March 17, 2008
Minutes
Present: Phil Harris, Barbara Thornbury, Chris Dennis, Karen Turner, Mary Anne Gaffney (Chair), Bob Aiken, Bruce Conrad, Jackie Resavage, Orin Chein, Catherine Shifter, Concetta Stewart, Michele O’Connor
The meeting convened at 2:15 p.m.
Bob Aiken led a discussion of the revised CATE. His goals were to, first, obtain the committee’s input on how to most effectively disseminate the work of the CATE committee in order to elicit the maximum amount of feedback, and second, to obtain the committees input on potential use and misuse of the CATE.
Three topics emerged from the discussion. First is the structure and format of the CATE itself. Second is the potential for misuse of the CATE by departments and colleges, particularly as a summative evaluation of faculty performance. Third, the CATE needs to be widely recognized as one of many methods that are used for giving individual faculty feedback on their performance as teachers. Karen proposed dealing with the form first, and then addressing the issue of misuse. Mary Anne argued that a committee is the appropriate forum for form construction, but that utilization issues require a different approach, perhaps a community discussion. Karen emphasized the importance of faculty buy-in.
The question of changing the form incrementally was raised by Orin. Chris responded that changing the form again next year would result in a loss of longitudinal data. Bob stated that he was looking for a decision from the EPPC on the form. Chris reported that Peter has scheduled a meeting with the Council of Deans regarding the form changes.
Orin argued that the faculty had been told that CATE’s would not be used for summative evaluations of faculty teaching. Bob noted the need for a larger discussion on assessment, using multiple methods of assessment. The CATE cannot stand alone as the only assessment tool. Concetta stated that the CATE is useful for observing problems with specific faculty. Chris remarked that the CATE is a tool for reporting data and that it involves students both in rating faculty and in using data on performance.
We discussed getting feedback from faculty regarding the form and CATE utilization. Orin recommended that Bob use the email listserv to reach all faculty.
Bob reiterated his need for a statement from the EPPC regarding the form and the process of approving the form. The form will be going to the Senate Steering Committee next Tuesday.
- Michele reported that the core to core agreement letters have been reviewed by University Counsel, who has made changes to the language. She will be asking the Provost if she wants to sign the letters, along with the President.
- Michele reported that the Freshman Seminar Syllabi are coming. This series was requested by the Provost.
- Only three courses now qualify as service learning courses. The Subcommittee on Community-Based Learning will be asked to define and establish criteria for approving other courses. There are other things going on that could qualify.
- Michelle left the meeting, and we returned to the CATE discussion. Concetta reiterated the statement that CATE’s were not intended to be used for the purpose of summative evaluation. Bruce argued that CATE’s should not be used as the sole method of evaluation. The EPPC agreed to commend the CATES committee for their work to date and to recommend to the Senate Steering Committee that a website and special meeting be used to get faculty input on the forms and the methods of reporting the data. We also recommend that a CATES implementation committee be formed. Mary Anne agreed to put together a response for the steering committee which will be circulated to the EPPC for comments and then sent on to the FSSC. The response will emphasize that the CATES were never meant to be the sole evidence of teaching effectiveness and that schools and colleges should be encouraged to determine the hallmarks of good teaching in their discipline and the multiple measures which will demonstrate effective teaching.
