Senate Resolutions

ASSA Leadership Structure - 2021

(Approved by Faculty Senate November 11, 2021)

Chair and Vice-Chair Leadership Structure for ASSA

Each spring semester the Faculty Senate Executive Committee will appoint both a Chair and Vice-Chair of the Admissions, Standards, and Student Affairs (ASSA) Committee unless ASSA committee membership requests a different leadership structure. If either the Chair or the Vice-Chair ceases to be a member of the Admissions, Standards, and Student Affairs Committee, the Faculty Senate Executive Committee will promptly appoint a successor. The Vice-Chair will shadow and assist the Chair, in order to prepare to serve as a future ASSA Chair, and maintain continuity.

ASSA Disability Services Faculty Survey-2022

Disability Services Faculty Survey

January 2022

ASSA Subcommittee Summary and Interpretation of Results

In response to the Faculty Senate charge to ASSA concerning disability accommodation and in close cooperation with the ASSA subcommittee tasked with this charge, Disability Services (DS)circulated a 33- question survey to 500 faculty members on October 21, 2021 and gathered data on November 11, 2021 from 84 respondents. The two categories of faculty most heavily represented in the survey were tenure track (43%) and adjunct (36%).

Underlying Principles of the Accommodation Process

Qualitative responses indicate a widespread acceptance of the principles of “good faith,” equity, inclusion, and non-discrimination enshrined in disability law and policy. Only a very small number of responses (2 of 84) communicated the sense that disability accommodation was unfair or gave certain students an advantage over others.

Familiarity with Law/Policy and Implementation

The majority of respondents were familiar with the federal law (ADA, Section 504, etc.) and WSU policy (PPM 3-34 and 3-32) regarding the accommodation process with 46% being moderately familiar and 34% being very or extremely familiar [Q43]. Only 4% of respondents were not at all familiar with these statutes/policies. Ninety-three percent of the respondents already included statements about disability accommodation in their syllabi [Q6] and most (86%) have already had direct experience with accommodating a disabled student [Q12]. The most commonly experienced forms of accommodation were those related to testing and extended deadlines for assignments (42% of the total)[Q17]. A large majority of respondents (95%) found these accommodations either extremely reasonable or somewhat reasonable. Only 3% found the accommodations somewhat unreasonable [Q18].

The Role of Disability Services

Most respondents (80%) found that they had been provided with adequate information from DS most of the time or always [Q23] and that the process was efficient and easy to manage most of the time or always [Q24]. A similar majority (81%) found DS helpful in response to faculty queries [Q25]. The qualitative responses indicate a similar approval of DS’s role in helping faculty navigate the accommodation process. Some of the qualitative responses called for greater specificity in the accommodation letter itself regarding the implementation of certain accommodations.

Faculty Responsibilities

The responses suggest that a large majority of faculty understood their responsibility to provide an accommodation approved by DS. Most respondents (76%) agreed that denying an approved accommodation was not among the individual faculty member's classroom prerogatives [Q20]. Most agreed (68%) that an individual faculty member is not at liberty to determine if an accommodation was overly onerous [Q21].

Faculty respondents were more evenly split over the assertion that faculty members have an exclusive right to determine whether or not an accommodation "fundamentally alters the nature of their course" or program (and might, thus, meet the legally-defined threshold of "undue hardship"). Thirtythree percent of faculty agreed with this assertion while 48% expressed a correct understanding of the law and policy by disagreeing [Q22]. The variance in responses to this assertion indicates some confusion about the role of faculty in the legally specified "interactive process" by which institutional approval of a given accommodation is reached. Any future faculty training could address this confusion by underlining and illustrating the interactivity of faculty, DS, and the student in the accommodation process.

Faculty Training and Student Advising

Most faculty expressed an interest (36%) or tentative interest (38%) in learning more about course accessibility [Q29]. Qualitative responses to the survey indicated that a limited amount of faculty time figured as a challenge in the accommodation process.

Among the most frequently cited challenges [Q27] were those resulting from faculty being made aware of a student's accommodation only late in a given course or semester. It's unclear from the survey whether this phenomenon is due to delays in students' requests for accommodation, delays in processing those requests, or student confusion about when best to deliver their accommodation letter to their instructors. Depending on the cause, more student advising on protocols and expectations may be in order.

Another frequently cited challenge was that students who personally communicated an accommodation need to faculty, nevertheless failed to submit a formal request for an accommodation to Disability Services. In some of these cases, faculty members provided ad-hoc accommodations to students who had not provided the faculty member with a formal accommodation letter. Such instances suggest that students may need additional advising on the need to pursue accommodation through the formal process. They also suggest a need to clarify for faculty that accommodation is legally required only in instances approved by Disability Services.

ASSA Student Disability Accommodation Letter-2022

ASSA Charge

Review Student Disability Accommodation Letters. This work would include working with WSU Disability Services and Legal Counsel to create 1) a survey to be sent out to faculty to gauge their experience, knowledge, etc. with student disability accommodations; 2) clear guidelines outlining specifically for what faculty are responsible, i.e., define “reasonable accommodations” and what resources are available to faculty; and 3) clear guidelines outlining specifically for what WSU Disability Services are responsible.

Assessment Report Workshop - 2021

(Approved by Faculty Senate December 9, 2021)

Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Assessment Committee

Proposal · Fall 2021

The Ad Hoc Assessment Committee of the Faculty Senate proposes the establishment and funding of an Assessment Report Workshop to review and provide feedback on biennial program assessment reports.

