SENATE EDUCATIONAL POLICIES COMMITTEE
Minutes
December 2, 1996
Attending: Sue Whitney, Chairperson; Jean Blachère; David M. Crossman; Jack Daniel; Barbara Fredette; Leon Khaimovich; Brenda Manning; Tom Metzger; Susan Neuman; Tony Silvestre.
Absent: Elizabeth Baranger; Jack W. Birch; J. T. Cain; Kate Freed; Erika Nanz; Glen Nelson; Sharon Nelson-Legall.
1. The Committee approved the minutes of the October 21, 1996 meeting.
2. Founders Day:
In the absence of Dr. Baranger, Dr. Crossman was asked to update the Committee on the sub-committee's progress. He confirmed that Dr. Jamison, Dean of the Annenberg School of Communication will be speaking. A number of local people have been identified as potential panel members. Possible dates are February 27 and 28. Dr. Whitney reported that the ads placed in the University Times and the Pitt News inviting suggestions for next year's Founders Day did not elicit any responses, although the Committee agreed that the publicity was certainly beneficial. Dr. Whitney invited any members of the Committee who are interested in joining the sub-committee or who have suggestions for next year's speakers to contact her. She will be scheduling a meeting soon to start to plan Founders Day '98.
3. Peer Evaluation of Teaching:
Dr. Jack Daniel presented an update. He reported that all units at the University received a letter from the Provost's office requesting updates on the progress of their implementing peer evaluation. Units are continuing to send in their reports and Dr. Daniel will report when they are all in. Based on current reports and on other information, it is not clear if all units are implementing their peer evaluation policies. The Committee discussed the issue of peer and other teaching evaluation methods. The following points were made in the discussion and the Committee agreed that they will continue the discussion at the next meeting.
Successful examples of peer evaluation should be identified and shared with faculty and unit heads having problems with implementation.
Lack of compliance with peer evaluation policies suggests that these evaluations are not valued for a number of reasons. They include fear of faculty that the evaluations will be used to manipulate them, lack of trust in the competency of peers with varying levels of expertise in teaching to successfully carry out the evaluation, lack of value of teaching and an over-valuing of research; the lack of rewards for teaching, the lack of strong leadership from unit heads including deans and department chairs, lack of understanding of the various options available to carry out peer evaluation; lack of support for department chairs in carrying out evaluations and taking action as a result of them
Department Chairs were identified as key personnel in carrying out evaluation policies and in implementing them. There was general agreement that chairs may need support and information about what resources are available to them if they are to act on the results of faculty evaluations. There was general agreement that some action should be recommended by the Committee that supported new chairs through orientation or training. Dr. Daniel reported that some units do offer orientations and agreed to find out more information about them. Dr. Manning suggested that the American Council on Education offers training for department chairs and she agreed to obtain information from them.
Dr. Daniel acknowledged the Committee's interest in finding ways to reward teaching and asked for feedback on the following proposal: that with faculty, chair, dean, and provost's approval an individual unit could approve of a limited number of faculty for a limited time period in a particular unit be evaluated primarily for teaching-related activities. At the end of the time period, the faculty member's research activity would again be the primary criteria by which they were evaluated. This would allow the faculty in a particular department to take steps to enhance teaching that might not be possible without significant time commitments. Further, faculty whose research activity was not being supported for one reason or another could still contribute to the unit in an important way while she/he regrouped for further research.
After extended discussion, the Committee agreed to continue the discussion at the next meeting with the expectation that it would result in two or three recommendations to the Senate Assembly.
4. Further Discussion of Enhancing Teaching
Dr. Whitney distributed a short document summarizing previous discussions related to resources and enhancing teaching at the University. Dr. Crossman discussed the need to identify a Group 3 consisting of faculty for whom research is of primary importance and who have no interest in enhancing teaching. (The summary was revised to describe this group and is attached.)
Dr. Whitney stated that she would prepare a draft motion related to training of Chairs within the University and to circulate is as a draft prior to the next meeting.
Dr. Whitney announced that she would send out a calendar for members to fill out so that a meeting can be called for the first week back in January.
The meeting adjourned at 2:37 pm
Respectfully submitted by Tony Silvestre