Faculty Council Statement on Decisions Affecting the Library Learning Environment

On March 1, 2016, Faculty Council issued the following statement:

Faculty Council supports the call from Library staff to be included in the decision-making process for actions such as the proposed Library signage featuring donors’ names. Any decisions that affect the learning environment and education process must include those who work in the spaces. This is in alignment with the core value of Learning, and the commitment of the college to “work together to create a learning-centered environment.” If LCC is to demonstrate accessible learning that serves “the educational and linguistic needs of a diverse community,” as stated in the Diversity core value, it must establish and follow a clear and collaborative process that makes a supportive learning environment its top priority.

Faculty Council Statement on Due Process and Institutional Process

On December 8, 2015, Faculty Council issued the following statement:

Lane Community College Administration should immediately halt the hiring process for a Medical Office Assistant (MOA) Program Coordinator until all contractual obligations have been met and institutional processes followed.

The college’s handling of the MOA program, including removal of the current program coordinator, ignores due process as guaranteed by the faculty contract. The Administration’s plan to hire a new program coordinator who will be charged with revising the full curriculum by Fall 2016 is not physically possible unless Curriculum Committee deadlines and the Program Review process are also ignored. The Administration’s claim that the “urgency” of the hiring is due to a promise made by the college president to unnamed employers further disregards the institutional standards outlined in the college’s Core Values.

As stated in May 2015, “Faculty Council strongly condemns any administrative action to remove, supplant, circumvent or bypass the faculty role in reviewing and designing curriculum, an example of which is the college administration’s treatment of the Medical Office Assistant program. Any process involving program restructure at Lane must be led by the program faculty, as well as follow the Program Review process and long-established academic and empirical data standards.”

Student Evaluation Instrument Questions and Discussion

At the Oct. 23 meeting, Faculty Council discussed possible questions for the Student Evaluation Instrument currently under development. Below you will find some links and documents that have informed the discussion.

THE ISSUE:
1. Faculty Council (FC) is responsible for the Student Evaluation Instrument.
2. FC has been apprised that the software supporting the Scantron system (the fill-in-the-bubble sheets used for years) is no longer viable. An online instrument has been developed and piloted. It is a work in progress, and, while there is general support to see it developed, no vote has been taken to mandate its use.
3. There are currently 14 questions (used on the Scantron sheet) that were approved many years ago by FC. These are the default questions until FC votes to change them.
4. It is generally agreed that the current system and questions are not particularly useful.

WHAT IT MEANS TO YOU:
1. The College Online Policy and Procedure System (COPPS) for Student Evaluation of Instruction states that “Evaluations are required of all full- and part-time faculty.” Click here for a full explanation.
2. COPPS also states that “A modification of this system may be arranged through Faculty Council.” This will be the primary topic of discussion at the next FC meeting.
3. Article 13.8 in the LCC Faculty Contract states:
13.8    Use of Regular Student Evaluations.  The regular student evaluations of classes may be used in evaluations of faculty provided:

1. The evaluation instrument was properly used;
2. The faculty member received copies of the complete results of the evaluation within a month of the end of the course in which the evaluation was solicited;
3. Any concerns raised by the evaluation results were given in writing to the faculty member within a month of the end of the course for which it was given;
4. Alternative explanations for the concerns raised through student evaluations will be solicited from the faculty member in writing and the responsible department/division chair/manager will respond with a written assessment of the possible alternative explanations for the concerns; and
5. Anomalous results were discounted.
13.8.1 Timeliness. Faculty members shall receive the complete results of student evaluations no later than thirty (30) working days after the end of the course in which the evaluation was solicited, or sooner when possible.

WHAT WE ARE ASKING OF YOU:
1. Please consider two things: The method of doing student evaluations, and the types of questions you would like to see used. Keep in mind that the purpose of the Student Evaluations is to provide “…one method for evaluating the teaching component of the learning environment.” And also that “Evaluation questions were selected to provide information for a faculty member to create a better learning environment and to become a better teacher.” (Both quotes from COPPS.)
2. Feel free to join the discussion on this blog. To help inform your thinking, click through the links below. Each includes a short identification for context.

