{
    "document_id": 13821,
    "page": 176,
    "width_pt": 612,
    "height_pt": 792,
    "rotation": 0,
    "pipeline_version": "paddleocr-vl-1.6+paul-48",
    "engine": "paddleocr_vl",
    "source_run_id": 13940,
    "item_count": 6,
    "counts_by_type": {
        "footer": 1,
        "text": 5
    },
    "build_ms": 1,
    "items": [
        {
            "id": "p176.1",
            "order": 1,
            "type": "text",
            "bbox": {
                "l": 68.64,
                "t": 718.56,
                "r": 532.08,
                "b": 662.64
            },
            "text": "define traditional definition of research (such as publication). Kim asked us to read/review and think about if we put in place a policy that is measurable as much as possible. We can develop one consistent policy campus wide and a plan can be discussed at the divisions level for its implementation."
        },
        {
            "id": "p176.2",
            "order": 2,
            "type": "text",
            "bbox": {
                "l": 68.4,
                "t": 649.68,
                "r": 540,
                "b": 486.24
            },
            "text": "A senator raised a concern how it be possible to have a standard policy that can be adopted campus wide since not all faculty have full teaching load, especially in College of Agriculture. Kim expressed the idea that the criteria for evaluating teaching effectiveness should be the same no matter if you have full teaching load or not. She said we should be evaluated same way since we all are teaching. Another senator said we teach different things and different types of courses (e.g. music, arts, computers, laboratory work) using different methods therefore we may not be able to have standard measures to evaluate teaching. Kim said she believes it should be the same criteria for evaluating every faculty's teaching effectiveness. However, for scholarship we can use Boyer's model. Another senator suggested standard teaching benchmark may be good for faculty who teach lower level courses such as College Algebra, for which national assessment standards for students' evaluation can be used."
        },
        {
            "id": "p176.3",
            "order": 3,
            "type": "text",
            "bbox": {
                "l": 68.4,
                "t": 478.08,
                "r": 539.04,
                "b": 269.28
            },
            "text": "Another senator inquired if we already have a general framework of faculty evaluation that can be reviewed and revised and applied across the campus. The senator argued that faculty member who are going for tenure should follow the same rule. Another senator argued that those criteria for “Meets Expectations” or “Exceeds Expectations” were never applied in many Divisions. It was discussed that if a faculty member is horrible in teaching would that person get tenure? It was discussed that it depends on how that person has been evaluated and his/her teaching load. Another senator suggested that annual DEA (Distribution of Effort Agreement) should be used as criteria for a faculty’s annual evaluation and can be used such benchmarks towards T&P evaluation. Another senator argued that some faculty are hard and others are soft to students and standard teaching evaluation criteria and students’ evaluation scores may be subjective. It has been discussed among faculty members many times that student evaluations receive poor response rate and are unreliable and the contents need to be revised to capture broader elements of teaching effectiveness. A senator asked if there is any research comparing the effectiveness of online evaluation against in class or paper evaluation."
        },
        {
            "id": "p176.4",
            "order": 4,
            "type": "text",
            "bbox": {
                "l": 68.88,
                "t": 261.12,
                "r": 540.24,
                "b": 97.2
            },
            "text": "A senator suggested to adopt DFW (Drop/Fail/Withdraw) rate for timely monitoring of teaching effectiveness during a semester. Some Divisions have been practicing this method and feedback to instructors have become very useful to improve instruction, monitoring attendance and assessment of students and a follow up of underperforming students. In some Divisions, Chairs keep records of DFW for each class and they follow up with each faculty twice a semester.\n\nThose faculties with high DFW rates submit a plan for improvement. But if a systematic pattern of high DFW rates is observed on a faculty it can be speculated that this faculty has some issue about his/her teaching performance. That faculty should be responsible for analyzing reasons for high DFW rate in his/her class. For instance, that faculty can develop a plan for adopting better ways to increase attendance and timely submission of assignments. A senator was concerned if high DFW rate can be considered as punitive. It was discussed that if a DFW rate is the only one"
        },
        {
            "id": "p176.5",
            "order": 5,
            "type": "text",
            "bbox": {
                "l": 301.92,
                "t": 60.72,
                "r": 310.08,
                "b": 51.12
            },
            "text": "2",
            "attrs": {
                "block_label": "number"
            }
        },
        {
            "id": "p176.6",
            "order": 6,
            "type": "footer",
            "bbox": {
                "l": 436.08,
                "t": 36.96,
                "r": 541.44,
                "b": 26.64
            },
            "text": "FS Meeting Notice Page 176",
            "attrs": {
                "block_label": "footer"
            }
        }
    ],
    "excluded_furniture": {
        "first": [],
        "last": []
    }
}