The Office of Institutional Effectiveness will seek faculty volunteers who will participate in a training workshop and then review and provide feedback on biennial program assessment reports. (This process is based on the example of the Faculty Assessment Workshops associated with General Education Signature Assignments). This group of faculty will be trained to evaluate assessment reports; they will then divide into teams of two, and each team will evaluate four or five reports. The goal is that meaningful feedback will provide each program with ideas for improvement in teaching and learning, and guidance on how to make the assessment process and reports more meaningful.

Each year, on or about November 15th, the Office of Institutional Effectiveness receives 35 to 40 biennial program assessment reports. This creates a need for perhaps 20 faculty to participate in the workshop and review process. If each individual is paid a $200 stipend for a two-day workshop (or a half day workshop and team meetings online), the stipend cost would be $4,000. Other costs may include meals and visiting experts to enhance the workshop.

COVID Meeting Recommendations - OCT 2020

Approved by The Weber State University Staff Advisory Council in October 6, 2020 meeting
(Approved by the Faculty Senate October 8, 2020)

COVID Meeting Recommendations

Dear Faculty and Staff of Weber State University,

While campus is open, many staff and faculty are still working primarily from home. This presents challenges for much of the normal work of the University, including meetings. While the pandemic has greatly disrupted us and will continue to do so, it also has helped us realize new opportunities for working remotely that could increase access to service opportunities for faculty and staff working in different locations or experiencing issues with health, family, or other challenges. We would like therefore to propose the following guidelines for staff and faculty meetings as long as COVID is a threat to our health:

Faculty and staff should strive to be role models for social distancing practices. That means that we should always meet or exceed guidelines in order to create a better safety culture on campus. It also means that we need to do what we can to enforce best practices for social distancing on campus, both inside and outside of classrooms, as well as staying home when sick, and avoiding close contact with those who are sick.
Current minimum guidelines are listed below (please follow additional guidelines from the administration as the situation changes):
- Masks must be worn at all times while in any Weber State building
- 6 foot social distancing must be maintained at all times.
- When outside, it is only OK to remove your mask if you are able to maintain at least 6 feet of social distancing and you are not in a congested area.
- There are a few exceptions to this including when you are alone in a private office.
Unless there is a strong business case for a face to face meeting AND all guidelines above can be followed, we should run meetings virtually using Zoom or other platforms that have proven effective.
We should have digital versions of all materials available to all participants well before the meeting takes place so that staff and faculty may view them on a different screen or print them in advance
If there is a compelling reason to host the meeting in person, we should plan to run the meeting in a space that allows for a high quality virtual experience for anyone who is not able to be present. After the COVID-19 crisis, this practice could be continued in order to accommodate members who have child care challenges, who are traveling, or who work at different campuses. For example, folks who work at Davis campus are often disadvantaged due to the extra travel required to attend meetings on the Ogden campus.
Any face-to-face meeting should require those present to properly wear face coverings in addition to a minimum of 6 feet of social distancing.

Sincerely,

COVID T&P Guideline - DEC 2020

(Approved by Faculty Senate December 3, 2020)

APAFT & COVID-19
Tenure and Promotion Guidelines
Fall 2020, Spring 2021, & Summer 2021

The APAFT committee recommends that the Ranking Tenure Evaluation Committees and administration take into consideration how COVID-19 may have impacted faculty in teaching, scholarship, and service.

With this in mind, the APAFT committee recommends that Ranking Tenure Evaluation Committees and administrators apply the guidelines for Fall 2020,S Spring 2021and Summer 2021 Semesters, as listed below.

APAFT will reconvene Fall Semester 2021 to review and consider extending these guidelines for future semesters if needed.

COVID-19 Guidelines

It is recommended that the Ranking Tenure Evaluation Committees and the administration consider the impact that COVID-19 may have had on teaching and course design. Faculty are required to include fall 2020, spring 2021, and summer 2021 student evaluations in their tenure or promotion file. Faculty are encouraged to include a narrative regarding the impact that COVID-19 may have had on teaching or pedagogy in their autobiographical form. Any teaching improvements to instruction design, pedagogy, or innovations, which were utilized for a course and faculty teaching improvements should be included in the narrative. . Please refer to your Colleges for further guidance.

WSU PPM

PPM 8-11, IV, D, 1

Student Evaluations (Contract, Non-Tenured Faculty, and Adjunct Faculty)

In an attempt to chart ongoing teaching performance, student evaluations shall be administered and compiled by an impartial third party. Each year, all contract, non-tenured, and adjunct faculty members will have student evaluations administered in every course taught, and each tenured faculty member shall have student evaluations administered in at least two of the courses. The two courses to be evaluated each year will be determined through consultation between each faculty member and their department chair. If the faculty member and the chair cannot agree on which the students should evaluate two courses, the choice of courses to be evaluated will be subject to binding arbitration by the dean, after consultation with the faculty member and the chair. The results of those evaluations shall be seen by the chair, the faculty member, and those specified in the review process. The Department Chair, in consultation with the Dean, may also choose to share the evaluations with those who have oversight/input into course assignments, hiring, evaluating, and/or retaining of faculty, such as program directors/coordinators. The summaries shall be kept on file in the office of the chair. In the case of the faculty member who is on tenure track or who is seeking promotion, the chair shall send to the faculty member’s professional file summaries of that faculty member’s student evaluations.

