2006-2007

University Scholarship Committee

Final Report to University Senate May 2007

Charge of General University Scholarship Committee:

The Committee on Scholarships shall be responsible to advise the Office of Student Financial Aid and Scholarships on policy and procedures for the awarding of scholarships, and to participate in the review of applications and the selection of candidates for scholarships. The committee shall determine the criteria for the awarding of scholarships and shall review applicant files. The committee shall also determine successful applicants and level of aid.

Membership:

Stephanie Bosnyk (Business), Li-Shan Chou (Human Physiology), Kassy Fisher (Graduate School), Jim Gilmour (Student Financial Aid & Scholarships), Rebekah Hanley (Law School), Michelle Holdway, Convener (Student Financial Aid & Scholarships), Linda Liu (Multicultural Academic Support), Gary Livesay (UO Foundation), Tiffany Lundy (PARS), Margaret Mahoney (Education), Scott Maier (Journalism), Athan Papailiou (student), Martha Pitts (Admissions and Enrollment Management), Alexander Polishchuk (Math), Donna Schimmer, Committee Assistant (Student Financial Aid & Scholarships), Carlyn Schreck , Chair (Development), Steve Vacchi (Music), Cari Vanderkar (International Programs), Glen Waddell (Economics).

2006-2007 Awards:

923 students were paid $1,927,085 from 67 separate funds for the 2006-2007 academic year. Annual scholarship awards ranged from $750 to $10,500. Awards were made from the following scholarship funds: Burr Abner, Robert Booth, J. H. Bosard, Bowerman, Roland Bradley, Bernice Brun, Edith Chambers, Class of 1935, Coca Cola, Cossman Memorial, Frances P. Courteau, Norton Cowden, Leon A Culbertson, Henry and Ethel Ditzel, Craig Eagleson, Enchanted Valley, Leslie Endicott, William Frager Memorial, Foundation SS, Mabel Klockers Garner, Charles Goettling, Edna Harris, Alison Hearn Memorial, Marion Hearn Memorial, Elma Hendricks, Hendricks-Goodrich, Harry and David Holmes, Lee and Olga Hoxworth, Louise Ingle, Richard W. Johnson, Robert C. Jones, Robert Knapp Memorial, Clarice Krieg, Helen Martin, Thomas Mattson, Eve McCool, Merit Tuition, Edwin A. Meserve, Miscellaneous UO SS, Grace Morris, Andrew Moursund, Clara Nasholm, Henry (Hank) Nilsen, Oregon Dads, Oregon Community Credit Union, Rockwell, Loretta S. Rossman, Mary E. Russell, Edward Farrell Rust, Dorothy Sherman, Julio Silva, Joseph K. Starr, William H. Stenhjem, Jr., Stetson, Ethel & Laverne Stone, William W. Stout, Henry Thorsett, C.P. Tillman, Weatherbee, Paul and Helen Weiser, Margaret Winbigler, Juan Young Trust, J & E Zimmerman, UO Presidential, and Presidential and Laurel Fee Remission.

Meetings:

The committee held three formal meetings throughout the academic year. Fall term the charge and calendar were presented to the committee members, the system of evaluation was discussed, members of admission and financial aid staff were authorized to serve as evaluators of freshmen applications, and Carlyn Schreck was elected as committee chair. During the winter term, file reader training was conducted and file distribution discussed. Each committee member was responsible to evaluate up to 150 applications. Applicant files were evaluated based on the following: 1) the student’s academic profile, including quality of coursework, grade point average, test scores and other academic achievements; 2) the faculty letter of recommendation; 3) the student’s level of commitment to extra-curricular activities; 4) quality of written essay. During spring term, the full committee met to select 2007-2008 Bowerman recipients, choosing outstanding senior students, providing awards ranging from $4750 to $5000 each. Recommendations were made for the 2008-2009 school year scholarship application, evaluation, and process.

2007-2008 Applicants & Awards

Freshman 3148 625

Sophomore 307 137

Junior/Senior 394 198

Grad/Law 108 66

TOTAL 3957 1026

26%, 1026 of the 3957 applicants were offered a scholarship.

Joint Senate-Academic Affairs Committee

on Teaching Evaluations

• Membership

Priscilla Southwell (chair) – CAS Dean’s Office/Political Science

Deb Bauer – Finance (LCB)

Michael Filippelli (ASUO)

Bertram Malle – Psychology (CAS)

Gina Psaki – Romance Languages and Literatures (CAS)

+ two additional faculty

• Issues

• Are the currently required four questions in our course evaluations the right ones?

