The
Regular session – February 12, 2007 – 3:30 p.m. – Jacobson Faculty Hall 102
office: Jacobson Faculty Hall 206
phone: 325-6789
e-mail: facsen@ou.edu web site:
http://www.ou.edu/admin/facsen/
The Faculty Senate was called
to order by Professor Roger Frech, Chair.
PRESENT: Albert,
Badhwar, Basic, D. Bemben, M. Bemben, Biggerstaff, Blank, Bradford, Brown,
Brule, Civan, Cramer, Croft, Elisens, Fincke, Forman, Franklin, Frech, Gade,
Ge, Greene, Gutierrez, Houser, James, Keppel, Knapp, Kolar, Kutner, Lai,
Lester, Livesey, Magnusson, Miranda, Riggs, Scamehorn, Schwarzkopf, Skeeters,
Strawn, Thulasiraman, Trytten, Vitt, Warnken, Weaver, Wei, Wyckoff
Provost's office representative: Mergler
ISA representatives: Cook
ABSENT: Benson,
Draheim, Hamerla, Marcus-Mendoza, Raadschelders, Rambo, Roche, Tan
________________________________________________________________________________
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Announcement: Committee nominations
Big Event
Senate Chair’s Report:
E-mail
Library serials review task force
Health benefits
Science statement
Faculty Senate reapportionment
Grading scale
________________________________________________________________________________
The Faculty Senate Journal
for the regular session of January 22, 2007 was approved.
The call for volunteers for
councils, committees, and boards was sent to faculty, chairs/directors, and
deans on February 2. Nominations are due
to the Faculty Senate office by March 7.
Prof. Bradford, Chair of the Senate’s Committee on Committees, thanked
the group for volunteering to serve on the Faculty Senate and said that without
faculty service, departments and colleges of the university could not be
run. He asked the senators to volunteer
to serve on a committee if they were not already on a committee. He said, “If you don’t call us, I may call
you.”
Ms. Amanda Holloway said
faculty service and the volunteer effort at this university are vital to the
success of classes as well as the university as a whole. The Big Event, which is a student-run
initiative and will be held on April 14, is the university’s official day of
community service. About 4000-5000
volunteers are placed at various sites in the metro area. Ms. Holloway distributed a handout describing
the Big Event and an application to be a volunteer (available from the Senate
office). Volunteers are placed at sites
that match their interests. Over 120
sites and 3000 spaces still need to be filled.
Applications should be turned in by March 16. Faculty can volunteer as an individual or put
together a group. (See http://bigevent.ou.edu/.)
“E-mail Spam.
At the January Senate
meeting, the problem of spam was discussed.
During the discussion, the difficulties of accessing information about spam
filters were noted by several senators.
I met with Nicholas Key, who is the IT Program Coordinator. The short term solution is to go to the
support.ou.edu link and either search for help under ‘spam’ or ‘spam filter,’
or select the subject link of interest.
In the long term, this is not a satisfactory solution. OU
receives about five million messages a day, of which 90 percent are spam. The amount of spam has tripled since fall
2005. The spam filters unambiguously
identify 75 percent of all messages received as spam and reject these. The remaining messages are delivered, each
with a different spam score. The problem
is if a lower spam score is set as a cutoff, it is less likely that the spam
filter will reject valid messages, but more spam gets through. There are a number of substantial changes
that are currently under consideration, but IT perceives the need to do a
better job of communicating with faculty and staff. We discussed the need for IT to provide
information to faculty and staff about possible changes and options and to
receive feedback. We will begin this
process with a presentation to the Faculty Senate this spring by IT
personnel. They will talk about the
kinds of options they should consider and get input on how much control and the
nature of control individuals wish to have as well as how to make necessary
information easily accessible and transparent to system users.
“Library Serials Review
Task Force.
The library serials review
task force has been appointed and is beginning its work. The chair is Prof. LeRoy Blank. I will send you a copy of the charge and the
list of members. Comments, concerns, and
questions can be directed to the task force.
“Health benefits.
A white paper containing the
charge to the Health Care Study Panel, the structure of the panel and the
membership of the Steering Committee has been distributed to you by email this
morning. The strategy for developing a
comprehensive health care benefit plan is now being done in a very different
manner than previously. Prof. Bob
Dauffenbach, a member of the Steering Committee, will briefly outline this
strategy. In the March meeting of the
Senate, Mr. Julius Hilburn, director of Human Resources, will also discuss this
new development.”
