邢唷��>� GI��F��欹�� +bjbj糍糍 06柍柍�#��|||||��p��, ��TB|��B�||��W��|�|��牶胤彎��R�m0��|�$��BB��B: University Council on Teaching (UCT) Minutes 10/21/2011 9-10:30 am., Waul House Present: Chris Hepburn, Chair (A&S, Earth and Environmental Sciences); Jackie Lerner (Lynch School of Education), Sue Barret (Connor抯 Learning Center), Jeffrey Cohn (Carroll School of Management), Pat DeLeeuw (Office of the Provost), Michael Martin (A&S Dean抯 Office and Honors Program), Bob Murphy (A& S, International Studies and Economics), Dominic Doyle (School of Ministry and Theology), Don Hafner (Office of the Provost), Sarah Beckjord (A&S, Romance Languages and Literatures), Dorothy Jones (School of Nursing). I. The Chair summarized the topics to be addressed by the UCT this year: 1. Consideration of the proposal for procedures to initiate and implement Peer Review of Teaching across the University. The main point on today抯 agenda is to discuss an initial proposal on the topic drafted by Vice Provost Pat DeLeeuw. 2. Student Course Evaluations. 蝌蚪直播 has hired a new vendor to handle student evaluations starting in 2013, and Student Services has requested input from the UCT on potential changes to current format and practices by the end of December 2011. This topic will be on the agenda for our next meeting. 3. The Chair solicited ideas for establishing a UCT 蝌蚪直播 lecture, seminar, or workshop series on teaching, suggesting that a committee might be formed to examine this possibility. It was noted that CSOM already schedules this sort of event for their faculty, and has scheduled Ken Bain to lecture to a small faculty group on 揥hat the best College Teachers Do� on Friday, Nov. 18. In the future, when appropriate the UCT could try to coordinate with similar efforts in the various schools to invite speakers to 蝌蚪直播. Suggestions for potential lecturers from within the 蝌蚪直播 community included Prof. Ana Mart韓ez Alem醤 from the Lynch School. 4. Support for teaching at 蝌蚪直播. Vice Provost Pat DeLeeuw noted that the Office of the Provost and the Connors Family Learning Center have begun to work on a proposal for a Center for Teaching at 蝌蚪直播. Once formulated, the proposal will be circulated to the UCT and other relevant committees for consideration. 5. Reevaluation of the Core. Several years ago, the UCT wrote a report that raised a concern about the number of 蝌蚪直播 students who place out of the Core based on their performance in AP courses. The Core has been designated by the Administration as a topic of broad discussion on campus this year. The ILA and the Core Curriculum Task Force will begin the task of reevaluating the Core, and the UCT has been asked to assist in this process once the discussions get underway. 6. Grade inflation. Having made a report on this subject in recent years, the UCT will revisit the topic again later this year to note progress so far and to consider whether more needs to be done. Vice Provost Don Hafner provided a report on median GPA in the School of Arts and Sciences, prepared by Associate Dean of A& S Bill Petri, which shows a lowering and flattening out of average GPA over the last three years. 