Senate Meeting Minutes
Thursday, April 13, 2006
SUB 143

I.                   Call to Order

a.      The meeting was called to order at 3:21 pm by the Chair.

II.                 Introduction of Visitors

a.      Present: Leanne Parker, Susan Odom, Barbara Barnes, Cody Bloomsburg, Scott Brainard, Rik Brosten, Claire Davis, Brian
Fonnesbeck, Debbie Goodwin, Jacob Hornby, Rachel Jameton, Diane Johnson, Cheryl Jurgens, Eric Martin, Jeff Matthews, Dan Mayton,
David McCullough, Ed Miller, Joni Montez, Clay Robinson, Michelle
Sotka, Travis Osburn

b.      Absent: Tony Fernandez, Laura Bracken, Margaret Chavez, Linda Coursey, Tracy Flynn, Matt Johnston, Lynne Bidwell, Harold Crook,
Kent Johnson, Ray Miller, Jim Tarter , Mike Owen, Gin Weber

c.      Guests: Chet Herbst, Julie Crea

III.              Approval of Minutes

a.      Minutes from the Senate meeting of March 16, 2006 were unanimously approved by acclamation

IV.               Provost Report: No report

V.                 Treasury Report

a.      Faculty Senate Appropriated Account: $742.40

b.      Faculty Association Account: $3994.97

c.      Faculty Benevolence Account: $1370.00

VI.               Chair’s Report

a.      President’s Council

                                                              i.      The community college system for the state was not passed
by the legislature.

                                                             ii.      Coeur D’Alene has new videoconferencing equipment.

                                                           iii.      The Provost will issue a memo clarifying the number of credit hours per class, focusing on laboratories and clinicals.

                                                          iv.      Dean Hanson reminds faculty to encourage students to register now for fall.  Students who are graduating, yet returning in the fall, need to fill out a PIF in order to receive financial aid.

                                                            v.      The development of a residential parking zone seems to be moving forward.  This zone will encompass approximately two blocks around the campus.

                                                          vi.      Faculty can now test the Student Course Evaluation.  By
signing on (login: last name; password: warrior ID# without leading zeros) faculty can see what students see when they
fill out the course evaluations.

                                                         vii.      In Coeur D’Alene, an “Educational Corridor” between NIC and
the other institutions continues to be discussed.

                                                       viii.      The State Board of Education is considering whether to standardize how we manage credits from unaccredited schools.

                                                           ix.      The bookstore is now being managed by Follett.  Employees
can choose whether to work for Follett or LCSC.

                                                            x.      Applications for fall are up 8.2%, mostly at the Coeur D’Alene campus and in Professional-Technical Programs.

                                                           xi.      The Supervisor Performance Surveys are available and faculty and staff are reminded to fill them out.  Faculty/staff Surveys have been redesigned to reflect what was discovered last year.  They will be available to be filled out in a week or so.

                                                         xii.      Utah is increasing the number of out-of-state waivers to
Idaho.

VII.            New Business

a.      The room reservation website will be up in June (see Appendix A).  Every room will be on the website and everyone will be able to see
what is available.  Rooms not related to classes will be reserved
through the website or through Julie Crea. Rooms for classes will still
be scheduled by Ryan Gill.

b.      There is an online competition for the design of a new campus ID card.   The competition closes May 4 and voting will be done online.  The campus ID card is soon to be more flexible: the “Warriorbucks” that
are purchasable from the SUB information desk and library will work in vending machines, at the library, for computer printing and food service.  The ID cards are also used for entrance to events at the activity center, and soon to dorms.

VIII.          Standing Committee Reports

a.      Administrative Procedures (Jeff Matthews)

                                                              i.      This committee has had its last meeting for this semester.

                                                             ii.      The consideration of adding an adjunct faculty seat to the senate has been deferred until next year.  Thus far, the department chairs have expressed opposition to the idea on
the grounds that one person could not properly represent a diverse population of adjunct faculty and that advocates for adjunct faculty already exist within the current representational process.  Other concerns discussed include whether adjunct faculty should be expected to do anything but teach and whether adjunct faculty have the same investment in the
future of LCSC as regular faculty.

                                                           iii.      The committee unanimously decided that there is no constitutional barrier to a Senate Chair running for a second term.  There is also no reason for constitutional change at this time, but should be considered for next year.

