus. So that we as a campus will get to say which things we think are most important even though proposals may be coming from every corner of the campus, we collectively will be able to say what we think is most important. That will then go to peer review panels composed of faculty members and the panels will review the proposals. In that process the proposals will also be sent to the University Faculty Council's Agenda Committee for their own priority ranking of proposals. They will also be sent to the Steering Committee of the Strategic Directions process. There is a steering committee of some 17 people. Kathy and I are both members of the Steering Committee and that Steering Committee will also have an opportunity to give priority rankings. All of this will then go to the President's Office and the President, with the advice of a lot of other people already then in hand, will decide on the grants. Grants which are not awarded in the first round might be awarded in the second round, which will probably be in the summer of 1996 and there will be a third, and maybe a fourth round after that, so that there will be multiple opportunities for projects to be funded.
MANNHEIMER: I found myself surprisingly in total agreement with everything that Marty said and, of course, Chancellor Bepko. [Laughter] I was part of the process, as many of you were, that created the primatorial draft from which draft was created. I want to echo Jerry's words. I think it does smell like IUPUI, particularly in the partnership's notion and the ability to interface with the center of the state which is we and the city of Indianapolis. However, one of the points that my little sub, subcommittee tried to make all summer was that if we were to take fullest advantage of those opportunities for collaborative ventures and partnerships, etc., that many of the efforts that will thus be expended and the directions that will be pursued will not easily or obviously smell like teaching or research, but perhaps more so like service. In order for us to take advantage of partnerships, we in our subcommittee felt perhaps a little greater emphasis on service, a little more "beefing" up of the third leg of our contractual tripod. Although I think some of that language was present in the primatorial draft, I think it got soft pedaled in this draft. I would simply urge all of us to think about that and particularly those people who have a hand in rewriting it, if indeed any rewriting is done.
TURNER: If you would please remember to announce your name when you speak. If you insist on not identifying yourselves, we will make up names but we prefer to have your real name in the minutes. [laughter]
NG: I assume that you will also welcome proposals from more people getting together from more than one campus, for example, IUPUI and Bloomington?
BEPKO: Absolutely. Not only that, but multiple schools, even with external groups joined in. I think it is also true that proposals will be more attractive if there is matching funding.
NG: I was thinking about getting the money as the matching fund for external funding.
BEPKO: That would be very attractive.
TURNER: Our hope is that this will give you some ways to begin your thinking about the draft as you begin to read it -- some things to watch out for, some things to look for. I hope that you will come to the meeting next time ready to develop some kind of consensus on this and also some specific recommendations to send along to the committee that is going to put the final charter together.
SPECHLER: Richard, you proposed that we have a general discussion and that is fine, but we are being pressed to develop a consensus and a list of concerns even earlier than that. There is a procedure that wasn't mentioned which is the E-mail procedure. Kathy is the one who will receive comments. As you read this and have particular concerns, we have set up a method through the University Faculty Council to receive specific comments and concerns. Kathy is one of the addressees on this. It would be helpful, I think, speaking as one of the chairs of the committees concerned, to hear from you rather earlier about specific problems that you have. I am concerned with the faculty affairs but there are others here who are concerned with other matters.
WARFEL: My E-mail on INDYVAX is KWARFEL@INDIANA.EDU.
SPECHLER: If you will distribute it to everybody else, I will be happy to receive comments about the faculty aspects of it, as will Rebecca Porter, who is the chair of the Faculty Affairs Committee at IUPUI.
BEPKO: There is also a listserv that you can sign up for. I don't have the address, but if you are interested, I will be happy to send it to you. The listserv will include all of the persons who are on all of the task forces. We call that now the Strategic Directions Council -- some 240 persons. If it is anything like the period when the task forces were working, there will be lots of communication back and forth on this listserv. If you are interested in participating in that, you are certainly welcome to do so. Anyone can sign up. All you have to do is get the codes and log on.
Also, on the World Wide Web there is a Strategic Directions Home Page, the address of which I can also get for you if you are interested, where you can access all of the original documents from the very beginning of the Strategic Directions process -- all of the original documents, the original reports of the task forces, and the appendices.
TURNER: We appreciate your comments on this. Now, we will move to our next agenda item.
AGENDA ITEM VI REPORT FROM THE TASK FORCE ON STUDENT EVALUATION OF TEACHING (IUPUI Circular 95-29)
TURNER: Our next item is a report from the Task Force on Student Evaluation of Teaching. I would like to ask John Kremer to introduce the document. You have had the document before you for over a month. John, if you speak to this and then we will open it up for discussion.