• Should we include questions that are directed at overall university efforts to maintain teaching quality – ones that do not directly reflect on the instructor of the courses?

• Should we change the manner and location in which the data on teaching evaluations is currently reported?

• Should alter the statistics that are reported along with this data?

• How can we use the qualitative comments in a more effective way such that they can be used in generalized assessments?

• How are we using these evaluations, and should we have different forms of evaluations that better fit these different purposes?

• Should we integrate the evaluation of research with the evaluation of teaching?

• Process

            The committee will begin working Winter term and consult broadly with the University community. The committee will provide the Senate with its recommendations no later than the final meeting in May 2007.

Environmental Issues Committee

2006-07 Annual Report

Executive Summary

The 2006-2007 Committee discussed and researched several issues.  Subcommittees were created for four of the issues:

• Energy  
• Transportation
• Environmental Tobacco Smoke
• Green Dorm Room 

Other issues included:

• 2008 Olympic Trials
• Center for the Advancement of Sustainable Living
• Recycled Paper Policy
• Full-time Sustainability Coordinator
• Plastic water bottles
• Sustainability endowment

The committee recommends the following actions should be undertaken in the immediate future:

1. Create a Campus Energy Policy and a long-term energy plan.
2. Update the Campus Transportation Plan.
3. Enforce the Heart of Campus traffic rules.
4. Create a campus-wide committee  to review the current smoking policy with special consideration of a smoke-free campus.
5. Expand the sustainability coordinator position to full-time.

In addition, the committee looks for Administrative leadership in the following:

1. Ensuring the 2008 Olympic Trials are conducted with as small as environmental impact as possible.
2. Developing an efficient and enforceable business process so that the recycled paper policy will be followed.

Finally, the committee believes that funding should be allocated for education and awareness of environmental issues, specifically those related to energy and transportation.

Introduction

The Environmental Issues Committee met monthly from October through June.  A list of members can be found in the appendix.  The committee considered several issues and  subcommittees were formed to further investigate four of the issues.  The following provides a review of discussions and recommendations concerning these issues.

Subcommittee Issues

The following subcommittees were formed:

• Energy: to identify issues concerned with energy use and sustainability which are of immediate concern with respect to global warming and conservation.  Members: Karyn Kaplan, Bill Cresko, and Jim Blick.

• Transportation: to identify transportation issues which are of environmental concern.  Members: Ken Boegli, Christine Thompson, and Jim Blick.

• Environmental Tobacco Smoke: continuing last yearÕs investigation of the issue of secondhand smoke, and specifically the idea of a smoke-free campus.  Members: Paula Staight, Ben Farrell, JR Gaddis, and Jim Blick.

• Green Dorm Room: to investigate the possibility of having Housing set up one or more dorm rooms demonstrating how a student might live on campus with a smaller environmental footprint.  Members: Kay Coots, Robyn Hathcock, and Cathy Soutar.

1. Energy

With the signing of the PresidentÕs Climate Commitment by President Frohnmayer, the University will be focusing on several issues related to energy, sustainability and climate neutrality.  We have identified the following action items which should receive attention in the near future.

1. Campus Energy Policy: The University needs to have a visible energy policy similar to the recycled paper policy.  It should be relatively brief and readable, posted on the web and circulated to staff and students. A regular schedule of  education and reminders about the policy should be implemented. Some of the items it should cover include:

2. Long-range Energy Plan: A comprehensive long-term energy policy which prescribes how the University will deal with energy issues over the next ten years is needed.

3. Education and Awareness:  Funding and support are needed for the following ways of expanding awareness and knowledge about energy issues:

Recommendations

Direct the EIC or other ad hoc committee to develop a campus energy policy by Spring 2008, and long-range energy plan by Spring 2009.  Allocate funding for energy awareness and education.

2. Transportation

Transportation issues are intimately connected with sustainability and climate neutrality.  In general, the University should strive to limit the use of vehicles coming to and driving through campus as much as possible.  We have identified the following action items which should receive attention in the near future.

1. Update the Campus Transportation Plan.  The current Campus Transportation Plan was approved in 1976.  Although ahead of its time when written, it needs to be reviewed and updated by incorporating transportation tools that have been developed more recently.