                                                          iv.      The revision of the Tenure Policy was submitted for a first reading (Appendix B).  The new policy is separated into a policy section and a procedure section.

b.      Budget Liaison (Leanne Parker)

                                                              i.      This committer has had its last meeting for the semester. It
will continue to provide feedback to the work of the Compensation Review Committee.

c.      Curriculum Committee (Jacob Hornby)

                                                              i.      The report from the Curriculum Committee containing 8
proposals was unanimously approved by acclamation.  See appendix C.

                                                             ii.      The committee reviewed the new midterm grade policy.  Feedback by the committee was generally favorable toward
the policy because it strengthened the faculty-student bond.  The committee recommended that the time for submission of
the grades be extended to noon on the Monday following end
of mid-term and also that faculty include an explanation of how they use midterm grades in their syllabi.

d.      Faculty Affairs (Susan Odom)

                                                              i.      The committee developed a guide for using the new Student Course Evaluation tool (Appendix D).

                                                             ii.      The committee plans to examine the effects of the new
midterm grade policy on workload, working conditions and
faculty welfare during the Fall 2006 semester. 

                                                           iii.      The Consolidated Testing center is still developing its hours
and fee structure.  It needs input from the divisions.

                                                          iv.      The committee will continue to examine the pros and cons of purchasing plagiarism software for utilization on campus. 
Several of the considerations are:

1.      What type of software to use.  Thus far, they have looked at the “Turn it in” software.

2.      The expense.  “Turn it in” costs $3000 for the site
license plus $0.80 per student.

3.      Copyright issues.

4.      What type of learning environment this would create.

5.      Whether or not the use of the software would be mandatory.

6.      Whether or not students would have to submit all
papers online, and how that could be done.

7.      The consequences of plagiarism and how we teach students about plagiarism.

e.      Faculty Development (Leanne Parker for Linda Coursey)

                                                              i.      The committee has already awarded its grant money.

                                                             ii.      In two weeks, they will present recommendations for changes
in how funds are awarded for faculty development grants.

f.       General Education (Ed Miller)

                                                              i.      The committee approved adding HUM 301 to the Distributive Literature component of the Core.  This is the first time that
an upper division course is being considered for a place in the historically lower division portion of the core.

                                                             ii.      The committee will meet twice more this semester, and
present a written report to senate.

g.      Student Affairs (Leanne Parker for Harold Crook)– no report

h.      Technology Advisory (Rik Brosten) – No report

IX.               Good of the Order

a.      There will be a Service Learning Training on April 28, 2006,
8:00 am – 1:30 pm.  There are $50 faculty stipends available.  Call
LC Service Corps at x 2084 to register.

b.      The final Faculty Association Meeting of Spring 2006 will be on May 9, 2006 at 3:15 pm in the WCC, with a social beforehand at 2-3 pm. 
This is changed from the previous date of May 11.

c.      There will be an All-Campus meeting at 4:00 pm on May 9, 2006 in the WCC. 

X.                 Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 4:51 pm by the Chair.

Appendix A
LCSC Scheduling Process
DRAFT

Academic Courses:

The office of the registrar handles all academic courses scheduling through the
course scheduling cycle.  All courses and space assignments are reflected on LCAcademic (web page address).

Events Scheduling:

Events scheduling is any space assignment or request that is not found on
WarriorWeb (any non-academic course scheduling).  Events scheduling is done through the Events and Campus Card Services office and reflected on LCEvents
(web page address).

Process:

• Events and meeting requests can be done through two avenues.  You can call the Events office (telephone#) or you can view room schedules and submit a request on LCEvents (web page address) with a LCEvents login.
   
• Room requestors/schedulers can request to have a customized LCEvents page setup so that they can continue to reserve their favorite spaces.

Information:

• The following spaces are not reserved through the Events scheduling office:
  • Department/Office conference rooms
  • Dedicated classroom spaces
     
• The following spaces can be reserved through the respective areas, who utilize LCEvents, or can be reserved through the Events scheduling office if part of a coordinated event (event involving multiple spaces on campus):
  • WCC
  • Center for Arts
  • Library
  • Silverthorne Theatre
  • Activity Center (Eastside)

All space uses (buildings and outside use) should be scheduled and noted on LCEvents (web page address) so that the LC community has quick access to meeting and event locations to better serve students, faculty, staff, and the community.