KREMER: Before I start, Dean Plater or Kathy, could you give us a little of the background about why you called this task force together?
PLATER: I will start and Kathy can correct and add to my comments. Kathy and I, in cooperation with the Executive Committee, decided to appoint a committee which John was the chair of, to look at student evaluation of teaching because there had been a great deal of public discussion about the role of student evaluations. The discussion had come from several different quarters including our own Board of Trustees and, more specifically, students who wanted to know why they could not have access to student evaluations as a matter of public record and to use that information in a publication that they could make available to other students for purposes of, for example, selecting courses. This was a matter of discussion in the Sagamore among other venues as you will recall last year. We thought that there were enough issues being raised that it would be valuable to ask a committee of knowledgeable colleagues to come together and think about the role of student evaluations both, in our faculty rewards process, whether for promotion and tenure or for salary increases, and to address the more recent concern about public access to student evaluations. That was the primary reason for appointing a task force at that particular time.
KREMER: The first thing we did was contact some representatives from the schools and ask them about how student evaluations were used. Every school that responded did student evaluations. They were often used in promotion and tenure decisions and also in salary decisions by the administrators. They were never given to students helping them select classes. That was the main input from the schools.
We made a request on some listservs to see what other universities did. A lot of places give this information to students in a variety of forms. We realized that the student evaluation has several audiences. There is the student, the department, the school, the university, and individual faculty members. Currently, the system is primarily for the benefit of faculty, departments, and school. The task force which was composed of faculty and some student representatives recognized the difficulty of publishing personnel information to a broad array of people. In fact, among the task force members there was no consensus on how to do that. With the wide diversity of schools and faculty here at IUPUI, and considering the recent experience that we have had with general education, we thought it was almost impossible for the task force to set a policy in this area.
As other input has suggested, the students on the committee were very strong in their requests that this kind of information be made available to students. What we did is put together a recommendation that, if the Faculty Council wanted to pursue it, the Faculty Council could so do. We thought that the best way to go from here would be to ask the schools a series of four questions and have the schools respond to these four questions. The first one we knew part of the answer to -- that almost all schools require evaluations be done. We recommended that these policies be put in school bulletins so that it is a matter of public record and administrators and others would know what those policies are. Those policies should also include how evaluations are to be administered.
The second issue refers more to the university level. Currently, we have one or two questions that are on the general survey given to students about the quality of teaching at IUPUI. That information has always been favorable. However, there are times when more careful data is needed. If the schools would like to do this, we have a series of seven survey items that every school could ask and then we could collect that data. For example, it could be grouped according to part-time versus full-time to see what the quality of that teaching is. A lot of people have questions about how well graduate students do. Graduate students could be listed as a variable. There seems to be a need to have information at the university level for reports to determine the quality of teaching at IUPUI more effectively than that one general question.
In regards to reporting data to students, we thought that the university could develop and support a central mechanism for storing that information (i.e., on the World Wide Web) but each school could determine what information would go in there. For example, at the least there could be a spot on World Wide Web for every faculty member. And that faculty, on their own, could say "Here is what my teaching philosophy is" in four or five sentences and include any data they so choose about their teaching. If the school wanted to require more, the school could require more.
Those are the things that we thought schools could address if the Faculty Council so chose. We decided to point out two other things that were striking to the committee. There seems to be no specific criteria stated about how this data is used in personnel decisions. The literature contains examples, I don't know if there are numerous examples, about how this information is not used appropriately in personnel decisions. We thought it would be a good policy if each school would examine how student evaluation data are used. It might be more important even for a part-time faculty.
The other obvious thing in the data from the schools was that almost every school representative was dissatisfied with how they helped faculty improve teaching. Although there is an office for that, this also seems to be a shared responsibility for departments and the schools. We would encourage schools to identify ways that faculty can be helped to improve their teaching.
TURNER: Thank you. That is the report of the Task Force. It is before you today for discussion. The report comes with specific recommendations about sending it to the schools to address the questions. We need to decide what we would like to do with it next.
WILSON: I come from the School of Science and for many years, under John Kremer's leadership, our school has used student satisfaction surveys that until last year have been uniform across the school. Faculty over the years has become more and more dissatisfied with the surveys until they finally convinced the dean that they need not be used across all departments. Now, departments are free to either continue using those forms, which many departments are doing, or redesign the forms for their own uses. One of the reasons we did this was because we felt that this is only a single measurement of teaching and that there ought to be a more comprehensive approach.
