Members Present: Javad Abbasian (ChBE, vice-chair), Paul Anderson (CAEE), Guillermo Atkin (ECE), Patti Bach (Psyc), Boris Pervan (MMAE), Howard Chapman (Kent), Warren Edelstein (AMat), Ali Emadi (ECE), Bill Grimshaw (SocSci), Joyce Hopkins (Psyc), Andy Howard (BCPS, secretary), Bob Krawczyk (Arch), Art Lubin (AMat), Dietmar Rempfer (MMAE), Jack Snapper (Hum), Xian-He Sun (CS), David Venerus (ChBE), Catherine Wetzel (Arch), Chris White (BCPS, chair).
Members Absent: Mark Anastasio (BME), Shlomo Argamon (CS), Dale Fahnstrom (ID), David Rudstein (Kent), Judith Lederman (MSEd), Nasrin Kahlili (SGSB).
Visitors: Alan Cramb (Provost); Phil Troyk (BME), Saagar Patel (CAE student), Kunle Apampa (CAE student).
Chris suggested that we focus on two questions: whether the evaluation information should be made available to students, and how the evaluations can be set up to lead to better teaching. David Venerus (ChBE) suggested that we focus more tightly than that: our initial concern had been find a way to increase participation in the system, and recommended that we should concentrate on that issue. Xian-He Sun (CS) said that the administration had argued that the reason for switching from a paper-based system to the current web-based system was financial—that it cost too much to manage a paper system. Jack Snapper noted that it was actually administrators' time, rather than funds per se, that are unavailable to run a paper-baed system.
Javad Abbasian (ChBE) suggested that there are three approaches to improving student participation in the system: forcing participation; annoying students into participation; and offering rewards for participation. He said that the current system uses the annoyance approach, and argued that a reward-based system would work better. Joyce Hopkins (Psyc) provided a brief history of the evaluation system, including the empirical study that she and some colleagues carried out a few years ago. The study suggested that switching to paper would not by itself necessarily improve participation, but it did suggest that a modest incentive, like a drawing for several high-end iPods, might work better. Several UniFC members noted that the paper system works because the students present on the day of the evaluation constitute a captive audience. Chris asked whether we might be able to devise an experiment in which half the classes continue to use web-based evaluations and the other half switch to paper.
Alan said that if we come to him with a proposed approach, he will be willing to implement it. Catherine Wetzel said that one of the weaknesses in the current system is that too many of the survey questions are designed for ordinary lecture classes, and fit poorly with studio or lab classes. A shorter and more generic survey would yield higher participation and more relevant results. Javad suggested that an iClicker-based survey might work well if the survey were short; Catherine said that that eliminates the ability to leave comments, and the comments are actually the most useful part of the survey. Ali Emadi (ECE) asked what percentage of students currently participate. Alan noted that both Carnegie-Mellon and Rensselaer had similar problems when they gave up paper evaluations. Chris asked for volunteers for a task force to assemble a recommendation for the Provost: Catherine Wetzel, Jack Snapper, Andy Howard (BCPS), and Javad Abbasian all volunteered to participate, as did the two student representatives.
Phil Troyk (BME) noted that if we are unable to improve the system soon, the Council should ask the Promotions and Tenure Committees to discontinue use of the survey data in evaluating professors' teaching. Several Council members agreed with this recommendation. Joyce proposed a return to paper surveys, but noted that Catherine's suggestion that we shorten the survey might not help: the survey has been shortened before without an improvement in participation. Howard Chapman (Kent) noted that the Kent Law uses a very short survey and requires students to collect them: their participation level is high. Dietmar Rempfer (MMAE) argued that shorter surveys will work better. Chris closed the discussion by asking the task force to come back to the Council at its February meeting with a recommendation for action. Alan said that if the recommendation is specific enough and straightforward enough, it is possible that he could implement it this semester.