PPM 8-11. II, C. Student Evaluations (Post-Tenure)

In an attempt to chart ongoing teaching performance, student evaluations shall be administered and compiled by an impartial third party. Each year, all post-tenured faculty members shall have student evaluations administered in at least two of the courses. The two courses to be evaluated each year will be determined through consultation between each faculty member and their department chair. If the faculty member and the chair cannot come to agreement on which two courses should be evaluated by the students, the choice of courses to be evaluated will be subject to binding arbitration by the dean, after consultation with the faculty member and the chair. The results of those evaluations shall be seen by the chair, the faculty member, and those specified in the review process. The summaries will be kept on file in the office of the chair

COVID-19 Guidelines

Probationary Period for Tenure

APAFT believes that the COVID-19 pandemic qualifies for an extension of their probationary period per PPM 8-23. It should be noted that faculty are not required to extend their probationary period, but should they choose to do so, they must follow the procedures below in PPM 8-23. It is recommended that faculty, the Ranking Tenure Evaluation Committees, and administration take every measure to complete required tenure and promotion deadlines. In exceptional cases, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, the tenure and promotion process may be temporarily suspended (leave and re-enter at the same point for tenure and post-tenure reviews), and the probationary period extended by a period not to exceed two years. Faculty should collaborate with their administration and strictly adhere to university policy for requesting an extension of the tenure review period. Please refer to your Colleges for further guidance. Colleges are encouraged to adapt and or use the COVID-19 pandemic tenure clock extension form provided through the provost’s website.

WSU PPM

PPM 8-23

Process for extension of the tenure review period

The faculty member requests an extension in writing to their department chair with a copy to their dean for an extension of their probationary period. This request can only be made prior to the completion of the professional file by the candidate. The request should include the rationale for the extension. The decision to extend the probationary period is made by the college Ranking Tenure Evaluation Committee, upon recommendation by the department chair and the dean, in consultation with the provost. The dean ensures that this process is followed and completed in a timely manner.

If and when such a request is granted, the conditions of the extension shall be explained in writing by the provost, copies distributed to the candidate, the department chair and the candidate's professional file, and major reviews delayed accordingly.

During the probationary period, a faculty member has the academic freedom enjoyed by all other faculty members.

Time spent by faculty members on leave in pursuit of professionally related education or experience (beyond the minimum degree requirements as specified in PPM 8-14) may be counted as part of the probationary period only on the positive recommendation of the department chair, dean and approval of the provost. Up to one year for professionally related activities can be counted toward fulfilling this requirement. Non-professionally related leaves do not count toward the probationary period for tenure.

APAFT & COVID-19
Tenure and Promotion Guidelines
Spring & Summer Semesters 2020

The APAFT committee recommends that the Ranking Tenure Evaluation Committees and administration take into consideration how COVID-19 may have impacted faculty in teaching, scholarship, and service.

We also acknowledge that faculty end- of- semester student evaluations may be deleteriously affected

With this in mind, the APAFT committee recommends that Ranking Tenure Evaluation Committees and administrators apply the guidelines for Spring and Summer Semesters, 2020 as listed below.

APAFT will reconvene Fall Semester 2020 to review and consider extending these guidelines for future semesters if needed.

GUIDELINES

Course Fee Guidelines

Guidelines Regarding Course Fees

July 26, 2017

The university has the goal of keeping fee annual percentage increases, including course fee increases, at or below the average annual percentage increase in tuition. For the purposes of this document, let X% represent the average annual increase in tuition over the most recent three years.

This document identifies ways to (a) ensure that faculty proposing course fee increases understand this expectation, (b) allow proposals to justify/request an exception to this cap, and (c) ensure that deans are ultimately responsible for enforcing the cap.

HIEE Definition

(Revised March 20, 2018)

High Impact Educational Experiences (HIEE)

Purpose of this Document

The purpose of this document is two fold:

To provide a common framework for understanding high-impact educational experiences at Weber State University, which can ultimately help identify where in the curriculum and cocurriculum these experiences already exist and where there might be opportunities to expand them; and
To provide faculty and staff with a taxonomy that can be used to self-evaluate their educational practices and use these results to guide course and program design that will further enhance learning experiences for students.

Background

For the last two decades, the phrase “high impact” has been used to describe educational practices researchers have found to be particularly influential for student learning and persistence to graduation (Kuh, 2008). Kuh’s list of ten “high impact practices” -- including research, community service, internships, study abroad, capstone, living learning communities, first year seminars, common intellectual experiences, writing intensive courses, and collaborative assignments -- has become the aspirational “high impact” standard at many institutions of higher education around the country. Accordingly, in the last several decades, Weber State University has established centers and offices to support and grow many of these particular practices - e.g. Office of Undergraduate Research, Career Services (internships), Center for Community Engaged Learning, Study Abroad, etc.

Not surprisingly, given Weber State’s student-centric approach to learning, other high impact educational experiences not included on Kuh’s list have emerged in both the curriculum and cocurriculum. Although a vibrant innovative culture for teaching and learning resulted, the development and use of high impact educational practices has not necessarily been well articulated or coordinated across departments and divisions. Therefore, it is unclear if all Weber State students have equal access and thereby benefit from these impactful learning experiences.

In November, 2017, the Commissioner of the Utah System of Higher Education (USHE) recommended to the State Board of Regents “that the Board establish the goal that all students participate in two high impact practices during study at the undergraduate level: (1) one during their first 30 credits of enrollment (not including concurrent enrollment), and (2) one within their major, and that reports on progress toward these goals occur during institutional completion reports at Board meetings.” The main motivation for this recommendation is to ensure all students have equal access to high impact educational experiences.