7. TAM/TAME grants. The Chair asked the Committee to consider whether the TAM/TAME grants could be used in part to promote interdisciplinary teaching on campus. Ideas to consider include whether the UCT might foster workshops or some other means of linking faculty with similar interests. Don Hafner mentioned that there is a new initiative in Student Affairs that seeks to create new mentoring initiatives linked to student life in the residence halls. Student Affairs is particularly interested in programming that would engage first-year students in non-course related activities with faculty. 8. Other items for the UCT to address this year. The issue of the use of amplified loudspeakers outdoors during class time hours was addressed last year by the committee. If any new issues develop in this regard, faculty are encouraged to contact Student Affairs. II. Discussion of the draft proposal on Peer Review of Teaching at Boston College, prepared by the Office of the Provost Vice Provost Pat Deleeuw presented a draft proposal prepared by the Office of the Provost. The draft proposal draws on the UCT Report to the Provost on Peer Review of Teaching (May 2011), as well as the many published resources on this topic (a selected bibliography is included in the proposal). Pat noted that the impetus for this proposal originally came from Father Leahy, who requested that more consistent practices and standards for the review of teaching be adopted across the University. The draft proposal affirms the value of peer mentoring and peer review of teaching, and describes two kinds of review that ought to take place: a) formative (mentoring intended to develop and improve teaching performance), and b) summative (written evaluation in the context of a renewal of contract or promotion, as required by the University Statutes.) Summative Peer Review: The proposal would require every department and school develop a written description of the summative peer review process, to be used in the review of: non-tenure-track faculty, one year before the end of a contract. the 3rd or 4th year review of pre-tenure faculty the review of faculty candidates for tenure and promotion the promotion of non-tenure-track faculty Formative Peer Review: Every department and school would also be urged to have an explicit policy to help pre-tenure faculty develop their teaching. Formal or informal peer review processes further need to be devised to foster good teaching by both tenured and long-term non-tenure-track faculty. Pat emphasized that both summative and formative review needs to take place in each department and school. Every department will be required to develop relevant practices. At present, some departments have peer review of teaching practices in place, but these are not always enforced, except at contract renewal and/or promotion time. In reference to discussions among various groups of the UCT抯 Report, Pat noted that faculty in both small and large departments expressed concern about the time that will be needed to implement peer review of