Appendix B

(Policy can also be found on Administrative Procedures website)

I.     Policy Pertaining to Tenure

A.   Definition and Philosophy

Tenure refers to a faculty member’s continuous employment following the end
of a probationary period, and upon fulfillment of the appropriate criteria.  After tenure is awarded, the faculty member’s service may be terminated only for adequate cause as defined by Board policy: in the case of retirement or
financial exigency as declared by the Board; where extreme shifts in enrollment have eliminated the justification for a program; or if the Board has otherwise authorized the elimination or reduction of a program.

Tenure is based upon the principle of academic freedom, specifically:  1)
freedom to teach, conduct research, and participate in extramural activities,
and 2) the assurance of sufficient stability to establish a mutually-beneficial commitment between a faculty member and the institution.  Toward that end, tenure embodies a long-term relationship of trust, commitment, and reciprocal obligation between the institution and the faculty member.  Tenure is granted only to faculty members who demonstrate they have made and will continue to make significant contributions in their disciplines through effective teaching, advising, scholarly/creative activity, professional development and service.

B.     Eligibility for Tenure Status

Pursuant to SBOE policy, tenure is available only to eligible, full-time
institutional faculty members, as defined by the institution.  Eligible full-time faculty members as defined by the institution include those academic faculty holding the rank of assistant, associate, and full professor.  Faculty holding the rank of lecturer or instructor are not eligible for tenure, and the rank of
instructor is not considered “tenure-track.”  If  promoted from Instructor to assistant professor, faculty may become eligible for tenure.

Unless hired prior to July 1, 1993, faculty in the professional-technical division are
not eligible for tenure.

All faculty appointments are subject to the approvals required in Board policy.  Nontenured members of the faculty are appointed to term appointments, for a
period not to exceed one year.  All first-year faculty appointments are made for a period not to exceed one (1) year.  Ordinarily appointments are made for periods of one (1) year each before a tenure decision is made.

1.  Faculty

A probationary period typically precedes the granting of tenure.   A faculty member will usually be evaluated for tenure after at least four (4) full years of service and in no case later than during the faculty member’s sixth (6^th) full academic year of employment.  A faculty member may be considered
for promotion and tenure in the same year. 

All satisfactory service in any professorial rank may be used to fulfill the
time requirement for acquiring tenure.  A maximum of two (2) years satisfactory service in the rank of instructor at Lewis-Clark State College may be allowed toward fulfillment of the time requirement in the
professorial ranks.  In cases involving prior service, tenure may be granted following less than the usual period of service.  Where performance can be adequately documented, faculty members with prior experience at other accredited institutions may be granted credit for up to a maximum of two
(2) years and may be considered for tenure during the second (2^nd) full
year of service at the college.  Eligibility for early tenure consideration, however, must be stipulated in writing by the Provost at the time of hire
or no later than the end of the first (1^st) academic semester after hire.

2.  Academic Administrators

Academic administrators include the chief academic officer of the
institution, deans and division chairs of the academic units.  An individual hired for or promoted to an academic administrator may be considered for
a tenured faculty rank in the appropriate department, contingent upon approval by the institutional president.  Upon termination of employment
as an administrator, a tenured employee may return to employment in the department in which he or she holds tenure unless such employee resigns, retires, or is terminated for adequate cause.  An employee with tenure in
an academic department who is appointed to an academic administrator position retains tenure in that department. 

An individual hired as a non-academic administrator from outside the institution will not be considered for tenured faculty rank in conjunction
with such appointment.  However, if the individual will teach and otherwise contribute to that department, he or she may be granted an adjunct
faculty appointment, upon the recommendation of the appropriate department and dean and with the approval of the provost and president

  Comment: This is covered elsewhere in policy.

C.  Notice of and Standards for Non-Reappointment or Termination of Appointment
of Non-Tenured Faculty Members Hired in Tenure Track Positions.

1. First Amendment Guarantee

All non-tenured faculty members are under First Amendment and
institutional guarantees of academic freedom.

2.  Non-Reappointment or Termination 

Notice of non-reappointment or termination, or of intention not to recommend reappointment, must be given in writing in letter form (See Section II, A, Procedures Pertaining to Non-Reappointment or
Termination).

D.  Criteria for Granting Tenure

Criteria for granting tenure are consonant with the role and mission of
Lewis-Clark State College.  Accordingly, a faculty member advancing
through the ranks is expected to meet escalating standards of
performance and assume additional responsibilities in teaching and
advising, scholarly/creative activity and professional development,
service, and collegiality.