Prof. Dauffenbach said he had
been on the Faculty Welfare Committee for four years and had served as chair
for three years. He said, “Health care
has been a ‘90 mile per hour train wreck’ waiting to happen. It has now happened.” Last year, the Faculty Welfare Committee
gathered faculty and staff opinion through a survey. That yielded a lot of responses and lengthy
comments. Prof. Dauffenbach and others
have been concerned the Employment
Benefits Committee is informed and advised about health care directions. The document given to senators -- http://www.ou.edu/admin/facsen/healthcomm.htm
(attached) -- includes an appendix listing several questions that need to be
addressed. He said it was time to
explore our options, become personally accountable, and find out what is
structurally wrong. Family care is so
expensive that individuals are opting out of the OU system, which leads to
higher costs. It is time to make
investments in health care information.
The study is about finding ways to become more sophisticated consumers
of health care. A steering committee has
been appointed by President Boren. OUHSC
has a health policy division that can provide support. Subcommittees will include people who would
be affected by any changes in options.
The new consultant specializes in university benefits consulting and
will help uncover the nature of our problems and sources of our
difficulties. Robust communication is a
central feature, and the obligation of the Steering Committee is to involve
users in the process. The study has both
short-term and long-term components. The
short-term question is who will insure us next year. Prof. Dauffenbach said, “We are all in this
together, and it is up to us within the constraints of the health care system
to try to figure out how we can effect a change.”
(See
9/06, 10/06, 12/06 and 1/07 Senate Journals for previous discussions.) At the last meeting, Prof. Frech asked a
small group of senators to draft a statement on science that would focus on the
scientific process. The proposed statement -- http://www.ou.edu/admin/facsen/senevol.htm
(attached) -- contains portions of the Zoology statement on evolution, which was
supported by the Senate in October 2006.
Prof. Fincke moved to amend
the document to include two sentences at the end of the third paragraph:
Because science is the fundamental way in which we
gain knowledge about the natural world, it is critically important that we
strengthen science education at all levels.
This is particularly true given the compelling scientific evidence for
global climate change and the profound economic, social, and political
ramifications that climate change will have for societies worldwide.
She said she had taken it from a revision proposed by Prof. Weaver. Prof. Frech explained that a number of scientists on campus had contributed to the drafting of the statement.
Prof. Albert said the first
sentence was similar to what was said later.
He moved to strike the second sentence of the last paragraph:
In an
expanding global economy that is increasingly driven by science and technology,
it is essential that our children receive a first-class science education.
Prof. Fincke said she thought
it would be all right to remove the sentence.
She agreed that it was redundant.
The motion to add the two
sentences to paragraph three was approved on a voice vote, with one
abstention. The motion to delete the
second sentence of the last paragraph was approved on a voice vote. The Senate approved the document as amended
-- http://www.ou.edu/admin/facsen/sensci.htm
(attached) -- on a voice vote, with one abstention.
The recommended apportionment
of the Faculty Senate for 2007-10 was discussed at January’s meeting. With no further discussion, the Senate
approved the recommended apportionment on a voice vote. (See 1/07 Senate Journal and http://www.ou.edu/admin/facsen/fsapporrep07.htm
for the report and http://www.ou.edu/admin/facsen/fsappor07.htm
for the recommended allocation.)
For background information,
see 11/06 Senate Journal and http://www.ou.edu/admin/facsen/gradingtfrep.htm
(attached). Prof. Frech thanked the
grading scale task force for doing an extraordinary job. The task force gathered information and data
from a wide variety of sources and obtained and responded to input from
faculty, students, and administrators.
The members identified the key issues and separated real pros and cons
from perceived pros and cons. The report
includes a set of recommendations with rationale, detailed process for
implementation, and a realistic time frame.
Members of the task force were present to assist in the discussion. Formal action will not be taken until the
March meeting at the earliest.
Prof. Biggerstaff said two
main points were brought up by the Meteorology faculty. Faculty members do not have to use pluses and
minuses if they do not like that system.
Another point was a suggestion to report the numerical average and
eliminate letter grades altogether since it is sometimes hard to distinguish
the distribution of grades so finely.
Prof. Badhwar commented that using numbers would make a finer
distinction. Prof. Biggerstaff said the
professor would not have to make the decision about where the division would
be; s/he would simply report the numeric grade.
Prof. Badhwar said she thought it would be harder to decide whether a
paper was worth 89 or 88 points than an A or B.
Prof. Mike McInerney (Botany & Microbiology), a member of the task
force, said not many universities use a strict numeric basis. Prof. Joe Rodgers (Psychology), chair of the
task force, said the task force tried to keep the behavior of faculty in class
separate from what happens in the Academic Records office when the grades are
filed. The charge to the task force was
to count how the grades points would be stored and compiled at the university
level. The members tried to avoid
telling any professor how to manage his/her class. The Meteorology proposal might try to
standardize across the individual class how professors would compute class
performance.
