Chancellor Keating stated his view that teaching, creative/scholarly activity, and service are not distinct, disconnected aspects of faculty performance. In part, this is due to the pressure on public universities to give special attention to the communities they serve. Universities have also become more student-centered. In recent years, the teaching mission has been revitalized in universities across the country and given greater emphasis in tenure/promotion decisions. Research on pedagogy and creative/scholarly activity that addresses community needs is being valued more highly. Public universities must provide service, bringing expertise to bear on the problems their communities face. In the parlance of contemporary higher education, public universities have become more "engaged." This movement has rendered the boundaries between teaching, creative/scholarly activity, and service less distinct.
In this environment, how should we judge/reward the work that faculty do? In the Chancellor's view, our judgements should continue to be based on quality, not quantity, but no particular set of standards should be applied to everyone. Faculty members have differing strengths that must be matched with the strategic plans of their departments to fulfill the mission and vision of the institution. The vision statement of UW-Parkside commits the institution to finding creative ways of facilitating and integrating learning. It also commits us to broadening the definition of scholarship to include modes of inquiry which have more immediate connection with and consequences for our campus and community. Not every faculty member, or even every department, needs to be involved in community-based learning, but those who do should be rewarded for it. At the same time, we must continue to value traditional efforts to create and add to what we know about ourselves and the world around us.
The Chancellor strongly expressed his view that the evaluation of teaching and learning requires multiple measures, certainly more than student teaching evaluations. He also expressed the view that, in evaluating overall performance, the weights placed on teaching, creative/scholarly activity, and service may differ from one person to another, to enable the departments to take best advantage of differences in individual strengths while carrying out their strategic plans. Finally, the Chancellor indicated that he is concerned about the paucity of professional development opportunities that are available to facilitate departmental strategic plans. He hopes that our engagement with the community will eventually enable us to enjoy greater community support for faculty development.
Dean Cress suggested that teaching portfolios be sent to external evaluators as a part of the tenure/promotion process. Provost Ostheimer stated that, in his experience, peer review of teaching was especially valuable. Professor Fossum called attention to the proposed revision of UWPF 6.01 (tabled by the Faculty Senate on April 21, 1998), pointing out that it included a number of options for evaluating the effectiveness of teaching/learning. Dean Stolz called for giving greater attention to the demonstration of teaching effectiveness. Professor Greenfield observed that interest in using more effective learning techniques seems to be at odds with the pressure to accept larger class sizes. He also observed that, to be useful, peer review of teaching needs to be done repeatedly. Thirdly, Greenfield questioned the use of grade distributions as "evidence." Professor Shailor called for instructors to develop a written philosophy of grading in relation to class goals/objectives. Chancellor Keating claimed that student evaluations are related to grades, drawing an objection from Professor Dudycha, who cited evidence to the contrary.
Professor Wood questioned the inclusion of programmatic considerations among the criteria for personnel decisions. Professor Buenker said this was a legacy of the past and Provost Ostheimer said that the possibility of significant shifts in student interest/enrollment made it necessary to retain this criterion.
Returning to the evaluation of teaching, Professor McArthur claimed that resistance to peer review of teaching grew out of a lack of trust among colleagues. Professor Greenfield distinguished between summative and formative use of peer evaluations, calling for the latter. Provost Ostheimer advised that, in developing a process for peer review of teaching, we take advantage of the experience of other institutions.
Dean Cress thought it appropriate to encourage external evaluation of the entire dossier, including teaching, creative/scholarly activity, and service. This was supported by Professor Leeds-Hurwitz and questioned by Professor Buenker. Professor Kinchen observed that if we really believe there is synergy and interconnection between teaching, creative/scholarly activity, and service, then it only makes sense to have all of those factors considered in an external review. Professor Haller said that she was puzzled by the notion that the evaluation of teaching and service couldn't be done well on campus - suitable expertise is certainly available here. Professor Longeway concurred.
To rise and report, Professor Kavenik called for a show of hands for/against the provisions of the proposal tabled by the Faculty Senate on April 21, 1998. A substantial majority of those present favored the language of the April 21 proposal in regard to each of the criteria.
Chancellor Keating described the UW Board of Regents PLAN 2008: EDUCATIONAL QUALITY THROUGH RACIAL/ETHNIC DIVERSITY. The Plan calls upon each campus to develop a set of goals and initiatives to increase diversity over the next five years. At the end of that period, another set of five-year targets will be developed. The Chancellor has appointed a Plan 2008 Task Force to draft an appropriate set of goals and initiatives for this campus. The members of the Task Force are Larry Duetsch (chair), Blake Dye, Michelle Gee, Carmen Ireland, Bridgette Johnson, Renee Kirby, Corey Mandley, and Mary Kay Schleiter.
The Chancellor reviewed aspects of the UW System Plan 2008 that he feels are of particular importance for this campus and asked for cooperation in the development of suitable goals and initiatives. He called for more precollege programming for students of color, new partnerships with local communities of color and institutions that serve them, new partnerships with the Wisconsin Technical College System to advance the interests of students of color, engaging students of color in undergraduate research and leadership experiences, increasing the number of faculty and staff of color to the proportion in which they are available in relevant job pools, improvement in the campus climate for people of color, and course development that enhances respect for racial/ethnic diversity.
With little time remaining for discussion, Professor Duetsch said that suggestions regarding suitable campus goals and initiatives would be welcomed by the Task Force and should be sent to the Chancellor.
Professor Khan observed that there is great need for the development of more balanced racial and ethnic course content. Professor Gee agreed, saying that colleagues needed to develop a greater sensitivity to racial/ethnic balance throughout the curriculum. Professor Greenfield said that, although more must be done, much has been done to develop greater balance in the presentation and analysis of history. Professor Buenker said that the time is at hand to integrate diverse views into courses thoughout the curriculum.
The committee rose without report on the development of the campus' 2008 Plan.