LINKS TO RESOURCES AND INFORMATION
Faculty Evaluations Resources Website. Built in 2013 by Bert Pooth. An excellent resource for background and context of the Student Evaluation process at LCC. This is a Moodle page in which everyone can enroll. To do so, log on to your Moodle home page, scroll down to “Programs and Groups” then click on “Faculty Evaluations Resources Website.” This will take you to an “enrollment key” page. Type in “instructor” and you will be enrolled. Thereafter, you will have access to this website through your Moodle page.

List of suggestions for questions, gathered from LCC deans by Administration Executive Team. This is a pdf file that you can download and open.

Scantron sheet with questions adopted in 2001. A pdf file you can download and open.

Portland Community College Course Evaluation Questions. Includes questions for Face to Face and Distance Learning courses. Also includes SAC (Subject Area Committee) Level and Instructor Level questions.

University of Oregon Online Course Evaluations. Adopted as replacement for Scantron paper evaluations.

Oregon State University Standard Questions. Used for all courses, with ability for instructor to add questions specific to a course.

Iowa State University Center for Excellence in Learning and Teaching. This page has sample questions. Check out the left navigation bar for links to further resources providing background and context.

Thanks for your participation in this important discussion and decision-making process. The final decision will affect all of us, and this is your opportunity to be involved at whatever level you prefer.

Faculty Council Statement on Curriculum Review, Design, and Restructure

Faculty Council strongly condemns any administrative action to remove, supplant, circumvent or bypass the faculty role in reviewing and designing curriculum, an example of which is the college administration’s treatment of the Medical Office Assistant program. Any process involving program restructure at Lane must be led by the program faculty, as well as follow the Program Review process and long-established academic and empirical data standards.

Unlimited Wait Lists

Faculty Council is considering the idea of making all wait lists unlimited in number of slots.

The rationale for this move is to have more data on where student needs are not being met by Lane class offerings.  For example, this type of data may better facilitate a program’s ability to add back classes where wait lists are long and demand is not being met.  At present, all such information on student demand is anecdotal at best.

Please leave a reply to share your thoughts or responses.

 

Purging of the Wait Lists

Faculty Council is considering moving the college wide date for purging class wait lists from the first Monday of the term to the first Tuesday of the term.

The rationale for this is to allow for Tuesday/Thursday classes to meet before purging the wait lists.

Please leave leave a reply to share your thoughts or responses.

Future Work Group and the College’s Continuing No-Show Drop Policy

Faculty Colleagues, as you hopefully read in Dawn DeWolf’s email,  no-show drops for Winter term will be the same as Fall term.  Faculty Council discussed revisions at two different meetings Fall term and were unable to agree on a recommendation for revised language.  Faculty Council will participate in a work group Winter term with the goal of recommending revised language for no show drops for Spring.  If you are interested in participating in that group, please email Faculty Council co-chairs, Brooke Taylor and Joseph Colton.  If you have input regarding no show drops, comments can be recorded in reply to this post here.

Revised Language for First Week Attendance – Version 2

Faculty Council continues to consider new language for first week attendance in order to meet both federal guidelines and recognize diverse instructional needs.  Based on feedback provided to the previous blog post and discussion in Faculty Council on October 24, 2014, Faculty Council revised the proposed language as follows.  Please review the proposed language and share your input by leaving a reply.

  • Students not attending the first class meeting will be dropped.  For online classes, students who do not complete the first online assignment by the stated deadline will be dropped.  Thereafter individual instructor syllabi policies apply.

New Language Proposal for First Week Attendance

Faculty Council is currently considering new language for first week attendance in order to meet both federal guidelines and recognize diverse instructional needs.  Please review the proposed language as follows and share your input by leaving a reply.  (Note:  this language is only being proposed for face-to-face classes; separate language will be considered to address online and distance learning classes.)

  • Faculty must drop a student if they don’t attend once. Faculty may drop students if attendance is less than 100% in the first week. The course attendance policy will be clearly defined and communicated in the class syllabus.