Role of High Impact Educational Experiences in the Student Success Initiative

Given Weber State’s commitment to student success, we must ensure that all students have equal access to highly impactful learning opportunities. The Student Success initiative articulates engagement as one of four key pillars in an educational environment necessary to cultivate a successful student. As such, a goal of the initiative is to make high impact learning opportunities readily available to all students throughout the curriculum and co-curriculum to ensure students “actively engage in learning inside and outside the classroom” (WSU Student Success Vision, 2016). Much of this engaged learning is already occurring through the many high impact educational experiences at WSU.

It is the task of the Engagement Committee (a subcommittee to the Student Success Steering Committee) to identify a way of more systematically coordinating the development, growth and implementation of high impact educational efforts taking place both in and outside of the classroom. The necessary first step in this coordination process, however, is to share a common language about and understanding of high impact educational opportunities. A common language will help:

identify where high impact opportunities already exist in our curriculum and co-curriculum which will enable advisers to guide students to these types of learning experiences;
empower faculty and staff with a shared taxonomy to self-evaluate the learning experiences they currently provide and choose whether or not to enhance those experiences to be even more impactful for students; and
create a coordinated system of educational experiences that ensures equal access to high impact learning opportunities for all students, especially underrepresented students.

Description of this Document

This document represents the efforts of the Engagement Committee to develop shared language for high impact learning experiences at WSU. The 30-member committee collaborated in a six-month process to develop and vett a working definition and taxonomy of high impact educational experiences (HIEE) that can be used by educators in both Academic and Student Affairs

A critical goal for educators is to create a rich learning environment that will help students be successful in their educational and life-long pursuits. Rather than limiting educators’ choices of impactful experiences to Kuh’s (2008) list of ten “high-impact practices,” the committee decided to anchor Weber State’s definition in eight impact strategies that are found in all of Kuh’s high-impact educational practices (Kuh & O’Donnell, 2014). By doing so, educators can continue to be innovative and creative in their educational practices to ensure high quality learning experiences for their students and not be limited to an already predetermined list of “high-impact practices.”

In other words, the committee found the nationally recognized language of “high-impact practices” limiting and, therefore, strategically chose language meant to be more inclusive of a variety of educational practices that can occur in either, or both, curricular and co-curricular experiences. Hence, the language of High Impact Educational Experiences (HIEE) was created.

HIEE Definition

High Impact Educational Experiences promote student learning through curricular and co-curricular activities that are intentionally designed to foster active and integrative student engagement by utilizing multiple impact strategies.

Key Elements of High Impact Educational Experiences: Impact Strategies

Research on good college teaching and learning (Chickering and Gamson, 1987; Ewell and Jones, 1996; Kuh and O’Donnell, 2014) has established that high impact learning experiences allow students to personally invest themselves, develop meaningful relationships with peers/faculty/staff through collaborative work, receive frequent feedback, actively pose and solve problems, experience real world applications of knowledge, reflect on their learning processes, disseminate what they have learned, interact with others who are not like themselves, and feel challenged to meet appropriately high levels of performance.

These key elements of high impact educational experiences (Kuh and O’Donnell, 2014) are what we are calling impact strategies. Incorporating the following into learning activities will amplify the impact of the experience on the students’ learning:

Performance expectations set at appropriately high levels (Performance Expectations)
Significant investment of time and effort by students over an extended period of time (Personal Investment)
Interactions with faculty, staff and peers about substantive matters (Meaningful Interactions)
Experiences with diversity wherein students are exposed to and must contend with people and circumstances that differ from those which students are familiar (Diverse and Inclusive Experiences)
Frequent, timely, and constructive feedback (Quality Feedback)
Periodic, structured opportunities to reflect and integrate learning (Opportunities to Reflect and Integrate Learning)
Opportunities to discover relevance of learning through real-world applications or through realworld/authentic experiences (Practical Application)
Public dissemination of learning experience (Demonstration of Competence)

Assumptions

Weber State University has the responsibility to provide a setting conducive to the use of impact strategies.
An engaged learning environment is a hallmark of a Weber State University education.
High impact educational experiences intentionally combine impact strategies to improve student learning.
Not all courses or co-curricular activities will utilize every impact strategy. But all faculty and staff are encouraged to incorporate as many appropriate strategies as possible, at the highest level possible, in all courses they teach and activities they facilitate.
The use of impact strategies in a course or event does not automatically equate to high impact educational experience; however, all high impact educational experiences regularly integrate impact strategies.

The figure below shows the list of impact strategies encouraged in all learning activities, a list of teaching methods and experiences likely to be high impact because they integrate the impact strategies by design (these are examples rather than an exhaustive list), and the list of general education and Student Affairs learning outcomes that the impact strategies are known to promote.

Impact Strategies lead to Potential High Impact Educational Experiences and Learning Outcomes

Impact Strategies

Performance expectations set at appropriately high levels
Personal Investment
Meaningful Interactions
Diverse & Inclusive Experiences
Quality Feedback
Opportunities to Reflect & Integrate Learning
Practical Application
Demonstration of Competence

High Impact Educational Experiences

Examples:
Capstone
Community Engaged Learning
Evidence-based teaching practices
First Year Experience
Honors
Internship
Learning Community
Peer Mentor Programs
Proactive-based Learning
Student On-Campus Employment
Student Leadership
Study Abroad/Away
Supplemental Instruction/Tutoring
Team-based learning
Undergraduate Research
Pre-professional/Career Development(e.g. Signpost, PR Firm, Studio 76, recital, performance, charrette, case competition)

Learning Outcomes

Content Knowledge

Course Outcomes
Department Outcomes

Intellectual Tools

Critical Thinking
Interpersonal communication
Intrapersonal communication

Responsibility to Self & Others

Civic Engagement
Cultural Competency
Responsibility & Accountability

Connected & Applied Learning

Leadership & Management

Student Success

Weber State University HIEE Taxonomy

This taxonomy is meant to be a tool to help each engagement opportunity be as impactful as possible. It is designed to highlight the different levels of impact that are defined as foundational, integrated and transformative connections with each student. Take the time to assess your programs, courses, activities, assignments, leadership opportunities and individual meetings and formulate what you can do to make your practices be more impactful for each student.