teaching. Many also recognize that it is a worthwhile endeavor. When appropriate, departments could perhaps join together for some aspects of the review process to create efficiencies. One member noted that many departments are reluctant to send written summative reviews of teaching for pre-tenure faculty outside of the department, out of concern that any negative element could have consequences. Another member noted that summative reviews could be seen as benchmarks. If faculty address areas of concern and demonstrate improvement in teaching over time, then that should be interpreted in a positive light at the time of promotion or contract renewal. The draft proposal also includes guidelines to be followed in both summative and formative peer review of teaching. The only difference between the two is that the results of a summative evaluation are sent out in report beyond the department. The Chair asked: how this policy is going to be implemented? The practices are clear for tenure-track faculty, but less so for tenured faculty. One member noted that Law school has a buddy system that seems to work well for ongoing faculty development beyond tenure. It was noted that participation in Peer Review could be tied to salary increments. One member suggested that it would be best to have reviews done for all faculty members, rather than just for those who are perceived as having difficulties. Dorothy Jones commented on a situation to the School of Nursing, where new faculty members often begin their teaching career with little teaching experience. The School has undertaken efforts to clarify expectations for novice teachers so that there is an appropriate level of awareness concerning academic standards. Since issues of accreditation are critical in nursing, it is important to provide adequate support for novice professors, who are juggling heavy loads in research and service in addition to teaching. However, it has been challenging to sustain the desired level of support and mentoring for novice faculty. Another member noted that not all departments have clear procedures for evaluating non-tenure-track faculty. Jeff Cohen noted that CSOM provides mentoring for all new faculty concerning expectations at the beginning of the semester. Dominic Doyle noted that in terms of orientation and initial mentoring, two departments could productively share resources, as has been done some instances with Theology and the School of Ministry. It was suggested that individual departments and schools should be given autonomy in their implementation of peer review of teaching. The Committee voted unanimously to approve the Draft on Peer Review of Teaching prepared by the office of the Provost. III. The remaining UCT meetings for the semester were scheduled as follows: Friday, November 18, 9-10:30 am in the Waul House conference room. Tuesday, December 13, 12-1:30 pm in Waul House conference room. IV. The meeting adjourned at 10:20. Respectfully submitted by Sarah Beckjord $%&CD€ � � � %€�� :HPp��V [ � � � 2J�HP��'Ta��Ii��]4<jy��箨筮走走走线走走走走走走走线走走走走走走走走走紫咦咦咦呦咦咦吣寄急急募hiHh6�OJQJh6�OJQJhZ�h6�OJQJh覴JOJQJh,FoOJQJhZ�h,FoOJQJh,Fo5丱JQJhZ�h,Fo5丱JQJF%&9QR] _ ` � � ��QR��`a()]^hi��gd6�ij��=>�._��?