Highline Community College

Faculty Senate Meeting Minutes

Faculty Senate Home Page

FACULTY SENATE
MINUTES
March 12, 2003

Present: Sharon Hashimoto; John Lindsay; Arline Garcia; Gloria Rose Koepping; John Pfeffer; Phil Droke; Glen Avantaggio; Rod Fowers; Tracy Brigham; Jeff Wagnitz; Igor Glozman; Gwen Spencer; Rebecca Sliger

Jeff Wagnitz explained that there is a recognition at the HEP-Board level that we have not had an institutional focus on technology. The AAS-T degree would move us toward a four year technology degree through this transferable program. In this manner, a community college student could pursue an AAS-T associate degree and move seamlessly toward a four year degree in technology.

Gloria Rose Koepping offered support of this degree plan, stating that it is the wave of the future and would result in graduates being able to earn more money with this type of preparation. Also, other programs might want to pursue this avenue for education.

Phil Droke explained that the next step would be to look at the content of such a degree and bring back to the various divisions our critique of the program’s content. Also, Jeff Wagnitz said he would e mail a template of the program to faculty members with the general education core for the AAS-T option.

In a speech class, two students made use of an attention getting device to emphasize a point, by having one student ‘shoot’ the other student in a realistic manner. The end result was that one student is now seeing a counselor and one student has been emotionally traumatized.

Faculty members discussed various aspects of this problem such as letting the human subjects committee handle it and also waiting until Ivan Gorne has resolved this issue with the involved students. Gloria Rose Koepping mentioned that Highline has a medical research instruction policy from 2000 that addresses issues such as this. It was suggested that faculty consider putting information on classroom behavior such as this into course syllabi. Faculty will continue to give input on this issue at the present time.

Ball State University has a demonstration module on cheating that is focused on rehabilitation as a remedy for cheating and dishonesty. This educational approach allows the student to take the time and make efforts toward clearing their name by demonstrating an understanding of why they must not cheat. Faculty discussed viewing this module and using some aspects as part of a student orientation procedure.

Arline Garcia did some computer research which pointed out Boise State having a similar method, including a student code of conduct. Phil Droke emphasized that faculty need to report these issues in writing to Toni Castro so we can know the magnitude of the problem. It was suggested that Toni give us data each quarter as to how severe the problem is. Rebecca Sliger wondered why faculty is not reporting academic dishonesty, ie, is there fear of someone higher up reversing a faculty member’s decisions on this issue or perhaps fear of getting a student in trouble? For example, reporting these issues to Toni but at the same time emphazising that submitting this data is just for reporting purposes only. Glen Avantaggio suggested that faculty could fill out an incident report on these issues. Gloria Rose Koepping suggested that incident reports be passed out with instructions on how to fill them out and to treat it as a training issue. Arline Garcia suggested that we have a web discussion group. Glen, Gloria, Arline and Rod Fowers will bring this issue up in their division meetings.

Phil Droke brought up the issue of current student evaluation forms. He mentioned that the first five questions are mandated as questions, to be used for purpose of comparison. He also stated that question #2, asking about an instructor’s availability, does not correlate with any other question and students are misunderstanding this question. Glen Avantaggio shared that this question is possibly too broad. Also the question is poorly worded and not clear. Gwen Spencer suggested educating students as to what is a reasonable expectation for faculty time and availability. Rod Fowers asked who is responsible for revising questions on this form. Phil Droke mentioned that there are different forms and questions for different departments so the Tenure Review Committee formulated the first five questions on the student evaluation form in the interests of uniformity. Phil will talk to the chain of command of the Tenure Review Committee about this issue. Rod Fowers suggested that we gather more data and stated he will address this issue with the Tenure Review Committee through Jean Harris who is on the committee.

Gwen Spencer mentioned that the college catalog will outline the grievance procedure and that it is tied to the faculty Union contract However other sub-issues need to be focused on. More students are complaining of grades, especially in conjunction with transferring to four year universities, getting into the nursing program and the pressures of getting higher grade point averages. Some students also voice criticism about not getting a timely response to complaints. Gwen is working on timelines for responses, in view of some students lodging complaints after two quarters go by.

Gwen then passed out a form on the faculty complaint process and emphasized that several issues emerge here. For example, how does this process affect faculty teaching on line courses, adjunct faculty, lines of authority for complaints. Currently, complaints involving full time faculty go to the division chair and complaints involving adjunct faculty go to department coordinators. Jeff Wagnitz said that the current catalog version is the correct version concerning complaints. One problem is that the Union contract does not specify time lines for complaint reporting and resolution but that students could be tied to timelines through the process being modified. A central issue that was raised is what is a reasonable time for filing a complaint (grievance)?

John Lindsay asked what would happen if students returned two or more years later, investigating a grade change. Phil Droke suggested that we have two years to change aspects of this policy and add a time line for grade changes via the next catalog revision and this could also include other types of complaints, too. Jeff Wagnitz suggested that we not include people’s names for the various divisions, departments in any changes in complaint procedures suggested.

Respectfully submitted,

Judy Johnson-Wise