2. Enforce rules for the Heart of Campus.  The Heart of Campus was successful for its first year or two.  Recently, despite signage to the contrary, vehicles regularly drive right through.  This is not just a safety issue - it also sends the message that driving through campus is acceptable.  The original rules for the Heart of Campus are explicitly stated in the Campus Plan, but they are simply not being enforced.  DPS is looking at this issue, but there needs to be administrative support to really make this effective.  Enforcing the Heart of Campus rules is also a necessary first step for enforcing driving restrictions elsewhere in central campus.

3. Promote education and advertising of transportation alternatives.  A common theme related to environmental issues is the need to educate students and staff about the issues and their possible solutions.  Alternative transportation is no different – the University needs to have a plan for disseminating information at regular intervals.  Brochures, emails, posters, websites, kiosks and tasteful billboards are all useful tools.  The University does not yet have a web portal, but a portal would enhance communication greatly.  There needs to be funding and support for all of these tools.

4. Establish more bicycle parking, especially covered and secure.  Although there is a good deal of bicycle racks currently, more covered and secure parking would encourage even more people to bicycle to and around campus. 

5. Create more efficient use of auto parking areas.  Parking spaces are costly to build and take up valuable space.  Therefore, they should be used as efficiently as possible.  Evaluate the current parking assignment system to identify ways to more efficiently use available spaces.

6. Separate budget for alternative transportation.  We believe alternative transportation is important enough to have its own budget.  This will demonstrate the University's commitment to alternative transportation and removes the conflict within DPS.  In addition, this would help establish a much needed integrated transportation demand management (alternative transportation) program as exists at nearly all other similarly sized institution).

7. Encourage faculty, staff, and students to live close to campus.  In general, the closer faculty, staff, and students live to campus, the more likely they are willing to use alternate transportation modes.  Review existing university policies and work with the city of Eugene to encourage faculty, staff, and students to live close to campus.

Recommendations

Direct the Planning Office to begin updating the Campus Transportation Plan in 2008.  Direct Public Safety to implement strategies to enforce the Heart of Campus rules by January 2008.

3. Environmental Tobacco Smoke

The complete report of the ETS subcommittee can be found in the Appendix.  Please refer to this report for further details and references.

Environmental tobacco smoke (ETS), otherwise known as secondhand smoke, has been a public health issue for many years.  In June 2006, the Surgeon General released its strongest findings yet implicating ETS as a significant health hazard.  Although many, if not most universities now prohibit smoking inside buildings, there is a nationwide movement to curtail smoking on campuses altogether.  Currently, the University of Oregon prohibits smoking indoors and within 10 feet of building entrances.  With more than 40 universities around the country prohibiting all smoking on campus and several more moving towards smoke-free campuses, we believe it is time for the UO to begin a campus-wide discussion of this issue. 

More than 250 toxic or carcinogenic chemicals have been identified in ETS, and the EPA has classified ETS as a Group A carcinogen (known to cause cancer in humans with no acceptable safe level).  The 2006 Surgeon GeneralÕs report concluded that exposure to secondhand smoke is a Òserious public health hazardÓ, causing heart disease and lung cancer, with no risk-free level of exposure. While most people recognize the dangers of smoking indoors, the question is whether ETS outside buildings is hazardous as well.  Studies conducted at the University of Maryland Baltimore campus and Stanford concluded that smoke levels outside can be comparable to indoor levels under certain circumstances.

Over 40 university and college campuses now have smoke-free policies.  Of these, Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis is the largest with over 29,000 students.  The IUPUI campus went entirely tobacco-free in late summer 2006 (as did another branch of IU – IU East), and the Indiana University president has stated that he wants all eight of the IU campuses to go smoke-free by the end of 2007.  The University of North Dakota (enrollment ~ 13,000) will be going tobacco-free in October 2007. Boise State, with an enrollment around 18,000 is looking into going totally smoke-free by 2008.  The president of the University of Iowa (enrollment ~ 30,000)  has recommended that the campus go totally smoke-free by July 1, 2008. In Oregon, all tobacco has been prohibited on Oregon K-12 school grounds since January 2006 and PeaceHealth instituted a tobacco-free policy on all of its property in November 2006.

In order to determine the level of concern among our faculty, staff and OAÕs to exposure to ETS and their interest in moving towards a smoke-free campus, the ETS sub-committee sent out a survey via campus mail to 500 randomized faculty, staff and OAÕs. 177 surveys were returned, for a response rate of 35.4%.   Results indicate that 79% of respondents are bothered by ETS at least occasionally,  93% feel something needs to change with respect to ETS, and 72% at least somewhat support a smoke-free campus.