Each division shall maintain a written policy that identifies appropriate standards for granting tenure.  These standards will address levels of performance in  teaching and advising, scholarly/creative activity and professional development, service, and collegiality.  Division criteria for granting tenure must be developed by division faculty and be approved by division faculty, the division chair, the respective dean, and the provost.  Changes to the criteria will follow the same approval process.  Each list of criteria must include the date the faculty approved the division criteria.  Copies of the criteria will be maintained in the offices of the provost, dean, and division chair.  The division chair will distribute copies to all division faculty.

For faculty whose duties are primarily instructional, teaching and activities that develop and improve teaching will be weighed most heavily in any evaluation.  However, it is recognized that the faculty of Lewis-Clark
State College perform varied tasks, and that the relative value placed on
teaching and advising, scholarly/creative activity and professional development, and service differ among faculty.  Because of this, division chairs are to negotiate with the faculty member the relative importance of each criterion to the evaluation of an individual faculty member’s performance.  Each criterion will be weighed relative to its value to the division and its appropriateness to the college’s role and mission.  This weighing shall be used in a consistent fashion by all reviewers.

E. Policy Pertaining to Materials for Evaluation 

Candidates for tenure will determine what materials will be used in
preparing their portfolios; however, at a minimum, the following materials
are required:  division criteria; candidate statement; current curriculum
vita; job descriptions and annual peer and chair evaluation (last four (4) years); course syllabi; student course evaluations (last four (4) years);
and other materials as determined by division guidelines.  Reviewers may request additional materials.  If additional material is requested by the Individual Tenure Committee, Standing Tenure and Promotion Review Committee (STPRC), Division Chair, Dean, Provost, or President, the
request and its justification must be in writing to the applicant.  If the applicant chooses to honor this request, the requested information will be added to the portfolio as it is forwarded to the next level of review. If the request includes materials that are in the applicant’s personnel file and the applicant chooses to honor the request he/she must sign a waiver
available in the Human Resources office allowing access to the requested materials. The applicant may respond in writing to clarify the situation if
he or she believes his or her record has been or may be misinterpreted. 
Any such letter will be added to the portfolio and forwarded with the rest
of the portfolio.

II.  Procedures Pertaining to Tenure

Comment:  Covered in 3.118

A.   The Applicant’s Tenure Portfolio

1.  Applicants eligible for tenure shall prepare a tenure portfolio.  The applicant shall receive copies of all items subsequently sent to the Provost or placed in the portfolio by reviewers.

     The applicant’s portfolio may also be used for promotion decisions
if tenure and promotion occur simultaneously (see Promotion Policy 2.106). 

Comment: Already covered.

B. Tenure Process

1.  Portfolio Review

a.  The portfolio will be made available for review in the Division Office for the Division Faculty, Division Chair, Dean, and Individual Tenure Committee.  The portfolio will be made available for review in the Provost’s office for the Provost and President, and if necessary, the STPRC.

b.   Each reviewer or group of reviewers will write a tenure
recommendation. The recommendation will address the candidate’s fulfillment of institutional and divisional tenure criteria.  The original recommendations of the Division Chair, division faculty, Individual
Tenure Committee and Dean will be placed in the portfolio with copies
to the applicant and chair of the STPRC.  

c.  At the completion of the applicant’s review process, the original recommendations will be sent to Human Resources for filing in the applicant’s personnel file and the Pportfolio will be returned to the applicant. 

2.  Individual Tenure Committee

a. The Individual Tenure Committee may be the same as the Individual Promotion Committee as long as criteria for both committees are met (see Promotion Policy 2.106).

b. There shall be an individual tenure committee for each applicant.  The individual tenure committee will consist of five (5) members and be composed as follows:

(1) Two (2) or more tenured faculty members, and one (1) or more
non-tenured faculty members from the applicant's division, if available,

(2) One (1) or more faculty from outside the division,

(3) One (1) or more students, but not more than 50 percent of the committee membership (Student members must have declared a major and taken upper-division course work in the applicant's division).

c. Faculty in the applicant's division will elect one (1)  member from the division's faculty and one (1) student to serve on the committee; the applicant will select the remaining members.

d. Faculty in the applicant’s division will elect the chair from the members
of the Individual Tenure Committee. 

