September 25th, 2006

Note: At the end of these minutes is a revised version of a CPC Policy that we are sending to the faculty for comment.

Present: Judith Anderson (Chair), Tom Busey, Simon Brassell, Sandra Dolby, Hal Evans, Roger Levesque (Recorder), Rosemary Lloyd, Patrick McNaughton, and Pamela Walters

The meeting was convened at 4:16 pm.

We discussed the previous week’s minutes and spent several minutes on a potentially troublesome phrase regarding departmental obligations under the recently proposed general education requirements.

David Zaret joined the meeting at 4:34. He briefed us on recent developments involving IU’s IntegratedImage Initiative (see http://www.indiana.edu/~vpur/image/). The initiative will result in new guidelines for the use of IU seals and symbols in stationery, web pages, banner & etc. Although this is a system-wide initiative, its implementation will run through individual schools. The implementation of the new guidelines will occur over the next several months, which should allow for sufficient time to adjust to the new requirements. It was highlighted that the College has little control over the changes but that the College will work to reduce potential burdens that may arise from the need to comply with the new guidelines. Overall, Dean Zaret views this as a positive development for the College in that it will provide opportunities to increase the College’s visibility.

We requested that David report on the major expenditures of contingency funds during the preceding fiscal year (our policies require this report every Fall). After describing different ways the College obtains and disburses funds for faculty research support, David noted that the major way the College obtains "contingency" funds is through the end-of-the year closing of approximately ten thousand accounts. For this year, the funds were allocated to departments based on one-time requests made during spring budget conferences. Given fiscal constraints, the College granted only two large requests deemed most urgent in addition to several small requests.

We briefly discussed with David the Provost’s State of Academic Affairs Address (delivered Sept 19th). We focused on matters involving the budget, general education and space for the Arts and Humanities. This led to a discussion of the possible renovation of Franklin Hall for the Humanities. It was noted that a committee from the Humanities had just met with David and that there was considerable interest in renovating the building to address their pressing needs.

We also further discussed our proposed revision of the Policy on the Evaluation of Classroom Teaching.It was concluded that the revisions have increased the policy’s clarity and that the policy now provides realistic suggestions for documenting teaching effectiveness.

David left the meeting at 5:09. Tom Busey also left at that time.

We returned to our discussion of the minutes, made minor revisions, and approved them.

We discussed the Policy on the Evaluation of Classroom Teaching and agreed that it was ready to be distributed to faculty. That policy is appended below. Your comments are welcomed.

We returned to discuss the development of a statement that details the core values of the Arts and Humanities. Suggestions for a new formatting were made. Hal Evans left at 5:35.

We discussed the contents of a recent UITS Monitor (September 20, 2006) that was widely distributed. We were particularly concerned about the section entitled "You don’t need to print those eReserves". Such statements may infringe on faculty governance of academic requirements and guidelines for courses. We expect to explore this issue.

We discussed upcoming tasks and set our agenda for the next two meetings. It was noted that we soon will return to issues regarding tenure clocks and LWOPS (leaves without pay). We eventually returned to our discussion of the new Integrated Image Initiative, at which point several faculty members wondered about the initiative's methods and cost.

The meeting was adjourned at 6:00.

Roger Levesque, Recorder

Questions or comments regarding the minutes and actions of the College Policy Committee may be addressed to its Chair, Judith Anderson (anders@indiana.edu – 855-3845). Past minutes and College Policy Statements can be found at the CPC web page: www.indiana.edu/~college/faculty/policy/policies.shtml.

POLICY FOR THE EVALUATION OF CLASSROOM TEACHING (May 6, 1998) Revised September 2006 (copy for faculty)

Given the centrality of teaching to the University's actual teaching mission it is essential that sufficient thought be given to evaluating its effectiveness and to maintaining scholarly rigor. Just as the evaluation of scholarly and creative activity is best made by converging evidence of multiple kinds from various sources, depending on the particular discipline, so too teaching effectiveness in the classroom will be best evaluated by drawing on multiple sources and kinds of information.

In evaluating teaching performance, a department should use whatever methods of evaluation work best in the particular discipline. It is assumed, however, that a variety of methods will come into play. These methods may include: written course evaluations by students, peer reviews, perceived efforts to update old and develop new courses, evidence of student success, and the time and effort devoted to students both outside the classroom and in thesis and dissertation supervision.

Both the department and the College tenure and promotion committees should value each of multiple sources of information about teaching effectiveness in the classroom in arriving at their decisions. A written evaluation of the effectiveness of teaching should be included in tenure and promotion dossiers.

The College Policy Committee asks that departments include the following information in all tenure and promotion dossiers, and that they draw on similar kinds of information when evaluating performance for the purpose of salary increases:

1. Departments should evaluate the teaching effectiveness of assistant and associate professors based on multiple peer observations of classroom teaching. Ideally, there should be several such observations and written evaluations over several courses and over several years so as to provide insight into the improvement and maintenance of the quality of teaching.

2. Teaching dossiers should normally include sample syllabi, assignments, and exams. Tenure and promotion dossiers should also include a written evaluation of this evidence.

3. Student evaluations for all courses should be included in the record. It is recommended that each set of evaluations include some questions requiring discursive responses.

An annual teaching evaluation should also be incorporated into the departmental process of determining salaries in order to ensure that excellent teaching is recognized and rewarded. The Chair of the department should make clear to the Dean the means by which the department has identified and rewarded meritorious teaching, and the Dean, in turn, should insist that teaching play a significant role in the determination of individual salaries.