Phil Troyk said that UCoPT has, in the past, discouraged an oral gathering with the Provost because it has been concerned that the Provost might try to intimidate UCoPT members into changing their opinions. Bill Grimshaw confirmed that there has been a history of intimidation in this process as an embodiment of a conflict between administrative dominance and faculty dominance. Alan said he was shocked that the faculty have felt that kind of intimidation. His desire is to get a clear indication of what the issues are in a particular tenure case, and thought that might, in some instances, be easier to obtain orally. He wants more information so he can make a better-informed decision.
Chris asked Alan whether he is asking the Faculty Council
for permission to hold a face-to-face meeting with UCoPT.
Alan said he was interested in the Council's view on the subject.
Accordingly, Jack Snapper moved Council support
for a proposal that if UCoPT itself agrees to do so,
then a meeting should be held in which UCoPT
can provide an oral report to the provost.
Bob Krawczyk seconded the motion.
David Venerus reiterated the concern that this kind of meeting
might lead to bullying.
Ali Emadi asked whether CamCoPT might also want to have
a face-to-face meeting with the Provost somewhere in the process.
Chris asked that we limit our immediate attention to the UCoPT question.
Joyce Hopkins spoke in favor of the motion,
noting tht there might be assertions found in the oral report
that can be clarified by a face-to-face discussion.
Dietmar noted that in an oral conversation,
there might be several voices speaking,
leading to biases that do not reflect the consensus of the group.
Bob Krawczyk asked who writes the UCoPT report on each candidate.
Howard Chapman replied that a UCoPT member is typically assigned
to draft the report,
which is typically short and carefully worded;
it gets examined by the full Committee before it is forwarded to the Provost.
Patty Bach (Psyc) proposed an amendment to the initial motion,
appending the phrase "after the written report is complete" to the proposal.
This amendment was acceptable to the proposer and seconder,
so the motion as voted on was as follows:
Resolved, that the University Faculty Council
supports the idea of a face-to-face meeting between the Provost
and the University Committee on Promotions and Tenure;
provided that UCoPT itself agrees to such a meeting,
and that it be held after UCoPT's written reports are complete.
The question was called; the motion passed by a vote of 9-3.
The results of the process were that all 30 continuing projects were accepted, but only after extended discussions about some of them. Of the 24 new proposals, 6 were rejected, and 5 capstone-style projects were returned to the submitting academic units for further clarifications. The result is that 47 IPROs are available this year.
The Committee held extensive discussions regarding the dual-use projects, i.e. the projects that are simultaneously IPROs and departmental capstone projects. The committee is adamant that projects of this kind must be designed carefully, and it will be working this spring with the Academic Units to shape these dual-use IPROs into viable projects. Phil noted that Margaret Huyck has obtained an NSF grant to improve our IPRO system; the University will also engage a company called Apple Consulting to help with the development of the new projects.
Some Council members expressed concern about the involvement of the undergraduate admissions office in the IPRO system, particularly in terms of explaining IPROs to transfer students. Phil acknowledged that Admission's marketing of IPROs has never really taken hold, and it will be harder for it to do so now that many other universities offer similar programs. A pilot program to involve high school students in IPROs was conceived as a way of introducing pre-IIT students to the idea of an IPRO; the first of these projects will begin by this summer. One of the student representatives noted that the Admissions Office does invite high school guidance counselors to IPRO Day. Phil said he is working closely with Gerry Doyle to enhance the Admissions Office's involvement in IPROs. Alan Cramb expressed a concern over involving high school students too heavily in IPROs before they enroll: if the IPRO is an IIT-defining experience, a student should not be able to get that experience before becoming a student. Phil said the plan is not to grant academic credit to high school-age participants in the IPROs.
A brief discussion about how public this information should be followed. Andy commented that the corresponding report from 2007 is currently on the UniFC website, which is accessible outside IIT. Alan and several Council members asserted that this was too wide a dissemination of the report, and in fact that putting the UniFC minutes on an unrestricted website was inappropriate. Andy noted that he had attempted to privatize the UniFC website two years ago, and had been told to leave it public. He and Chris agreed to work out an appropriate way to make the Council's documents, including this report, readily available to faculty members without allowing non-IIT people to get to them.
Adjournment: The meeting adjourned at 1:52pm by acclamation.