Prof. Bemben said his
department wondered how a B- would affect graduate students who need a 3.0 to
be in good standing. Prof. Rodgers said
that would probably be up to the individual program or the college to
administer. They might decide that a B-
would still be good standing. One reason
for not including a C- was the fuzziness in the status at the undergraduate
level. A lot more students are involved
in the issue of the C and C- at the undergraduate level. Prof. Frech said he wondered if the previous
recommendations for an expanded scale could provide some illumination.
Prof. Trytten said it might
be a good time to ask whether this kind of change was really wise. Changing a system like this will involve a
tremendous number of details. The really
compelling benefit seems to be missing.
Is the student learning more or better, and are we giving the outside
world a better indication of the qualities and abilities of our students? Prof. Frech noted that this meeting would be
one of the few opportunities when the faculty would have a voice on this issue,
and he encouraged the senators to make suggestions.
Prof. Schwarzkopf said he
liked the minimal expansion that was recommended. At the graduate level, only As or Bs are
passing grades. With the proposal, we
would have four passing grades.
Currently B- grades are not transferable to OU for graduate
students. For undergraduates, there are
only three passing grades: A, B, and C.
This is an opportunity for professors to send better messages to their
students.
Prof. Bemben said the Health
& Exercise Science faculty supported the recommendation and liked having
more division. However, they pointed out
that there was no advantage to an A+.
There would be no room for adding to the scale at the high end, but the
low end would be penalized. Prof. Frech
said the task force had made a number of points about the inadvisability of an
A+. Prof. Rodgers commented that the
main issue with the A+ is it would be inconsistent with the state regents’
policy. In fact, the status of the
plus/minus system would need to be discussed with the state regents. Prof. Bemben said the Senate had talked about
A+ options in November. Prof. Rodgers
said the task force listened to the opinions expressed by the Senate, studied
hundreds of other systems, and came to its best conclusion. The recommendation is a typical type of
grading approach at schools that have a plus/minus system. A silent A+ would mean something within the
classroom but would not be recorded in the system. This seemed to be the simplest way to
implement the A+ yet not be in violation of the regents’ policy.
Prof. Trytten said the IT
details involved in changing the system would be substantial. She asked if this was the most important
issue to put before the regents, or if there was something else that would mean
more to our students or to our constituents.
Prof. Rodgers responded that approximately 70 percent of the units that
sent information back said they were interested in having plus/minus grading. That is why the task force decided it was an
important thing to do. Prof. James noted
that 30 units had responded to the survey.
He asked how many units were polled.
Ms. Cheryl Jorgenson (Institutional Research), a member of the task
force, said the survey was sent to approximately 100 academic units.
Prof. Keppel said he was in
favor of the proposal because he could educate students as to distinctions
between various types of work that they do.
He could also make distinctions in terms of professional expectations of
students at the graduate level. He
suggested that an expanded scale was more urgently needed at the graduate
level.
Prof. Livesey said the report
indicated that the number of 4.0 students was likely to go down. He asked how many 4.0 students we have and
how different we are from other universities that have employed plus/minus
grading systems. He questioned the
effect the expanded grading would have on the award of NSF graduate fellowships
and the like. Provost Mergler said she
would estimate that about 50 students graduate with a 4.0. Prof. McInerney said the task force did not
have data on whether a 3.95, as opposed to a 4.0, would influence an NSF
fellowship; however, students are concerned about the impact on some very
competitive fellowships. Prof. Livesey
there might be ways to allay those concerns.
Prof. McInerney pointed out that we could see what happens as the
grading scale is implemented and fix any problems. Prof. Louis Ederington (Finance), a member of
the task force, said a number of schools had done studies, and none had
mentioned that issue explicitly. Most
likely, there would not be much impact.
Prof. Livesey noted that the
plan was to phase in the grading system over a period of years. Initially, students would see the plus and minus
grades, but the pluses and minuses would not be used to calculate GPAs. The report suggests that the process will
incur some cost to Academic Records. He
asked whether it will be possible for faculty to automatically move the grades
from D2L or other software into the Academic Records system and if so, why that
would not be cost neutral. Mr. Rick
Skeel, Academic Records director and member of the task force, said his office
has wanted to move away from manually entering grades. The system should never drive the
policy. It is not clear yet if the
grading system will automatically take grades from a course management system
or whether we will have a web-based grading process. He would like to give faculty members the
responsibility of loading their own grades.
There will be a cost to move to a new student information system. There could be additional short-term cost for
expanded grading, depending on where we are in the transition and when we make
some of the phased-in changes.
Prof. Frech remarked that
this issue will be an action item for the March meeting. He complimented the task force on a
remarkable, through job.
The meeting adjourned at 4:30
p.m. The next regular session of the
Faculty Senate will be held at 3:30 p.m. on Monday, March 12, 2007, in Jacobson
Faculty Hall 102.
____________________________________
Sonya Fallgatter, Administrative Coordinator
____________________________________
Cecelia Brown, Secretary