The one thing I really don't like about this task force document is the idea of reporting student satisfaction numbers to a central location and using them for whatever purposes. I think that is totally inappropriate. I also sit on the Assessment Committee for IUPUI and one of the principles that I think we have established is that assessment of teaching ought to take a very comprehensive approach. It should look at many different perimeters. When you boil it all down to one number, it is like stamping it on a faculty member's forehead. It does not necessarily tell you how good a course is or reflect how well it fits into the curriculum and performs its academic function. It can often be quite unfair to label a faculty member early in his or her career with this number when it changes over time. It is only one parameter.
Again, I think the student surveys are fine, but I think we ought to retain it only as one part of a larger picture and we ought to encourage schools to develop more comprehensive ways of assessing teaching and not ever use these on a campus wide level. If students want to know what student satisfaction numbers are for any given professor, they have always been free to conduct these kinds of studies themselves and publish them in the newspaper. They do that at lots of different universities and they can do it here as well.
GOLDBERG: Whatever is decided, I think it would be preferable instead of a single score to have a profile where the strengths as well as weaknesses of instructors are indicated. This would aid each individual instructor to focus on those areas in which he or she is weak. As of now, it seems to be just a single number as opposed to showing strengths and weaknesses.
NG: I completely agree with Kathy Wilson. In fact, I could share with you many horror stories which I have fully documented in my thick file. Let me just tell you why. I think the student evaluation is really not an evaluation. It is a satisfaction survey. Education often is a rather painful experience, unfortunately. It requires hard work and dedication which some of our students are not quite willing or mature enough to make. I will tell you one horror story. If anyone wants me to tell you with documentation, I will be happy to share them with you. I had a case in where I had an instructor that her evaluation was so spectacular that I was so impressed that I went to her office (she happened to work on campus) and tried to pay her extra to engage her to help me to do something experimental in some of our remedial level courses. In the meeting with this person, this person showed me a wonderfully, beautiful leather briefcase that this person was given and I was even more impressed when I saw that. I was convinced that I picked the right person to carry my load to do wonderful things for my students. As I said, I was totally caught off guard and quite by accident I discovered that what appeared to be the wonderful teacher was not at all the wonderful teacher. In a sense that, when I tried to do some tracking data trying to find out how this person's students do and how they did in the next class. Mathematics fortunately is very structured so we know exactly if somebody has done a good job in one course and the next course should have some correlation. I found that this person had given out A's and B's and not a single student from this person's course, with the exception of perhaps one, passed the next class.
This is not the only case I know of. I also had a full-time instructor who actually had problems with tenure and promotion. This instructor also had a rather lousy single number evaluation. In fact, that person had to be suffering in the process because he was considered to be not a very good teacher until I did some tracking. By that, I mean I take every student from that person's class and I look at what the students were doing in the next class -- whether they retain the same level of performance. I also look at that person's drop out rate and to my great surprise that person turned out, despite what every student said in the evaluation, to be one of the most effective instructors in my department. So, if anybody wanted to look at student evaluations and draw any conclusion from a single number, I think these are misleading.
SPECHLER: I, too, agree with Kathryn Wilson, of course, that a single number can be misleading, but I don't agree with her conclusion. Let me explain why. I think that the educational research, Bart's horror stories to the contrary notwithstanding, do indicate that student satisfaction is positively correlated, although not nearly perfectly correlated, with what people learn. That is the first thing.
The second thing is that assessment, my friends, is inevitable. We do owe our students, our supporters, and our stakeholders an account of how well we do. This is going to be part of it. If we do not do it ourselves, someone who is less close to the matter will do it for us. I think that is something that we should keep in mind. Now, this is just one number. What we should do is insist that there be other means for evaluation of teaching. Certainly, peer review which Barbara Cambridge has worked on, interviews with alumni, cognitive tests, nationally normed tests of our large courses -- all of those things have a role. But, then you will say, "Well, this is getting very complicated. How did students possibly evaluate all of these things and put it into a proper perspective when deciding which courses to take?" That is exactly the point.
This report seems to assume that the only options are not to give out the information or to give the information directly to the students. They are not the only options. I believe a proper option is to give a much richer set of information to the students' advisor. The students' advisor is in a much better position to appraise how reliable the information is, whether it is self-contradictory, or broadly confirmatory of the results, and it will strengthen our advising system here at IUPUI. Some of you will remember that I have spoken to this before. I think our advising system on this largely commuter campus needs to be strengthened and it needs to be strengthened by us. We need to tell the students in confidence what these assessments show and how it influences them because for an advanced, bright student the results will mean one thing and for a weaker student at the beginning of his or her career the results will mean a different thing. We have an obligation, in my view, to interpret these results. I believe that is way to go, that we should be interpreting these results for our students and help them understand the need for them in their educational careers.