@� � �!�!�"�"�#�#�#�#��勑勑^勑`勑gd6�gd6��';Ups�35:<�lx��:Xps��@��7 J d � � �!"@"�"}$�$�$�$�%�%�'�'((A)[)f)h)�+�+�+蹴蹴踽蹴蹴跽跽蹴蹴蹴蹴蹴蹴蹴蹴蹴蹴蹴蹴蹴蹴蹴蹴蹴蹴蹴蹴蹴蹴蹴蹴�hZ�h6�H*OJQJhZ�h6�6丱JQJh6�OJQJhZ�h6�OJQJ?�#0$1$�$�$�%�%((€(�(�(�(�)�)L*N*�*�*V+�+�+�+�+�+�+��gd6�.:p6�靶/ 班=!�"�#悹$悹%�靶靶愋��666666666vvvvvvvvv666666>666666666666666666666666666�6666666666�666666666666hH66666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666�66666666662�� 0@P`p€��2(�� 0@P`p€�� 0@P`p€�� 0@P`p€�� 0@P`p€�� 0@P`p€�� 0@P`p€�8X�V~ OJPJQJ_HmH nH sH tH @`�@�'_NormalCJ_HaJmH sH tH DA ��D Default Paragraph FontRi��R�Table Normal�4� l4�a�(k ��( No ListPK!涜pO�[Content_Types].xml瑧薺�0E鲄䞍卸豶�(ヘ微廬嬼yl嬝#!MB蝼;.�卬姨谨台\艫�1&绌耀夹生芉W橄蚄v疷b�OX�#&疆释1`RⅵT闉9<搇�#ぼ$┐>幚r崫 `沸」-�;c=1g词'縸�虫笔咓颈叠$篒�翱�1脢办9报滨鬰尝�涢贬�隮<�;*v�7'榓瓻\�h>嗟�=青镑,�*彿阗�8辩赌;湷镑�*4髑槿?�奥辩调苍阍塷驳淎撙>曧�8蹿�2�*<")QH裤麆xK┟� 梶ㄐ]奪榸)橛亾MS欯\&>!�7;飞笔�3熥摆淅贰叠鲍缚�1綩楥�5VD翕� 豖靉?p墾勠 S喧4坻曐[驨S叫28;嶻慵[戢櫌�,荇撘骉1|筅n�;�+衡/蕰j�蟎阉\,E:!莒宼�4.T獭e1 �謢�; [鄗^鵳縧�銨�ok侮0e g@礕GHPXNT,賲禿诧e鮸楸*YdT臷橸�鋩熬顏+�(員7�$ow2�茜紓#紾┲浻墒ビ掷?絨迸N澵K椟-�/M,W鏖阦鍗x盕V�/Q吴范朞鯕&渆刀c蛒几\Q滜她LW@H��!�+魝阽{衃|{包!汝K韩A�i `遚m2iU栚|纾Y+�蕤栿� [[v杧煋靣錘缭釫挐3靝m擎R �=Y�04,�!&0�+W魿軆@o習�樫OS2�'S佼0�5嘌$�嗓]pm珠3孎瞭�崕婓G蓜-!鹹へ"�訅V .� 甡幾�,�O.%烫胁Kas楁S球骗弙€稭謟瓔玚姤叢3铵蘽�9+e鰻@�e觇諗錖y硥�7啠W萧_Xtl斴��PK! 褠煻'theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.rels剰M �0匃倃oo雍�&輬协�勪5 6?$Q祉 �,.嘺緳i粭澤c2�1h�:闀q毩m胳嶡RN壻;d癭値o7�g慘(M&$R(.1榬'J摐袏T鶂�8V�"＆A然蠬鱱}狇�|�$絙{�朠�除8塯/]As賲(⑵锑#洩L蔥汉倪��PK-!涜pO�[Content_Types].xmlPK-!ブх�6-_rels/.relsPK-!ky��theme/theme/themeManager.xmlPK-!!Z!��theme/theme/theme1.xmlPK-! 褠煻'( theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.relsPK]# �#6��+i�#�+FJ��#��(017��8>- 3 h o ��:#>#z#~#�#�#�#CE4?��.1_b��#::::::�覴J,Fo6��#�#�@€i i けi i �#`@��Unknown��G��*郃x� �Times New Roman5�€Symbol3��*郈x� �Arial?�c€�Baskerville7��@�CambriaA��$B�Cambria Math q�鹦h�;�&�;�& [�A[�A��€24�#�#A`�H�?'��4,2,��Sarah BeckjordHepburn� 鄥燆鵒h珣+'迟0\'�� <H T`hpx€'Sarah BeckjordNormal.dotmHepburn4Microsoft Macintosh Word@v軦@舞饌澨@癛澨[�G�%��PICT%�€b��HH€b €€��€�€bHH�8€b€b!��!�脾��脾��脾��脾��脾��脾��脾��脾��脾��脾��K启�w絯��{撖�{��w絳摭�s滯� s渨��{��{��w絪渨絪渙{��U启�"V礸9R擣1V礦礪諶擭sg9R擵礜sV礡擽�9蝛ZR擽鱚鱖謂鱊sR擱擩RNskZ^鱎擱攌ZR攐{��Q启�{辸絪渨絳撖w�s渨絯絳辸絪渟渨絪渰辸絯絳辿辸絯浸s�g9kZw絯絳辿辸絯揭��脾��脾��1启�kZkZs渨絯絳辿辸絢Zw給{w絪済9s渟渨嚼��1启�s済9g9kZg9o{s渟渒Zw給{s渨絢Zs渟渨嚼��5启�s渰辭{s渟渙{�{辿��o{o{{辿辸給{o{{辿蘼��7启�s渟渒Zo{o{kZw絚g9w絪渒Zg9g9s渒Zcg9ckZ��脾��脾��?启�{摞�{辿��{辿搡�{搦�{搦�{揎�{摭�{揞��启�*g9ckZg9o{g9{辡9^鱫{g9g9co{g9ckZg9s済9w絚co{{轣鱚鱣9o{g9s済9g9kZo{g9co{kZg9g9o{kZ齡9kZcs渃o{g9g9o{kZw絞9o{kZ^鱫{kZs渙{g9o{o{��}启�鼂�w��{辸絳辸浸{� o{{辸絯絪��{辸絯絳辿摭w�{辸絯絳辿撖w�{辸絯浸{摞w��{辿辸絯絳辿辸給{w絳辸絳辿辸絳辸絳辿摅��启�s渙{o{s渒Zw絕鱳絞9s渙{o{kZo{kZg9s渨給{o{s渟��^鱯渟済9kZ䁖{ {辦Zs渟渙{s渙{s渙{w絪滯o{s渨絢Zs滯o{w��c^鱧Zo{w絢Zs済9o{{揎��启�w絪渙{o{s渨絪渨給{o{s渨給{{辭{s渒Zs滯o{ s渰辳渙{w絪渙{o{s渨絳撖s�o{o{s渨絯給{s滭o{⺳� o{s渨絪済9o{w絯絪渨絪渙{o{w斤��启�o{s渨給{w絕鱳絞9kZw絯給{{辦Zg9g9w絪渨浸s�,w絪渟��Z謜絯絞9g9kZw絪渨絯絳辦Zg9^鱯渨絳辦Zw絢Zw絞9g9w絯絪渟渰辦Zg9s渒Zw絪渟済9g9w給{o{{掾��启�s渟渒Zo{w絞9{辭{s滯o{w給{w絢ZkZo{g9^鱯渙{s渒Zo{{辳渒Zw烬o{s渙{o{{辳滯o{s渨給{w絢Zw絪渨給{s渙{o{s渨絞9kZs渒ZkZw給{o{kZs渒Zw津��启�{辳渙{s渰辡9{��{辸絯給{kZw��{��s渙{o{{��{辳渙{��齵撖s��o{o{�{辳渰��w浸s�{辳渰辿��{��w��{��w給{{��o{��启�CompObj��`�� F Microsoft Word 97-2004 Document��NB6WWord.Document.8