Recommendations

We recommend that the Administration convene a campus-wide ad hoc committee to investigate the advisability of revising the current smoking policy, with special consideration of implementing a smoke-free campus, with a report due by Fall 2008.

4. Green Dorm Room

The Green Dorm Room subcommittee looked at a "green" dorm room proposal by meeting and discussing possible ways to promote environmental stewardship among residence hall occupants.  The subcommittee favored the approach of a dorm room being ÒgreenÓ through its amenities over advocating structural changes to existing halls.  This approach seemed to be one that could produce early results by educating future residents in how they personally can improve the environmental performance of their room.  University Housing was asked and agreed to assist us by having Tenaya Meaux, Housing Director for Marketing and Communications, meet with the subcommittee. 

Ideas generated included inserting a green component into existing activities at Housing.  Specifically, we looked at the Òshow roomÓ and considered opportunities to displaying energy star appliances with those items marked in some way as ÒgreenÓ.  We also discussed using the existing the ÒBetter RoomsÓ contest by adding a ÒgreenestÓ room category.

The group felt that there are plenty of opportunities for collaboration across units. Tenaya suggested that the university may want to consider developing a green campaign that all departments could tap into, which would create an economy of scale and more impactful messaging that would include a university ÒbrandingÓ for sustainability (e.g. a logo, a communications strategy, etc.). This would make it easy for departments beyond Housing to tap into. Tenaya felt that regardless, it would make it easy (and in fact already in progress) for Housing to move forward with table tents, posters, adding ÒgreenÓ options/recommendations to information sent to students on what to bring/what not to bring on move-in day. Other possibilities include using IntroDUCKtion as an opportunity to promote greening of the studentÕs living space. In general, however, depending on the size and scope of projects, staffing may become an issue.

Recommendations

Encourage University Housing and Campus Recycling to work together on promoting opportunities for students to ÔgreenÕ their rooms/halls.

General Committee Issues

1. Olympic Trials

Committee member Karyn Kaplan sits on the sustainability subcommittee for the larger organizing committee for the 2008 Olympic Trials.  This event is a golden opportunity for the UO to demonstrate its commitment to and leadership in sustainability and environmental affairs.  A letter (see appendix) was drafted and sent to Frances Dyke encouraging her to help convey the importance of sustainability to the events organizers.

2. Center for the Advancement of Sustainable Living (CASL)

Committee member Cathy Soutar provided monthly updates of the progress of obtaining a house for CASL.  We continue to support CASL and welcome the news that progress is being made.

3. Recycled Paper

A presentation by student guest Tara Burke on the need to get away from wood products led to a discussion of the recycled paper policy.  It was reported by some committee members that not all departments were following the policy.  It was agreed that the university needs to do a better job of educating and enforcing the policy.  This led to a discussion about how policies in general are enforced on campus.  In response to the fact that many departments were not following the policy, Harriet Merrick in the Business Affairs Office began an investigation of costs and sources of recycled paper, with the idea that the University should have a sole source contract for paper.  This would cut down on departmental time researching prices and should also provide an overall cheaper price.  We look forward to HarrietÕs report and recommend that next yearÕs committee review the report with a goal of creating a policy which is easier to follow and to enforce.

4. Full-time Sustainability Coordinator

The committee briefly considered the idea that the sustainability coordinator position should be full-time and perhaps housed in Johnson Hall.  This would send the message that the University is serious about sustainability issues and has top administrative support.   This issue has been discussed in previous years, but we think it needs immediate attention.

5. Plastic Water Bottles

Plastic water bottles contribute heavily to the waste stream on campus.  As an alternative, the University should provide refill stations (with perhaps filtered water) around campus.

6. Sustainability Endowment: Discussions and plans are needed to begin a sustainability endowment fund.

Appendix

1. List of members.

2. Letter to Frances Dyke concerning sustainability of 2008 Olympic Trials

3. Environmental Tobacco Smoke subcommittee report..

Environmental Issues Committee Membership, 2006-2007

Term 2006-07:

Anne Forrestal, Lundquist College of Business

Catherine Soutar, University Planning

Ben Farrell, Law Library

Term 2006-08:

Jim Blick, RegistrarÕs Office (Chair for 2006-07)

William Cresko, Biology

Charles Kalnbach, Lundquist College of Business

Tim King, Facilities Services

Paula Staight, University Health Center

Ex officio:

Ken Boegli, Public Safety (designee)

Christine Thompson, University Planner (designee)

George Hecht, Director, Campus Operations

Karyn Kaplan, Recycling Program Manager

Kay Coots, Director, Environmental Health and Safety

J.R. Gaddis, Director, University Printing

Robyn Hathcock, University Housing

Students:

Kelly Hansen, ASUO

June 22, 2007

Frances Dyke

Vice President, Finance and Administration

114 Johnson Hall

In late June 2008, many thousands of people are expected to descend on Eugene and Hayward Field to view the Olympic Track Trials.  This event provides a tremendous opportunity for the UO to showcase to the rest of the nation and the world how seriously the UO believes in sustainability.  For the Olympic Trials to be environmentally successful, sustainability needs to be at the forefront of the overall planning process.