LEHNEN: I also sit on the Program Review Assessment Committee representing our school [SPEA] and I am particularly interested in this issue. I am troubled by this report. I guess the two main questions that I wonder if the committee even considered are (1) What is your purpose for this? I have heard Martin give us a purpose and it is one that I don't support. That is, a discussion that we have had in the Program Review Assessment Committee. It seems to me that assessments can affect one in two ways. They are either designed to improve teaching and they become a device for informing the faculty members so they can get better. But, most often and especially in public schools the second reason is that they are used for accountability purposes. Somebody external usually to the faculty member decides what that faculty member should do and who should be accountable. The publishing of scores almost by definition says that we can't be like everyone else and that everybody is above average. If we are going to have a campus average or school average, some faculty members are going to look better and some of them are going to look worse. So, I raise the question why do we do this? I think we ought to do it but we ought to do it in the context of a Program Review Assessment Committee strategy of improving teaching and not in the context of trying to set some sort of Dow-Jones indicator for teaching at IUPUI. I think it would be counterproductive. You get a lot of fear and you get a lot of other problems, but I think we ought to clarify what we are trying to accomplish. I hope it is quality improvement in teaching and not some other accountability.
MANNAN: This document is wonderfully superficial. In recent years we have challenged the sole use of numbers and objective tests to assess student performance. We are now talking about performance-based assessment, portfolio assessment so that we can get away from simple numbers. We are talking about instruments that are more meaningful. This suggestion takes us completely in the opposite direction. It simply focuses on numbers -- simple numbers that do not convey any reasonable meaning.
NG: I am suggesting that we get rid of student evaluation. In fact, student evaluation does tell us one thing. If you make students comfortable in fact would help learning. But, it does not necessarily mean that everybody is above to create the same comfort level. I often tell students that sometime is not a bad thing. You do not go through life having the most perfect bosses and supervisors. This is part of the learning experience. I agree that the purpose of evaluations should always be one to improve teaching -- not to cover our back [or whatever part of our anatomy], but at the same time it must be multi-facet. It cannot be just simply relying on one number. Peer evaluations are very important. In fact, I agree with Kathy Wilson. If the students wanted to due evaluate to have their own perspective, they should be welcome to do so and administer their own evaluation and publish it. But the university should not endorse it because when we do it. I think this is one pitfall we must avoid. We should do more evaluations. We should even have peer evaluations from my part-time faculty. There is a lot that can be done, but I think if you stop student evaluations, that would be a real mistake.
KREMER: I wish we had had this discussion before we did our work. The focus we were asked to take was student evaluation. The response we gave was that there should be a discussion of these issues in the schools. We did not make a policy about student evaluation. I think a straw man has been set up and torn down. We asked schools to talk about: (1) how we evaluate teaching, (2) how we reported this data to students, (3) how we use that information in personnel decisions, and (4) what will we do for faculty development? The whole impetus of the task force was we could not make a decision for the whole campus. We anticipated this discussion. In fact, we had this very discussion for weeks in our own committee until we started looking at the evidence on student evaluation and then the whole plan changed. It is not surprising. What we are doing is confronting the Faculty Council with the issue of whether this is going to be dropped or are the schools going to pick up these four key issues and talk about them? We recognize, and this discussion again amplifies it, that you cannot decide these things on the campus level.
YOKOMOTO: I was on John's committee and John didn't mention some things to you that I think you should know. The committee debated this many, many times and, while Bart suggested I thought that maybe the students should do it, we thought that we didn't want the students to do it, that If this had to be done, because otherwise the students would not be listened to "Tell them No we just won't do it" would not be the answer. If it had to be done, we thought it would be better done by the faculty than by the students. We tried to implement a system which was as least threatening as possible. Remember, many things are brought up but then the notion was that faculty would not buy this. If you read this very carefully, I think you will see that there are so many jobs. I thought that Golam's statement of "wonderfully superficial" was close to what we were trying to do. [Laughter] Not to make it superficial, but we tried to set up a system that would be least threatening, give students something that they could grab hold of, and have schools not use that information for personnel decisions and let the students do what they may with it, but at least have some input into it so that it is not done at the student level on some superficial level. For those of you who had an immediately bad reaction, please think about it again because the faculty committee spent quite a few hours debating this, trying to create something to respond to the student editorial and apparently our administration's response saying that we will get our faculty task force together and do something. We thought the answer was not to do anything, but what to do to answer the question.