Levels of Impact

*The Student Affairs SETF (Student Engagement Task Force) created the original version of this taxonomy and graciously collaborated with the Student Success Engagement Committee to modify it to include additional impact strategies.
	Foundation	Integration	Transformation	N/A
Performance expectations set at appropriately high levels	Expectations for students are set at a low level. Students are exposed to new ideas and skills. Performance is articulated in an informal manner and may not be evaluated.	Performance expectations are set at a modest level and encourage students to integrate new ideas and skills. Performance is evaluated through the use of a rubric, checklist or other assessment tool.	Performance expectations are set at appropriately high levels and encourage students to move beyond their current ability. Performance is evaluated through the use of a rubric, checklist or other assessment tool.	This experience was not intended to incorporate this component.
Personal Investment	The engagement is purposeful: it involves a minimal commitment of time and effort.	The engagement is purposeful: it involves a basic commitment of time and effort. Occasionally bridges a student’s personal interest to his/her academic program.	The engagement is purposeful: it involves the investment of significant time and effort by the student on authentic, complex tasks over an extended period of time (e.g., bridging personal and academic interests).	This experience was not intended to incorporate this component.
Meaningful Interactions	The engagement opportunity helps students build minimal relationships and interact with faculty, staff, community partners and peers about occasional matters over extended periods of time during which relationships develop.	The engagement opportunity helps students build conversational relationships and interact with faculty, staff, community partners and peers about functional matters over extended periods of time during which relationships develop.	Students engage in meaningful interactions with faculty, staff, community partners and peers about substantive matters over extended periods of time. Students interact with others who share intellectual interests and are committed to student success.	This experience was not intended to incorporate this component.
Diverse & Inclusive Experiences	This practice provides minimal opportunities for students to interact with diverse individuals, thoughts, and/or ideas that are different from which they are familiar (e.g., experiences, knowledge).	This practice provides some opportunities for students to interact with diverse individuals, thoughts, and/or ideas. Provides some opportunities for students to connect with experiences with which they are unfamiliar.	This practice fosters experiences with diversity where students are provided with multiple opportunities to contend with people and circumstances that differ from those which students are familiar.	This experience was not intended to incorporate this component.
Quality Feedback	The opportunity provides students with minimal feedback, not limited to the assessment of classroom work, but also including feedback about learning about themselves.	The opportunity provides students with moderate feedback, not limited to the assessment of classroom work, but also including feedback about learning about themselves and others. It provides students with experience growth as it relates to the students’ development goals and is mindful of students’ development progress from peers, mentors, advisors, supervisors and colleagues.	The opportunity provides students with constructive, frequent, and timely feedback. Feedback is not limited to the assessment of classroom work, but may also include feedback the student’s learning about themselves and others. The feedback helps students grow towards their development goals.	This experience was not intended to incorporate this component.
Structured Opportunities to Reflect and Integrate Learning	The practice provides opportunities for students to minimally reflect on the person they are becoming.	The practice provides opportunities for students to moderately reflect on the person they are becoming. Reflection deepens learning and brings one’s values and beliefs into awareness; it helps students develop the ability to take the measure of events and actions and put them in perspective.	The practice provides opportunities for students to actively reflect and integrate learning. This reflection should deepen learning and help the student to become more aware of their own values and beliefs. Reflection should help students to integrate concepts, events and actions and to put them in perspective.	This experience was not intended to incorporate this component.
Practical Application	The engagement practice helps students test what they are learning in new situations and provides opportunities for students to see how they’re learning works in different settings, on and off campus. These opportunities to apply are essential to minimal learning experiences.	The engagement practice helps students apply and test what they are learning in new situations and provides opportunities for students to see how they’re learning works in different settings, on and off campus. These opportunities to apply knowledge are essential to constructive learning experiences.	The engagement practice provide students with opportunities to discover relevance of learning through realworld applications or through realworld/authentic experiences. These experiences allow students to gain a deep and meaningful understanding of how their learning relates to the real-world.	This experience was not intended to incorporate this component.
Demonstration of Competence	Opportunities are not provided for demonstration of competence and are kept with the student and the supervising faculty or staff member.	Opportunities are provided for demonstration of competence on a small scale within a course, program or through some electronic means (e.g., email).	This practice provides significant opportunity (or opportunities) for a public demonstration of competence. Examples of these opportunities include open gatherings, broad electronic means (e.g., websites and blogs), conferences and other large forums (e.g. presentations).	This experience was not intended to incorporate this component.

References:

Chickering, A.W. & Gamson, Z.F. (1987). Seven Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education. Washington, D.C.: American Association for Higher Education.

Ewell, P.T. & Jones, D.P. (1996). Indicators of “Good Practice” in Undergraduate Education: A Handbook for Development and Implementation. Boulder, CO: National Center for Higher Education Management Systems.

Kuh, G.D. (2008). High-Impact Educational Practices: What They Are, Who Has Access to Them, and Why They Matter. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities.

Kuh, G.D. & O'Donnell, K. (2014). Ensuring quality and taking high-impact practices to scale. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities.