We believe it would be very helpful if you could communicate with Olympic Trial leaders to convey the importance of the sustainability mission.  The sustainability message needs to be repeated and amplified throughout the planning process so that it does not get short circuited by too many last minute details.  Your leadership in the process will be of great advantage not only to the Olympic Trials event but will provide a model for the University and the city of Eugene as well.  A successful major event like the Olympic Trials sets the stage for more successful sustainable events in the future.

Currently there are several people from the UO who are on organizing committees related to the trials.  There is a sustainability sub-committee that recently had a sustainability mission statement approved by the lead organizing committee.  We want to make sure that the message is also coming from the UO Administration, not just sub-committee members. 

An example of a highly successful sustainable event like this is the 2000 Sydney Australia Olympic Games.  Touted as the ÒGreen GamesÓ, the Sydney Olympics were acclaimed for environmental commitment throughout all phases of the planning process.  For the upcoming winter Olympics in 2010, Vancouver is equally committed to sustainability as part of its planning.   The University, along with the city of Eugene, needs to make sure that the Eugene Trials are focused on sustainability issues as well.

A recent graduate Management seminar project by Mary Ellen Mansfield and Danna Newburg summarizes very nicely the potential to diminish the environmental footprint of the Olympic Trials by implementing sustainable practices.  Some of the things they consider include transportation, alternative energy sources, a carbon offset fund, and an alternative to plastic water bottles.  I am sending  by email their report and slides for your review.

Thank you for your work and consideration of this world class opportunity.

Sincerely,

Jim Blick, Chair

Environmental Issues Committee

Environmental Tobacco Smoke Subcommittee Report

Environmental tobacco smoke (ETS), otherwise known as secondhand smoke, has been a public health issue for many years.  In June 2006, the Surgeon General released its strongest findings yet implicating ETS as a significant health hazard.  Although many, if not most universities now prohibit smoking inside buildings, there is a nationwide movement to curtail smoking on campuses altogether.  Currently, the University of Oregon prohibits smoking indoors and within 10 feet of building entrances.  With more than 40 universities around the country prohibiting all smoking on campus and several more moving towards smoke-free campuses, we believe it is time for the UO to begin a campus-wide discussion of this issue. 

Health Issues

More than 250 toxic or carcinogenic chemicals have been identified in ETS , and ETS has been classified as a Group A carcinogen by the EPA .  Group A carcinogens are known to cause cancer in humans and there is no acceptable safe level of exposure.  The 2006 Surgeon GeneralÕs report made the following conclusions :

• Exposure to secondhand smoke is a Òserious public health hazardÓ which has Òimmediate adverse effects on the cardiovascular system and causes coronary heart disease and lung cancer.Ó

• ÒSecondhand smoke causes premature death and disease in children and in adults who do not smoke.Ó

• ÒThe scientific evidence indicates there is no risk-free level of exposure.Ó

• ÒEstablishing smoke-free workplaces is the only effective way to ensure that secondhand smoke exposure does not occur in the workplace.Ó

While most people recognize the dangers of smoking indoors, the question is whether ETS outside buildings is hazardous as well.  A study conducted at the University of Maryland Baltimore campus concluded that Ò. . . smoke levels do not approach background levels for fine particles or carcinogens until about 7 meters or 23 feet from the source . . .Ó  This was for 1-2 smokers, and it was noted that a higher number of smokers together could substantially increase concentrations and at further distances.  Another study at Stanford confirmed these conclusions.  The authors of that study noted: ÒWe were surprised to discover that being within a few feet of a smoker outdoors may expose you to air pollution levels that are comparable, on average, to indoor levels that we measured in previous studies of homes and taverns.Ó

