FSEC tackles teaching resolutions
Proposals address aspects of "interactive cultures of teaching and learning"

By SUE WUETCHER
Reporter Editor

Six proposed resolutions addressing aspects of the "interactive cultures of teaching and learning" were presented to members of the Faculty Senate Executive Committee for their review at the group's Sept. 13 meeting.

The resolutions follow up on a detailed report presented to the Faculty Senate last spring by its Teaching and Learning Committee, said committee Chair J. Ronald Gentile, SUNY Distinguished Teaching Professor in the Department of Counseling and Educational Psychology.

The purpose of the report was to outline recommendations for the assessment of instructional effectiveness and how to implement those recommendations.

The resolutions are based on the six recommendations in the report, although they were revised and expanded after discussions with the FSEC last April 19 and a first reading before the full Faculty Senate on May 2.

A "preamble" attached to the resolutions states that although the tripartite mission of most large universities is research, teaching and service, research is weighed far more heavily in promotion-and-tenure decisions than teaching and service.

"To maximize instructional effectiveness," the institution must ensure that faculty teaching accomplishments are encouraged, nurtured and rewarded as are research accomplishments, the preamble says.

Moreover, "just as a 'culture of teaching' needs to be nourished and expected of the faculty and administration, so too does a 'culture of learning' need to become integral to the experience of being a student." Although the responsibility for learning rests with students, faculty members have an important role to play in helping students succeed, it adds.

The first resolution requires that a syllabus be published for each course that addresses such issues as general goals for the course, specific objectives that must be achieved to demonstrate mastery, how students will be evaluated, attendance policies and what additional help is available for students.

Another resolution asks that the deans be responsible for ensuring that teaching portfolios be part of promotion-and-tenure decisions, and that portfolios include, for each course taught, a course syllabus; student evaluations of instruction; instructor self-evaluations of their teaching philosophy, methods and effectiveness; evidence of the effectiveness of instruction, and procedures for identifying students having difficulties and what is done to help them.

Other resolutions ask that the provost, in collaboration with the deans, initiate and fund a "professional development effort" for faculty to expand and improve their "instructional repertoires;" that the provost and deans develop a list of "student academic responsibilities," such as understanding and following the course syllabus; knowing and following the university policy regarding drop-add dates, making up incomplete grades, etc., and requesting from the instructor the need for extra assistance on an assignment or topic, and that the Methods of Inquiry (MOI) program be maintained and strengthened.

Samuel Shack, professor and chair of the Department of Mathematics, pointed out that the term syllabus is "misused" in the first resolution, and that the wording should be changed to "course description" to better reflect the content of the resolution. He added that the resolution does not spell out when the syllabus should be distributed to students, suggesting that it indicate syllabi must be handed out within the first week of class, or some other stated time frame.

William Baumer, professor of philosophy, proposed that the wording on the resolution be changed to "syllabus and course policies."

"It's appropriate to spell out what the rules are," he said, "Šand that should be in a document that includes the syllabus."

Baumer added that he "would not be content" to have the syllabus and course policies available within the first week. "That should be a handout, that ought to be the first thing you give out in class," he said.

Charles Fourtner, professor of biological sciences, said he was concerned with an item in one of the resolutions requiring that instructors identify students who are having difficulty.

"Every one of the students in my course have difficulty with it; it's intended that way," he said.

"I don't know how I am supposed to draw the line as to who is having difficulty at the level they're having difficulty that I have to do something about," he said. "If we're talking about students who are failing the course, perhaps it's best that they fail."

Fourtner also wondered if, in light of the resolution asking the provost to develop a program to help faculty improve their teaching, there was any interest in re-establishing the Office of Teaching Effectiveness.

Gentile replied that there had been much discussion during the May Faculty Senate meeting about the need to reinstate the office. He said he then approached Provost Elizabeth Capaldi about the idea.

She asked why that was not being considered, and "I took that as a big encouragement," Gentile said.

He said his committee was working on two workshops-one scheduled for Oct. 20 on applying techniques from the Methods of Inquiry course to other courses, and another for the spring on other issues associated with teaching effectiveness.

But, thanks to Capaldi's comments, "we're being encouraged to think more broadly about it (teaching effectiveness) than just a couple of workshops," he said.