3.      Standing Tenure and Promotion Review Committee (STPRC)

       The name of the academic faculty standing tenure review committee is
the Standing Tenure and Promotion Review Committee (STPRC) (see
1.104 Article IV, Section 5 for the committee’s responsibilities, makeup
and terms of service).

C.  Procedures for Tenure Evaluation

1.  After review of all credentials and criteria, the Provost notifies faculty
of their eligibility to apply for tenure.

2.  Following notification by the Provost of eligibility to apply for tenure,
the applicant submits a "Request for Tenure Evaluation” to the
Provost's Office.  Application for tenure authorizes the Individual
Tenure Committee to secure current formal student evaluations and formal teaching evaluations and annual performance evaluations. 

3.  The Provost provides the faculty senate chair, STPRC Chair, Division Chairs, and Deans with a list of faculty members who have indicated they will be applying for tenure.

4.  The applicant’s division submits names of Individual Tenure Committee members, including the chair, to the STPRC Chair.

5.  The STPRC Chair issues the list of approved Individual Tenure Committees, identifying the chair, to the applicant, the Faculty Senate Chair, the Division Chairs, the Deans, and the Provost.

6.  The applicant submits the portfolio to the division office where it will
be housed for review by the Division Chair, the division faculty, the Individual Tenure Committee and the Dean.

7.      The Dean will ensure that a portfolio for each faculty member is completed and made available for review in the division office by the Division Chair, the division faculty, the Individual Tenure Committee,
and the Dean.  The Dean will notify the above mentioned reviewers
that the file is ready for review.

8.      The Division Chair will write a summative tenure evaluation/recommendation of the applicant member based on annual evaluations and other materials in the applicant’s portfolio.  Prior to submission, the Division Chair and applicant must discuss the
summative evaluation/recommendation.  The summative evaluation/recommendation should be attached to copies of prior
annual performance evaluations, including those by both the division’s evaluating body, if applicable, and the Division Chair or Director.  The original copy of the evaluation/recommendation is to be placed in the portfolio.  A copy will be given to the applicant and to the chair of the STPRC.

9.      The division faculty members may choose to review the portfolio and make a written recommendation to be placed in the portfolio.  A copy
will be submitted to the applicant and the Division Chair.

10.  The Individual Tenure Committee will review the portfolio and arrive at
a recommendation.  Each member of the committee will have a full vote.  Voting will be by secret ballot with no tally recorded.  The chair of the Individual Tenure Committee will prepare a written recommendation. 
The committee’s recommendation shall be signed by each member of
the committee or by the chair only.  The original copy of the recommendation will be added to the portfolio with a copy submitted
to the applicant and the chair of the STPRC.

11.  The Dean shall review the portfolio and prepare a recommendation. 
The original copy of the recommendation will be added to the portfolio and a copy forwarded to the applicant and the chair of the STPRC,
the Division Chair, and the Individual Promotion Committee Chair.

12.  The Dean will then move the portfolio to the Provost’s office for
review of the Provost, the STPRC if warranted, and the President.

13.  The Provost will review the recommendations submitted by all
reviewers and the portfolio and determine whether the portfolio will be reviewed by the STPRC.

a.      The Provost will review the Tenure File portfolio and prepare a recommendation to the President.

b.      If the Provost intends to disagree with the recommendation of the STPRC, the Provost will, in writing, inform the STPRC and candidate of that decision.  Before forwarding a recommendation to the President or sharing it with the applicant, the Provost will meet with the STPRC to discuss how the applicant has met or failed to meet the criteria for tenure, or other reasons for the recommendation.

14.  The STPRC will review the portfolio if the Division Chair, Individual
Tenure Committee, or Dean recommends against tenure or if requested to do so by the Provost.  The STPRC will submit its recommendation to the Provost, and provide a copy to the applicant, the Division Chair,
the Individual Tenure Committee Chair, and the Dean.

a.      The STPRC will review the Tenure File and arrive at a recommendation by simple majority vote.  Votes shall be cast
by secret ballot, and no tally of the votes shall be reported.  Each member of the committee will have an equal vote in all matters.  The chair of the STPRC will prepare a written recommendation.

b.      The committee’s recommendation shall be signed by each
member of the committee or by the chair only.

c.      If the STPRC recommends against granting tenure, it shall
inform the applicant before submitting its recommendation to
the Provost.  The applicant shall then be given an opportunity
to meet with the STPRC within seven business days to present additional material in support of the granting of tenure.  Immediately after the meeting with the applicant the STPRC
will review all materials and again arrive at a recommendation.