TURNER: In the few minutes we have left for discussion, could we address the suggestion that the report makes that we send this report to the schools with a request that are listed at the end of the report.
APPLEGATE: I would like to suggest that we do send them to the schools for the simple reason that I am very disturbed by the concept that we would even give as much credibility to an editorial that we would seek to give a shallow response. The issue is much broader than student evaluation. To give student evaluation that much power is problematic. So, I think if the schools look at what they are doing broadly in terms of faculty development, faculty evaluation, and faculty reward in the area of teaching, it might be more useful. So, it probably would be well to spend another two weeks. I would speak in favor of sending it to each of the schools and asking them what they are doing and what they plan to do.
TURNER: That was not a motion?
APPLEGATE: It was not a formal motion. Would you like one?
TURNER: We need one at some point if we are going to . . .
APPLEGATE: You have it. So formalized.
TURNER: Is there a second to that motion?
(UNKNOWN SPEAKER): I second that motion.
TURNER: Is there any discussion on the motion?
PORTER: Would you repeat what the wording of the motion is?
APPLEGATE: Sending this document forth to the schools and ask the schools to respond by indicating what their plans for faculty evaluation of teaching are.
TURNER: To send the report to schools asking them to respond to the four questions that the report asks. We can now discuss that motion.
MANNAN: I have a very simple comment. We can't afford to call it a student evaluation of teaching because that is not what it is. It is a student satisfaction survey. Start calling it that.
PETERSON: I have a question about where this information is going to go back to. When the schools evaluate, do they send it back to the Council in general, to the committee, or to the Executive Committee? How will that information be used and what are we going to do as a result of it? If we are not happy with the way the School of Medicine does its evaluation, what are we going to do about it?
TURNER: I would guess that since the task force is asking the questions that we would ask that the responses be sent to them.
LEHNEN: I would like to amend the motion that this report be submitted to the Program Review Assessment Committee for review and with the recommendation to come back to the IUPUI Faculty Council.
TURNER: That would be a substitute motion.
LEHNEN: Whatever you want to call it.
TURNER: We can't do that.
WILSON: The thing about this motion is that it asks for exactly what the Program Assessment Committee has been doing already and that is trying to get at assessment of teaching. Each school has a representative on that committee and what we are supposed to be doing right now is working up some kind of an assessment plan for our school. So, this is quite redundant. If we send this back to our school, I just want to warn people about that the experience in the School of Science is that when student assessment came up many, many years ago it was pointed out, "No, this is just one part of the assessment process. Don't worry about it. It is not going to be a number stamped on your forehead." That is just not what happened. It is really a great mistake to accept one number as being very meaningful. I think a document like this tends to lead to that.
LEHNEN: This committee has been in operation for three years?
(UNKNOWN SPEAKER): Three years and, as I said earlier, there are two representatives from each school. There is considerable experience already with this very issue. It truly is redundant.
TURNER: I think we can take that as speaking against the motion on the floor and then continue with the discussion on the motion on the floor and then vote on that and then we can certainly have another motion after that. Is there any more discussion on the motion on the floor to send this to the schools as the task force report requests?
PORTER: I would like to speak against the motion. I don't see how we are going to effectively utilize information that we have collected from the schools. If the intent of this group is to say, to take a direction, we want each school to establish a policy, then we need to do that. But, to send this information back to the schools and say, "Well, what are you doing? What are you thinking?" We haven't given them direction. We have a group that has experience with faculty evaluations from students in multiple different schools. We are delaying moving ahead and collecting information we are not going to utilize.
MANNAN: Call for the question.
TURNER: All of those in favor of the motion, say "Aye." [A few] All of those opposed, say "Nay" [Many] Abstentions? [None] The motion fails. Is there another motion to be made?
LEHNEN: I move that this report be sent to the Program Review Assessment Committee and ask them to report back to the Faculty Council.
(UNKNOWN SPEAKER): Second.
TURNER: Is there any discussion of this motion? [None] Hearing no discussion, I'll call for a vote on this motion. All in favor of the motion to send this report to the Program Review Assessment Committee with the request that they consider it and report back to the Faculty Council, say "Aye." [Many] Opposed? [None] Abstentions? [None] The motion passes.
AGENDA ITEM VI UNFINISHED BUSINESS
[There was no unfinished business.]
AGENDA ITEM VII NEW BUSINESS
[There was no new business]
AGENDA ITEM VIII ADJOURNMENT
TURNER: The meeting is adjourned.