Pre-Promotion Salary Increase - 2019

(Approved by Faculty Senate March 14, 2019)

To: President Mortensen, Provost Miner, Faculty Senate Executive Committee
From: Leah Murray, Chair – SBBFP, Melissa Neville, Chair – APAFT
Date: Feb. 8, 2019
Subject: Guidelines for implementing the pre-promotion base salary increase

The SBBFP and APAFT committees propose:

A tenure-track faculty member at the rank of assistant professor is eligible to receive a $2,000 increase to their base salary, as outlined further below.

Student Evaluations of Faculty - MAR 2021

(Approved by Faculty Senate March 18, 2021)

Pilot of New Student Evaluations

Evaluation and schedule to be used by all colleges and programs. There is a link to website with further information at the end of the document.

Alex Lawrence, Andrea Easter-Pilcher, Brenda Kowalewski, Diana Meiser, Gail Niklason, Jenny Kokai, Marjukka Ollilainen, Melissa Neville Norton, and R.C. Morris

EVALUATION TASK FORCE

Qualitative Analysis of Pilot Feedback
Prepared by Dr. R. C. Morris
Sociology

Coding Structure:

Faculty Feedback

Themes:

Career Focus
Response Rate
Time

Sentiment:

Negative
Neutral
Positive

Committee Mission, in brief:

The committee is studying student evaluations of teaching on the Weber State University (WSU) campus. All aspects of WSU’s current evaluation practices are being considered. Best practices and innovations in the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning informed the creation of a new instrument for use on WSU campus. Adaptations include considerations about the process and timing of evaluations.

This Report Summarizes the results of feedback received during the Fall Semester of 2020 examining a Pilot instrument currently underdevelopment by the task force.

Summary of Faculty Feedback

During the Fall Semester of 2020 faculty volunteers at WSU agreed to survey students using a newly developed evaluation instrument. Faculty feedback coalesced around three emergent themes, Career Focus, Response Rate, and Time/Timing.

Two faculty members expressed a desire to have a new instrument assess for student perceptions about career preparation, e.g.,

“Something about relevant application of learning as it relates to career preparation.”

10 faculty members expressed concerns about low response rates:

“In each class I only had 1 or 2 students take the evaluation. It isn't enough feedback to say whether it is effective or not.”

Three faculty members expressed concerns about the timing of the survey during the semester:

“...let students know about the new format, and the fact that the evals close before the semester is over. “

Sentiment coding found that five faculty had a negative impression of the new instrument, four had a neutral impression, and nine had a positive impression.

Comments generally seem to support the direction the task force is headed with the development of a new instrument and deployment strategy.

Coding Structure:

Student Feedback

Themes:

Covid
Professor Rating

Sentiment:

Negative
Neutral
Positive

Summary of Student Feedback

Analysis of student data found two emergent themes: six students expressed a desire to be able to comment about new course delivery during Covid-19 and nine students expressed a desire to be able to rate instructors specifically

Covid Theme, e.g.,

“I would have included how transitioning to an online envi ronment has affected your class, or studying.”

“Questions rating experience with covid as a response.”

Professor Rating, e.g.,

“I would have included some things about organization of the class.”

“I feel there could be more questions relating to the course work and course instructor.”

“It doesn’t show that a few professors just posted old ma terial from their classes, and a lot of professors used this pandemic as an excuse to not engage as much with stu dents.”

Sentiment coding found that five had a negative impression of the new instrument, no student expressed a neutral impression, and one student expressed a positive impression.

Report Summary

Results of our Pilot effort reveals that faculty remain divided about the utility of student evaluations in general—this is consistent with national trends identified in the literature—the majority of faculty participating in our pilot evaluation approved of the new instrument.

Faculty reinforced our a priori concerns about the timing of student evaluations. A great deal of literature has investigated timing specifically. Our decision to use 80% course completion draws from best practices identified in the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning.

Student comments were over-represented by negative opinion. Negative sentiment reflects students’ wanting a way to rate instructors directly (Yelp review effect?).

Based on our results, we hope to roll out the new instrument across WSU campus.

For more see supporting WSU website

For Questions Contact:

Melissa Neville-Norton, DNP,
APRN, CPNP-PC
Associate Professor
mneville@weber.edu

Student Evaluations - Original Charge to Task Force

MEMORANDUM

TO: FACULTY SENATE
FROM: APAFT CHARGE #6 – TASKFORCE RECOMMENDATIONS
SUBJECT: STUDENT EVALUATION OF FACULTY
DATE: JANUARY 22, 2020

CHARGE 6

Appoint a Faculty Senate task force representing each College to work in conjunction with the Teaching Learning and Assessment (TLA) and APAFT committees to make policy recommendations regarding standardization of a process for the construction and utilization of student evaluations across WSU. (task force)

Members:
Melissa NeVille-Norton (APAFT)
R.C. Morris (TLA)
Gail Niklason
Diana Meiser (TLA)
Jenny Kokai
Andrea Easter-Pilcher
Alex Lawrence (APAFT)
Brenda Kowaleski
Marjukka Ollilainen (APAFT)

Background:

This APAFT charge and Senate Appointed Taskforce was established in response to TLA’s work in benchmarking good practice related to the timing, instrument, and purpose of student evaluations of faculty. 569 faculty were surveyed and 289 faculty responded (50.8% response rate). The breakdown from each of the Colleges was remarkably representative in terms of College representation.

