University Daily Kansan
Tuesday, September 9, 1975
3
To All Members of the University Community
THE UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS/LAWRENCE, KANSAS 66045
STUDENT SENATE
105 B KANSAS UNION
SEPTEMBER 9,1975
To All Members of the University Community:
The 16 proposals which are before you are the result of the efforts of the Commission on the Quality of Classroom Teaching. They are by no means final and several revisions are planned before the 1st of October. It must be said at the outset that the Commission, by putting forth these proposals, is not tacitly implying that there exists a low level of teaching at the University of Kansas. Rather, what is being said is that it is intrinsic to such an institution that improvement can be made. It is hoped that the Commission has and will have an effect upon classroom teaching and the University's awareness of its importance.
I hope you will take time to read these proposals carefully, discuss them with your friends, and let us know what you think of the proposals or any new ideas you might have. Address your comments in writing to the Student Senate Office, 105 B Student Union.
Respectfully submitted,
Interim Report of the Commission on the Quality of Classroom Instruction
1. Curriculum and Instruction Survey (Student Evaluation of Teachers)
A) The length of the survey must be cut. It is entirely too long. A survey of 15-20 questions would be adequate, without overdoing it.
B) There should be three separate surveys. One survey should be for the large lecture class, one for the small instrument/discussion class, and one for the workshop class.
C) There should be adequate space in the survey for departments to add their own pertinent questions.
D) The survey questions should be such that a student would have the capability and knowledge to answer them.
E) The survey questions need to be put in terms which the student can easily read and comprehend.
(F) The results need to be distributed earlier and more widely. The "Feedback" should include a description of the course structure, and a section of random statements, or data by the students.
In summary, the Office of Instructional Resources must play an active, aggressive role in the changes which need to be made in the Curriculum and Instruction Survey. The survey has the potential to be a valuable tool, which could be used by students and faculty and administration alike in several ways.
The Commission should keep prodding the Office of Instructional Resources until these suggestions are digested and made a part of the Curriculum and Instruction Survey program. At that point, the Curriculum and Instruction Survey would be much further down the road toward becoming an excellent instrument of course and faculty evaluation.
2. Student Responsibilities
Article 2, Section B of the Code of Student Right, Responsibilities, and Conduct states that, "Students are free to pursue their educational goals; appropriate opportunities for learning in the classroom and on the campus shall be provided by the University." Article 5, Section B of the Code states that, "Students are responsible for learning the content of any course for which they are enrolled."
In light of these statements, the Commission should work through the Senate Academic Affairs Committee in order to have the Student Senate, as a whole, discuss the role of the student in the classroom. We also need to be reminded that, even with good motivation from the instructor, course work and course content are influenced by the pace that students are able to work.
There are three major items for possible discussion that would require a more devoted student effort in the classroom and would help the student as well.
1) Making the thirteen week drop policy more restrictive.
2) Restriction of the Credit/No Credit option to one course every two semesters or a total of four during undergraduate enrollment.
3) Establishment of grievance procedures for students. Particularly by the appointment of an ambassador for student grievances from the Office of Academic Affairs.
3. Assistant Instructors and Teaching Assistants
A) There needs to be a definite selection process as outlined below in this report.
1) Wherever possible a personal interview shall be mandatory. Anyone living within a 300 mile radius of Lawrence, Kansas must be personally interviewed. Outside the 300 mile radius, a phone call (possibly conference) shall be made to the individual applying for Assistant Instructor or Teaching Assistant.
2) Selection of Assistant Instructors or Teaching Assistants shall be done by a committee of no less than three members.
3) No foreign student may teach at the University of Kansas their first year unless they snow a high proficiency in English in a personal interview.
4) The basic dossier must be submitted prior to appointment. The dossier should consist of transcripts, GRE scores and letters of recommendation from professors (a minimum of two) and documentation of teaching ability.
5) Criteria for selection of Ats shall be made available to them before application and that criteria adhered to during the selection process.
(3) There needs to be definite training and evaluation processes as outlined below in this report.
1) All first year Assistant Instructors or Teaching Assistants must be evaluated twice a semester, once in the first four weeks of the semester and once in the last four weeks of the semester. Evaluation of Assistant Instructors and Teaching Assistants can be done by three faculty in that department excluding the major advisor. Selection of faculty evaluators shall be at random and the Assistant Instructor or Teaching Assistant must not know when that evaluation will take place.
2) Any first year Assistant Instructor or Teaching Assistant must attend every lecture of the same course they teach which is taught by a full-time faculty member. This shall continue for the first eight weeks of the first semester hired.