15.  When any reviewer or the Provost recommends against granting
tenure, the applicant shall be afforded the opportunity to present a written response to the Provost, who will consider all pertinent material prior to submitting a recommendation to the President.  The applicant’s written response will be added to the portfolio.

16.  The complete portfolio and the Provost’s final written recommendation shall be forwarded to the President.

     The President shall review the portfolio and determine whether to recommend approval of the application for tenure.

     If the President decides not to recommend tenure, he/she shall, in writing, notify the applicant, the Individual Tenure Committee Chair,
the Division Chair, the Dean, the STPRC, and the Provost.  The
applicant may meet with the President to discuss the recommendation.

     If the President recommends tenure, he/she shall submit a recommendation for granting promotion to the State Board of
Education, with a copy to the applicant, the Individual Tenure
Committee Chair, the Division Chair, the Dean, the STPRC, and the Provost.

       D.    Procedures for Appeal

1. The candidate may appeal to the Hearing Board (see Policy 2.115,
Faculty Grievance Policy).

2. The President's decision on the Hearing Board's recommendation is final.

       E. Timeline

Each year the Provost’s office will publish the specific dates on which activities are to be completed.

Appendix C
Curriculum Report to Senate
April 13, 2006

The Curriculum Committee has approved the following 8 proposals.

BUSINESS DIVISION

-    Delete Hotel/Restaurant Management BA/BS, add Hospitality Management BA/BS.  A06-135.

Justification: Change in name better reflects present and future curriculum of these programs.

HUMANITIES DIVISION

-    Change title and catalog description for HUM301 from Arts and Ideas II to
Literature and Culture.  Add HUM301 as an option for Literature Skills Component
of the General Education Core.  A06-173.

Justification: Change in title makes the role of this course in the core more readily apparent and has been requested by LCSC faculty in Coeur d’Alene.  Students at LCSC-Coeur d’Alene require a Literature component of the General Education Core,
but lower-division courses cannot be offered on the Coeur d’Alene campus. 

TECHNICAL AND INDUSTRIAL DIVISION

-    Delete ISATI 317, 418, 419, 420, 421.  T06-142.

Justification:  Courses are not part of any program offered at LCSC.

-    Add ISATI 210 Windows 2003 Server Advanced.  T06-143.

Justification: Course will serve as a continuation to ISATI 209 to provide sufficient knowledge of this operating system in preparation for the Prometric exam #70-290.

-    Add ENGTE 205 Civil Drafting and Design and ENGTE 209 Surveying and add to Engineering Technology – Civil AAS.  T06-144, T06-145.

Justification: Current courses in these subjects are upper division and should not be required for AAS degrees or certificates.

-    Change title for CITPT 265/465 from Advanced Desktop Publishing to Image Editing and Illustration.  T06-170.

Justification: Change in title more accurately reflects content of this course. 

-    Remove ENGL 102 from Industrial Electronics AAS.  T06-174.

Justification: ENGL 101 is sufficient for this AAS degree.

Appendix D
Faculty Guide Sheet for SCE’s (Student Course Evaluations)

The SCE tool was developed by the Faculty Affairs Committee after a review of
other evaluation instruments and survey methods. It was unanimously approved by the Faculty Senate in the Spring of 2005.

Faculty request student feedback on the SCE’s for:

• Student self-assessment
• Instructor improvement
• Assessment of the course and teaching ability
• Assessment of the physical classroom environment

The SCE includes three sections:

• A student section – placed first on the tool in order for students to think
  about their own responsibilities and goals for the course
• A course and instructor section so students can evaluate the strengths of the instructor and offer suggestions for the course
• A physical plant section so students can evaluate the classroom environment

Student’s have the choice of several responses for evaluating the content areas –There is no numerical qualifier associated with the response. This was done
purposely to achieve a qualitative evaluation.

A comment area follows each question in every section to enhance the specificity of comments.

The goals of this evaluation tool can be best achieved by:

• Informing students of the purpose of SCE’s
• Keeping the SCE voluntary – have no mandates or coercion to complete an
  SCE
• Giving no incentives to students such as extra credit or other benefits - This would invalidate a voluntary sample
• Administering the SCE’s during the time frame determined by the Faculty
  Senate

Assuring anonymity to students by not allowing faculty or staff to know who completed or did not complete the SCE