College/School	Percent of WSU Faculty	# Responses/rate by college	Percent of responses
Arts & Humanities	105/550 = 19.1%	48 of 105 = 45.7%	16.61%
Education	54/550 = 9.8%	35 of 54 = 64.8%	12.11%
EAST	77/550 = 14%	29 of 77 = 37.7%	10.03%
Health Professions	98/550 = 17.8%	58 of 98 = 59.2%	20.1%
GSBE	49/550 = 8.9%	21 of 49 = 42.9%	7.27%
Science	85/550 = 15.5%	43 of 85 = 50.6%	14.88%
Social Science	68/550 = 12.4%	28 of 68 = 41.2%	9.78%
Other/ND	14/550 =	26	9.0%

It was recommended that faculty have a voice (through APAFT and the Faculty Senate) to make recommendations.

Last year (2019), a survey was sent to all faculty at WSU regarding their perceptions of student evaluations of faculty regarding:

Question 1. I am confident that current student evaluations of teaching accurately measure my teaching effectiveness.
- Overall, 43.71% of respondents agree or strongly agree that SET is an accurate means of measuring teaching effectiveness. Those who disagree or strongly disagree with that statement represent 47.2% of respondents. The remainder – 9.1% - neither agree nor disagree.
- We see a marked difference between colleges on this question with Colleges who have external accreditation requirements, which require student evaluations being more positive in their responses.
Question 2. Student evaluations of teaching are used appropriately in the promotion process.

Question 3. Student evaluations of teaching are used appropriately in the tenure process.
- Overall, faculty in every College were less supportive with how student evaluations were currently being used to evaluating teaching for tenure and promotion
The survey included three open-ended questions about student evaluations of teaching:
- What are the strengths of the current student evaluation process?
- What are the limitations of the current student evaluation process?
- Please provide any additional feedback and comments about student evaluations of teaching.
  - Responses were initially scanned, then reviewed more closely for tagging with categories – a disassembly process. Those categories of responses were then examined for significant themes – a reassembly process.
  - There were 177 total responses for this prompt. Strengths with the current process were articulated in 144 of those, and 29 participants received negative responses.
- Findings
  - Providing students with a voice (n=38, 38/177 = 21.5%)
  - Value/role of Feedback (n=48, 48/177 = 27.1%); primarily focused on the qualitative feedback from students
  - 29 participants received negative responses; the majority of those indicating the respondent felt there was no value in the current process:

Background Continued:

The faculty appointed senate task force, which reports directly has met bi-monthly, has done extensive benchmarking regarding good practice related to (1) evaluation effectiveness; (2) the timing/process of student evaluations; and (survey instruments). Several research articles and survey instruments from peer institutions/national institutions were reviewed.

Proposals:

APAFT will work this year to review and make recommendations regarding how student evaluation of faculty are used in the tenure and promotion process
Review and make recommendations regarding the timing of student evaluations at WSU:
- Surveys to be administered online
- Traditional Semesters
  - Survey will be administered just following the withdrawal period (approximately week 11 of the semester). This ensures that students who withdrew from a course cannot complete the evaluation. Evaluations will remain open for two weeks to capture online students and individuals coming to campus less often and to potentially improve response rates. Run the evaluations from 12:00am to 11:59pm
- Blocks/Exceptions
  - Opens on week 6 for one week and closes on week 7 (after the withdrawal period). Run the evaluations from 12:00am to 11:59pm
- Student Evaluation Marketing “Blitz” – Provost’s office will support a marketing blitz. An evaluation week to remind student of the intent/purpose of students evaluations, increase awareness, meaning, and completion of evaluations.
  - Signs, QR codes, emails, screens.
Develop an evidence-based (brief) evaluation survey instrument for use across Colleges, which Colleges and Departments may certainly add to for accreditation and faculty purposes.

Summary of Timing Student Evaluations (Estelami):

" The results indicate that there are significant differences between those students who respond early to survey invitations and those who respond late. Early responders and late responders reflect different segments of the student body, have different course evaluation formation dynamics, and exhibit different grade expectations. The findings suggest the existence of systematic biases in SET scores related to response rate, requiring educators to closely examine policies related to the timing of SET survey administration." Early responders provide feedback about the course experience, late responders reflect on their grade (anticipated or earned) other than the course itself.

Impact of a final exam on student responses (Arnold):

"A special feature of the data is that students were able to complete on-line questionnaires during a time window ranging from one week before to one week after the final examination. This allows for the isolation of the effect of the examination on student evaluations. Among students who subsequently pass the exam, we find little difference between pre-and post-exam ratings. Among students who fail, evaluation scores are significantly lower after the exam on a number of items. Our evidence is compatible with a self-serving bias in student evaluations, but does not indicate that students seek revenge on instructors through lower ratings." My emphasis added.

References (not an exclusive list)

American Sociological Association (2019). Statement on student evaluations of teaching. Arnold, I. J. M. (2009). Do examinations influence student evaluations? International Journal of Educational Research, 48(4), 215-224. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2009.10.001

Berrett, D. (2015). Can the student course evaluation be redeemed? The Chronicle of Higher Education

Dmitriy V. Chulkov Jason Van Alstine, (2012). Challenges in designing student teaching evaluations in a business program. International Journal of Educational Management, 26(2),162 – 174.

Estelami, H. (2015). The Effects of Survey Timing on Student Evaluation of Teaching Measures Obtained Using Online Surveys. Journal of Marketing Education, 37(1), 54-64. doi:10.1177/0273475314552324

Hancock, G., D. Shannon, and L. Trentham. Student and Teacher Gender in Ratings of University Faculty: Results from Five Colleges of Study. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education 6:235-248, 1993.Wallisch, P., and J. Cachia. 2019. “Determinants of perceived teaching quality: The role of divergent interpretations of expectations.” 10.31234/osf.io/dsvgq

James S. Pounder, (2007). Is student evaluation of teaching worthwhile. Quality Assurance in Education, 15(2), 178 – 191. retrieved from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09684880710748938

Stephen L. Wright & Michael A. Jenkins-Guarnieri (2012) Student evaluations of teaching: combining the meta-analyses and demonstrating further evidence for effective use. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 37:6, 683-699,

Supiano, B. (2019). A university overhauled its course evaluation to get better feedback. Here’s what changed. The Chronical of Higher Education.

