MINUTES OF MEETING NUMBER 152
OF The
Senate OF mICHIGAN tECHNOLOGical university

5 November 1986

(Senate Minute pages: 2539 -2556)

President Shapton called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. on Wednesday November 5, 1986 in the Faculty Lounge of the Memorial Union.

Roll: Twenty two members/alternates were present. Absent were: Richard Elrite, Bruce Haataja, Spencer Hill, Terry Monson, Philip Parks, Dennis Miller, Mark Osborne, Martin Jurgensen, and J. Kalliokoski.

Visitors: Bob Jones, Martha Janners, Peter Tampas, Duane Abata, Calvin Gale, Linda Belote, Duane Fair, and N.W. Suryanarayana.

Minutes of Meeting No. 151

The Minutes of Meeting no. 151 were accepted as written.

President's Report (Appendix A - Available by Request from the Senate Office).

President Shapton presented both a written and verbal report.

  1. President Shapton addressed the fact that the Senate have wanted a special session with a representative of the administration to discuss the current budget situation. Scheduling difficulties prevented this special session. Dr. Stein did, however, hold a meeting to discuss this issue on October 23, 1986.

  2. President Shapton covered new Senate appointments. Appointments were accepted.

Vice President's Report (Appendix B - Available by Request from the Senate Office).

Vice President Boutilier highlighted the discussions of the Academic Council Meetings of October 14 and November 4. She noted that Vice President Whitten had emphasized that graduation requirements cannot be changed for students already enrolled. Dr. Whitten commented regarding Item 4 of the October 14 meeting that some students had been known to take up to eight years to graduate. He knew of no mandatory time limitation for graduation. Concerning Item 2 (iii) of the November 4 meeting, the School of Technology may substitute PH201, 202 and 203 (NOT 204) for PHT210, 220 and 230.

 

Committee Reports

A. Curricular Policy - No Report.

B. Instructional Policy

The results of a recent survey of faculty are being compiled. A report of these results will be given to the Senate.

C. Institutional Evaluation - No report.

D. Budget

A meeting to be held by Dr. Stein and other key players is being scheduled. Budget Chairperson asked for any specific Senate inputs to this meeting. President Shapton said inputs/questions would be forwarded.

E. Faculty Fringe Benefits - No report.

F. Elections - No report.

G. Faculty Handbook - No report.

H. Teaching Effectiveness

Submitted selected quotations from recent issue of Engineering Education (Appendix C - Available by Request from the Senate Office).

Bob Jones, Director for Center for Teaching Excellence, presented background on current efforts to improve the quality of instruction by Graduate Teaching Assistants (GTAs). This presentation specifically addressed efforts directed toward Foreign National GTAs for whom English is a second language. Mr. Jones briefed the Senate on testing that has been done in the area of language proficiency on Foreign National GTAs. He also noted that Dr. Whitten recently issued a memorandum that a language improvement program for GTAs with English as a second language will be required.

Additional teaching improvement programs for other faculty are coming on line. Workshops/working luncheons are scheduled for later in the year.

A question regarding possible state legislation on GTA language proficiency was asked. Bob Jones stated that with our current programs Michigan Tech is probably ahead of the power curve and should not find itself in a position of scrambling to meet state levied requirements.

I. Planning

Duane Abata submitted a copy of the Senate proposal establishing the long-range planning committee. He also briefed the current status of the committee and planned activities. He noted the importance of enrollment trends and increased emphasis on student retention (Appendix D - Available by Request from the Senate Office).

J. General Education - No report.

 

Old Business - None

 

New Business

A. Senate Proposal 2-87, Teaching Effectiveness Policy (Appendix E - Available by Request from the Senate Office).

Martha Janners of the Teaching Effectiveness Committee presented this proposal to the Senate. She pointed out that if 2-87 was adopted it would replace Senate Proposal 10-85. Ms. Janners reminded the Senate that the committee has been working on this issue since November of 1983. In developing Proposal 2-87 the Committee has conducted visits to various departments and surveyed the University's faculty. Results of the surveys are included in Proposal 2-87. Ms. Janners went through the new proposal and pointed out any changes between 10-85 and 2-87. Changes include: the Director of the Center for Teaching Excellence will be an active teacher (an average of one course per term), the student evaluation instrument will be processed at MTU with exact procedures to accomplish this still to be determined, and student evaluations will be done in one section of each course preparation each term.

Other main points are: Proposal 2-87 specifically addresses the use of the results of student evaluations; peer evaluation mechanisms will be established internally by each department, and the ad hoc Senate Teaching Effectiveness Committee, with approval of 2-87, is dissolved.

The Senate approved minor amendments to 2-87. These amendments are incorporated in the attached 2-87 proposal.

A motion to present Proposal 2-87 to the entire faculty for a vote of approval was presented, but did not receive a second.

Proposal 2-87 was voted on and received Senate approval.

B. Proposal 3-87, University Core Items: Student Evaluation of Teaching

With minimal discussion Senate Proposal 3-87 was approved.

C. Proposal 4-87, Standard Report Forms: Peer Evaluation

Senate Proposal 4-87 was withdrawn from Senate consideration by the committee.

 

A motion that the minutes of Senate Meeting No. 152 reflect the Senate's deep appreciation for this committee's efforts was approved. Let the minutes reflect this appreciation and highly commend the members of the Teaching Effectiveness Committee for their outstanding work.

A motion was called to adjourn the meeting. Motion approved.