3) Recommend that one substitute teacher be hired.
3) Recommend that each Assistant Instructor and Teaching Assistant video-fape at least two of their lectures per semester and then evaluate themselves by looking at these tapes.
4) our lectures per semester and then evaluate themselves by looking at these tapes.
5) Instructional Resources should publish available programs for improvement of teaching.
C) There need to be adequate removal policies established for AIs and TAs.
1) A graduate student must maintain a "B" average to be eligible to teach.
2) A uniform procedure should be established for removal of an AI or TA from a teaching position. A written explanation giving reasons for removal should be provided the AI or TA.
D) Tuition fee waivers and other benefits should be sought for Graduate Student Instructors.
E) The University needs to clearly define whether Assistant Instructors are teachers or students.
4. The Vice-Chancellor for Academic Affairs should place an increased emphasis on teaching at KU. The Vice-Chancellor should direct the department heads to assign equal weight to teaching and research ability for selection of new faculty. If a department fails to use teaching as a major criterion, when funding for new positions becomes available, those positions will go to departments who have shown an increased interest in teaching, and not that they have been appointed to student's education. Evidence of the applicants' teaching ability must be included in their doctoral proposal should be enforced from the top, through the Vice-Chancellor for Academic Affairs, all the way through the University Departments.
5. The Faculty Handbook must read explicitly what is required for promotion and tenure at the University of Kansas. These must be clear-cut definitions, so that any subjective evaluation is treated with equal emphasis must be placed upon the triad of teaching, research, and service, but these must all be laid out so that all the criteria for promotion and tenure are clearly understood.
6. Five distinguished teaching chairs should be initiated for excellence in teaching. The survey of other institutions taken by the Commission clearly points out that this is a practice at other universities. We reward excellence in research, and we must also reward teaching.
7. All teaching awards should carry a 5 to 10 per cent increase in pay in addition to an honoraria of $1,000. A 5 to 10 per cent increase in the pay check means a lot more than $1,000 in an onetime fee. This type of reward would provide an excellent incentive for faculty members to improve their teaching quality and it would also add to the awareness of excellent teaching here at KU.
8. The Administration should insure that sabbatical leaves for improvement of classroom teaching are possible. It is just as important to improve yourself as a teacher as it is to improve yourself as a researcher. Professors must have the right to take sabbatical leaves for teaching improvement.
10. All new classroom construction and rework of classrooms in older buildings at KU should be directed towards a conducive teaching atmosphere. If a professor wants to show a film in class, the class should be constructed to aid this desire. In addition, current buildings and classrooms should be carefully studied to see what measures might aid a good teaching atmosphere.
9. Each and every faculty member at the University of Kansas must undergo some sort of teaching evaluation annually. This may be accomplished by the Curriculum and Instruction Survey, by peer evaluation, or by specific departmental evaluative means. The results of the evaluation should be made public.
11. Each faculty member must be encouraged to use effective new and innovative ideas in the classroom. There are many new effective innovations in teaching which professors shun without giving them a chance; such as audio-visual equipment, dialogue teaching, etc. Administration and staff must be open to and encourage these effective innovations.
12. The Office of Admissions and Records should hire ten student advisors. These advisors would serve as counselor for incoming students during the orientation program and serve as a ambassador throughout the program.
13. This proposal deals with the Office of Instructional Resources. This office would be enlarged, and made into a Vice-Chancellor's office, similar in level to that of the Vice-Chancellor for Research and Graduate Studies. The duties would need to be increased to encompass audiovisual opportunities for teachers, to further expand the pool of information available for professors for their improvement, and to press the administration and departments to hire excellent teachers.
As this position changes and enlarges, it needs to be filled by a dynamic and aggressive individual who is not only dedicated to teaching, but must also be an excellent teacher. Thought should be given to making this a two or three year rotating position given to a professor known for excellence in the classroom. The reason for a two or three year position is so the teaching professor can get back into the teaching system, where he will undoubtedly want to return.
14. All departments should be required to assign instructors to each section of all classes and that information should be included in the timetable or the Addendum. In particular, introductory courses lack complete listings of instructors and this would rectify that situation.
15. An award for teaching excellence in introductory courses should be established for which all instructors of introductory courses could compete, including Ais and TAs.
16. Finally, we would propose that the Commission work with the Senate Academic Affairs Committee to insure that on October 1, 1976, a review is issued, which would outline for the Senate what the University Administration has done to implement the Commission's final proposals.
(Paid For By Student Activity Fees)