Wallisch, P. and J. Cachia. 2019. “Determinants of perceived teaching quality: The role of divergent interpretations of expectations.” 10.31234/osf.io/dsvgq

Wright, S. L. & M. A. Jenkins-Guarnieri, Student evaluations of teaching: Combining the meta-analyses and demonstrating further evidence for effective use, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 37(6) 683-699, (2012).

Survey Instruments Reviewed

Southern Utah University
Utah Valley University
Daytona
Oregeon
USC

Merit Pay Guidelines - MAR 2021

(Faculty Senate Approved March 18, 2021)

SBBFP: Merit pay Document – 2/8/2021

Objective

Develop shared elements of a merit based compensation system for faculty at WSU that focus on transparency and best practices among all academic units

History

Faculty salary increases are usually decided by the Utah State legislature that allocates a certain percentage (say 3%) for salary increases (in past years WSU has sometimes increased this percentage). The SBBFP (Salary, Benefits, Budget, and Fiscal Planning) committee of the faculty senate nominates a negotiation team that recommends allocation of the 3% across two dimensions, an across-the-board (cost-of-living) increase of say 2%, and a merit component of say 1%, to the administration. For the past 3 years, the SBBFP has conducted a faculty survey in order to find out faculty preferences with regard to the two dimensions (cost-of-living versus merit). A majority of faculty (about 70%) have consistently indicated that they would like merit pay, but divergent practices and outcomes across colleges have caused concerns among faculty.

Problem

The allocation of merit pay (pay for performance) requires an annual review of faculty that follows a set of criteria. If the reviews do not distinguish among faculty performance, merit pay will look just like an across the board raise for everybody.

ASSUMPTIONS:

Faculty differ in their performance
Performance differentials are significant and can be linked to clear criteria
Faculty preference for merit pay indicates a desire for some variability in the final salary increases (historically given as a % of salary).

For example, some faculty may receive a 2% raise (using the example from before), while other faculty may see salary increases that are above the allocated 3% increase. Caveats: In a unit with uniformly high performers, all faculty may receive a 3% increase depending on the budgeting model used. The actual degree of variability will depend on the budgeting model, for example whether salary funds are allocated on a college level, department level or university level.

To achieve some degree of variability in salary increases (in %), the SBBFP has discussed some common elements in terms of rating faculty and some possible minimum criteria.

SUGGESTED COMMON ELEMENTS:

Rating system

Based on completion of Annual Faculty Report (AFR) form (differentiated by College), department chairs rate each faculty member exclusively on three categories: 1. Teaching, 2. Scholarship/Creative Productions, and 3. Administration and/or Professional Service – with some consideration on the weights that each category has. For merit pay no other categories are included in the rating (e.g. professional conduct). Faculty ratings in each category follow the language that is used for staff (PREP system). For example, the ratings may be: Does Not Meet Expectations, Meets Expectations, Exceeds Expectations. This language is meant to distinguish decisions regarding merit pay from ratings that are given in the process of rank and tenure decisions.

Minimum channels for merit pay increases

Colleges will be transparent with regard to minimum criteria or channels for merit pay eligibility. However, faculty who have not completed the AFR are not eligible for merit pay in any academic unit.

Format of the Annual Faculty Report form

While the specific format of the reporting should be left up to individual colleges, all forms should allow for multi-year reporting (at a minimum in the scholarship/creative productions category) and the data collection process should be simple. Reporting requirements should not go beyond bullet points in a stream-lined AFR.

Role of the department chair:

Collect AFR for each faculty member in the department
Review the AFR
Assign ratings (possibly in conjunction with the Dean) and communicate ratings to each faculty member and to the Dean’s Council of the college.
Consider a process where faculty accept/sign-off on the evaluation (similar to PREP) with an opportunity to discuss/contest the ratings.

Role of the Dean:

Develop a college-wide AFR in collaboration with department chairs (with additional input from other stakeholders as needed) and possible weights or minimum channels for criteria to encourage consistency of ratings.
Ensure comparable practices of review/rating across all departmental colleges.
Communicate the range of salary increases (in %) for the college (e.g. to SBBFP, college faculty) and inform individual faculty of their salary increase for the coming year.

Role of the Provost:

Devise appropriate training for Deans and department chairs (including data on existing salary structure and implicit bias concerns)
Ensure comparable practices of review/rating across all colleges (decision on whether budgets are allocated to colleges, departments or university wide).

TLC Vice Chair Position - 2022

(Approved by Faculty Senate February 10, 2022)

Vice-Chair Position in the Teaching and Learning Committee

Each spring semester the Faculty Senate Executive Committee will appoint both a Chair and Vice-Chair of the Teaching and Learning (TLC) Committee unless TLC committee membership requests a different leadership structure. If either the Chair or the ViceChair ceases to be a member of the Teaching and Learning Committee, the Faculty Senate Executive Committee will promptly appoint a successor. The Vice-Chair will shadow and assist the Chair, in order to prepare to serve as a future TLC Chair, and maintain continuity.

Senate Resolutions

Ad-hoc/Task Force Committees

General Resolutions

Evaluations (PDF)

General Education