MINUTES OF THE COUNCIL OF ACADEMIC ADMINISTRATORS
1:30 p.m., Monday, December 8, 2003, in Lyceum 200
PRESENT: Dr. Staton, Deans Hopkins, Eftink, Chambless, Davis, Stocks, Rholes, and Chitwood, Dr. Wilson for Dean Wells, Mr. Samonds for Dean Sullivan-Gonzalez,
Dr. Rock, Dr. Angle, Dr. Fant, Dr. Hall, Dr. Clark, Dr. Womer, Dr. Kathy Gates,
Dr. Gispen, and Dr. Charles Gates
ABSENT: Dean Reithel, Dean Lee, Dean Wells, Dean Sullivan-Gonzalez, Ms. Nadeau,
1. Approval of Minutes. The Provost announced that Chancellor Khayat has approved the minutes of the September 15 and October 6 meetings without exception.
2. Reaction to Undergraduate Council Minutes of October 3 and November 7. On a motion by Dean Chambless and a second by Dean Hopkins, the Council unanimously approved the Undergraduate Council Minutes of October 3 and November 7. In the course of a brief discussion of the proposed amendment to the class attendance policy in the catalog, Dean Hopkins noted that he was unaware of any instance in which students involved in University-sponsored extracurricular activities have been unfairly penalized for their class absences.
3. Reaction to Graduate Council Minutes of August 22, September 19, and
October 17. On a motion by Dean Hopkins and a second by Dean Chambless, the Council unanimously approved the Graduate Council Minutes of August 22, September 19, and
4. New Event Planning Interface (see Attachment #1). Dr. Kathy Gates described the new event planning interface, and the steps being taken to correct problems in this new interface and subject it to further testing. In a discussion concerning the use of a resource checking facility in this new interface, Dr. Charlotte Fant and Dr. Gates agreed that conflict checking should be done initially at the departmental level, but that a final check of all conflicts should be produced by the IT department and given to the Registrar.
After a discussion of the event planning interface, the Council also discussed the new on-line evaluation of teachers. At the time of the Council’s meeting, there were approximately 9,600 evaluations completed, as contrasted with 21,000 evaluations completed last fall, and 15,000 to 30,000 evaluations normally completed. Students will have an additional opportunity to complete an on-line evaluation when they check for their grades, and there was some thought that this additional opportunity might produce a total number of responses more in line with prior numbers. Nevertheless, there was some discussion of what steps might be taken in future semesters to increase the number of responses. Suggestions included moving the date of on-line evaluations earlier in the semester and perhaps tying these evaluations to priority registration by either preventing students from taking advantage of priority registration or from having access to previously compiled student evaluations if they did not complete evaluations themselves.
Dr. Gispen noted that in his various contacts with faculty, the response to the prospect of on-line teacher evaluations was universally negative. The Provost noted that negatives of the previous form of student evaluations were that it frequently took four months for faculty to have the results of those evaluations and that some faculty did not want to spend class time administering the evaluations. In the course of the discussion, it was noted that faculty who made final grades available to students in some manner other than on-line grade reporting (such as through Blackboard) could be evaluated by students who already knew their grades. There was some discussion of whether faculty should be alerted to this fact, and the Provost directed the Council’s secretary to send a memo to University faculty informing them of this fact.
APPROVED by Chancellor Khayat on 1-23-04.