Faculty Senate Minutes: February 1999

Log on

DRAFT MINUTES

Fifth Meeting Academic Year 1998-1999 of the Faculty Senate of Villanova University in the Devon Room, Connelly Center, Monday, February 8, 1999 at 4:00 PM.

PRESENT: Professors John D. Caputo; Victor Brooks; Walter E. Conn; Rick Eckstein, Vice-Chair; Trudi Graves; Lowell Gustafson, Chair; Karyn Hollis; Edward Kresch; Kenneth Kroos; Michael L. Levitan, Executive Secretary; Howard Lurie; Harry Strack; Robert Styer.

AGENDA:

1. Approval of Minutes

The minutes of the January 14, 1999 meeting were unanimously approved as read.

2. Announcements and Correspondence

Professor Lowell Gustafson noted the death of Jeffrey Shober, the husband of Trudy Shober. The Faculty Senate mourns his passing.

Professor Harry Strack gave some insights as to the status of the University Governance Initiative at the present time. He stated that this process is still in a state of flux.

3. Proposal for Protocol for the Periodic Evaluation of the Vice-President for Academic Affairs

The Faculty Senate, aware of the helpful service provided through the "Protocol for the Periodic Full-Time Faculty Evaluation of Academic Deans," respectfully suggests the initiation of a "Protocol for the Periodic Evaluation of the Vice-President for Academic Affairs."

Although no motion was passed at this meeting, after much discussion, a consensus was reached as to the desired composition of the committee to evaluate the V.P.A.A. and how to create a source of material to be used as a major component for the evaluation process. It is our proposal that:

The V.P.A.A. Evaluation Committee should consist of eight members: one Dean; one Chairperson or Program Director from Nursing; one tenured faculty member from each of the following areas: Arts, Science, Commerce and Finance, Engineering, Nursing; and one faculty member elected at-large.

The election of the eight members to this committee shall proceed as follows:

1) the Dean: by the Deans of each of the four colleges
2) the Chairperson or Program Director from Nursing: by the Chairpersons and Program Directors from Nursing
3) the Arts representative: by the faculty from Arts
4) the Science representative: by the faculty from Science
5) the Commerce and Finance representative: by the faculty of Commerce and Finance
6) the Engineering representative: by the faculty from Engineering
7) the Nursing representative: by the faculty from Nursing
8) the at-large faculty member: by full-time and part-time faculty

The electorate must satisfy the following conditions: full-time and part-time faculty are eligible to vote if they have been at Villanova at least two consecutive years. Therefore, full-time faculty with at least two consecutive years of service may cast two ballots: for their area representative and for the at-large representative. Part-time faculty with at least two consecutive years of service may cast their ballot for the at-large representative.

The process for evaluation of the V.P.A.A. should, in addition to other mechanisms, include a process similar to the CATS evaluation of teaching. That is, an evaluation form should be developed that asks questions about the performance of the V.P.A.A. All faculty then have the opportunity to complete the evaluation form anonymously. The V.P.A.A. Evaluation Committee would collect and summarize the results of these evaluation forms. The evaluations would be summarized and reviewed, and subsequently incorporated into a report along with other pertinent material.

This report would then be presented to the V.P.A.A. and to the President.

4. The New System for Scheduling Final Exams: Email Questionnaire for Full-Time Faculty

Professor Michael Levitan introduced the following motion:

FS 9899-5-1: RESOLVED

The faculty should be polled about the new system for scheduling final exams. Furthermore, the poll should be placed on the web to facilitate access and tabulation. The introduction, questionnaire and presentation follow.

The Faculty Senate is conducting a poll to gauge the reaction of the full-time faculty to the changes in the system for scheduling final exams. To do this, we are sending out an email questionnaire. We have also prepared a final description of the issues involved. Please click on http://dgprod2.vill.edu/~fsenweb/form.htm to submit your opinions. A copy of the questionnaire and presentation that appears below will also appear at the website.

1. Do you believe that the faculty should be consulted prior to a significant modification of any system to schedule final exams?
a. Yes b. No c. No opinion
2. Do you believe that suitable input from faculty was obtained prior to the implementation of the new system for scheduling final exams?
a. Yes b. No c. No opinion
3. Do you believe that the new final exam schedule was communicated to the faculty in a timely and satisfactory manner?
a. Yes b. No c. No opinion
4. Do you see any problems with the new system for scheduling final exams?
a. Yes b. No c. No opinion
5. Do you believe that it was necessary to change the old system for scheduling finals?
a. Yes b. No c. No opinion
6. Do you believe that we should return to the old system for scheduling final exams for Spring, 1999?
a. Yes b. No c. No opinion
7. Do you believe that we should return to the old system for scheduling final exams for Fall, 1999?
a. Yes b. No c. No opinion

PRESENTATION

The Master Schedule for Spring 1999 contains a listing (18th page from the front) for the dates of final exams. This schedule is based upon the day and hour a class meets. It represents a significant change in the system for scheduling final exams than that previously used. This change to the scheduling was decided upon during an early fall 1998 meeting of the Council of Deans. The date on this Master Schedule is October, 1998.

Members of the Faculty Senate have been contacted by many faculty members who are upset with the final exam schedule. They teach a number of sections of the same course, and they were not able to get a common time for their final exams this spring.

There are faculty who believe this procedure produces a final exam schedule that is academically unsound. For example, consider a faculty member who has two sections of the same course. There are some cases where the second section's final exam is five days later than the first section's final. What type of exam should be given to the second section? Potentially, some students in the second class will have advance information. How much more difficult should the second exam be to offset this potential knowledge? Should it cover different aspects of the course? How should students in both sections have their grades determined so that there is adequate comparability between sections?

On the other hand, it should be noted that under the new system for scheduling final exams, the number of student conflicts for final exams will most likely be significantly reduced. Furthermore, students can determine much earlier in the semester precisely when their final exams will be given. This will enable them to arrange for less expensive air travel home.

The faculty has been told by the Administration that Villanova Quality Improvement (VQI) was established to enhance the communication among the various constituents of the University Community. We are not aware that any of the existing committees (e.g., Academic Policy Committee, Calendar Committee, VQI Committees), University Senate or Faculty Senate were contacted to discuss the changes to the final exam schedule.

The motion was seconded by Professor Kresch and carried unanimously.

Motion for adjournment was carried at 5:40 PM.

Respectfully submitted,
Michael L. Levitan
Executive Secretary

---- End of Message ----