1. 1. Call to Order: The meeting was called to order at 3:14pm, with quorum.
  2. 2. Approval of Agenda: The agenda was approved without changes.

3. Approval of Minutes of the 29 October 2018 Faculty Senate Meeting: The minutes were approved without changes.

  1. 4. Faculty Senate President Report: Senate President Joe Moffett reported on the following issues:
  2. He was asked by Dr. Schneller, the Vice Provost to announce the event, “Setting the Table for Rigorous Assessments,” this Thursday the 15th, to discuss strategies for summative assessments. This “lunch and learn” will be in HH 112.
  3. As staff has today off, the Title III Director will be attending the next Senate meeting to discuss Title III funding and address faculty questions.
  4. The Faculty Committee elections will be tallied and certified by the Registrar tomorrow and then the results will be announced on Wednesday.
  5. The Faculty Evaluation form has been passed by University President Brown. We do not know if the administration will begin implementing it this year, but the form has been approved.
  6. PCC has been working on a survey for the Coordinator positions. PCC Chair Caroline Gibson will be discussing this in her report.

5. Curriculum Committee - Leigh Whittinghill: Chair Whittinghill reported on the following issues:

  • FSCC 18-19-03: New Course Proposal Form: the committee has added Question 9 about the delivery method (online, hybrid, traditional). Moving forward, this will help us determine how many courses are taught in which format.
  • 0 A Senator asked if faculty should check two boxes if the format may be more than one? Whittinghill responded yes, that is correct.

The committee has also added a Course Assessment Plan on the form, as faculty need to include criteria for success in the course. Whatever the final assignment is should be up to the instructor's discretion, but at least for SACS purposes, this plan will say what kind of assignment is to be the last assignment.

  • A Senator stated her discomfort with this column: if you are designing a course, and someone else comes along and teaches the course later, that instructor would be bound to teach the course in the way stated in this plan; this seems to violate academic freedom. Whittinghill replied that the committee is not telling anyone that the assessment must contain a certain content.
  • 0 Another Senator asked if it were possible to change the criteria for assessment if the course changes instructors. Whittinghill said that the criteria could change; such a change wouldn't need to go through any approval process, as long as there is a justification for SACS.
  • 0 A Senator noted that SACS wants us to show what we do and be consistent and show continuous improvement. This plan is just a way to document that we do assessment.
  • Another Senator asked why this is on the course proposal and not on the syllabus. Whittinghill responded that the committee thought that putting this plan on the syllabus might be a source of confusion for students. Also, it's not necessary for students to see that criteria for success of the course.
  • 0 A Senator pointed out that we need some stable assessment tool over several semesters.
  • 0 A Guest noted that criteria for success changes from professor to professor and semester to semester. Putting this plan in the course proposal locks it down. Whittinghill responded that language could be added which allows faculty leeway.