Precedents for a Smoke-Free Campus

Over 40 university and college campuses now have smoke-free policies .  Most of these are small schools or medical/health schools.  Of these, Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis is the largest with over 29,000 students.  The IUPUI campus went entirely tobacco-free in late summer 2006 (as did another branch of IU – IU East), and the Indiana University president has stated that he wants all eight of the IU campuses to go smoke-free by the end of 2007 .  The University of North Dakota (enrollment ~ 13,000) will be going tobacco-free in October 2007 .  Boise State, with an enrollment around 18,000 is looking into going totally smoke-free by 2008 .  Finally, a campus-wide committee at the University of Iowa (enrollment ~ 30,000)  has recommended that UI institute a 25-foot smoke-free perimeter around all buildings (including athletic facilities and parking facilities) on July 1, 2007, and that the entire campus go smoke-free two years later .  The UI president rejected the latter recommendation, asking instead that the campus go totally smoke-free by July 1, 2008. Closer to home, all tobacco has been prohibited on Oregon K-12 school grounds since January 2006 .  PeaceHealth instituted a tobacco-free policy on all of its property in November 2006 .

Pros and Cons for a Smoke-free Campus

Arguments for a totally smoke-free campus include:

1. Right to clean air: Non-smokers should not have to breathe toxic air during their time on campus.  Because students and staff have to move from building to building, the entire campus is rightfully considered the workplace, and students and staff are entitled to smoke-free workplace as recommended by the Surgeon General.

2. Save money: A smoke-free campus would save the University money through decreased health care, less litter and fewer fires and smoke damage

3. Uniform enforcement: A totally smoke-free campus would actually be easier to enforce than a policy of smoke-free perimeters, and/or designated areas.  The policy would be uniform and straightforward.

Arguments against a smoke-free campus include:

1. Right to smoke: since smoking is legal, smokers have the right to smoke.

2. Impossible to enforce: a completely smoke-free campus would be unenforceable.

3. Low priority: there are much more important environmental issues to spend time and energy on; e.g., vehicle emission is more pervasive than ETS.

4. Not a problem: ETS outdoors is so dilute it is not a problem.

5. Decreased recruitment: admissions of new students, and perhaps especially international students, would be diminished.

6. Big brother: the University should not be in the business of telling students or staff how to run their lives.

We realize that the idea of a smoke-free campus is an emotional issue which will have several viewpoints.  Some rebuttals to the above arguments against a smoke-free campus include the following points:

1. There has never been any legal justification to the notion of ÒsmokersÕ rightsÓ.  Just because smoking is legal in general, does not mean it is legal everywhere.  Similarly, it is legal to drive a car, but that does not mean one can drive a car anywhere.  As Surgeon General Koop wrote in 1986: ÒThe right of smokers to smoke ends where their behavior affects the health and well-being of others.Ó 

2. As noted above, in some ways a smoke-free campus would be easier to enforce because there is no confusion in the rule: no smoking is allowed anywhere.  The question though is how the university deals with someone who decides to smoke anyway.  This argument is really not specific to a smoke-free policy – it could apply to smoking indoors, driving through ÒDo Not EnterÓ signs, drinking on campus, biking on sidewalks, etc.  The solutions are the same in all cases: education, culture change, peer pressure, and standard procedures which govern student and staff behavior.  According to IUPUI (pers. comm.), 95% of the campus is smoke-free, with the remaining 5% being Òhot spotsÓ where some individuals continue to smoke.  IUPUI expects this to improve with time, but the fact that 95% of the campus is smoke-free within a year is still a noteworthy achievement.

3. The argument that there are more important environmental problems to work on loses sight of the fact that the solution to ETS is relatively simple and has a potentially very large return on investment.  A simple change in policy with the appropriate education, advertising and signage can bring about a significant savings.  This is because smoking does not serve the university in any positive way.  Contrast this to the problem of curtailing vehicle exhaust where restricting driving (especially of service/delivery vehicles) could entail a significant cost to implementing some alternative system.

4. The idea that outdoor ETS is an insignificant health issue is contradicted by the recent reports cited above that suggest levels of outdoor ETS can be as high as indoors.  Given that there is no risk-free level of exposure to ETS, the hazard of outdoor ETS is very real.

5. It is difficult to say how recruitment of future students would be affected by a smoke-free policy.  IUPUI has not noticed any change in recruitment in any type of student over the last year (pers. comm.).  In fact, a smoke-free campus may be seen as an attractant rather than a deterrent for many students and parents.

6. A tobacco-free policy might be interpreted as the university dictating a certain lifestyle.  However, a smoke-free policy is about preventing toxic pollution, not about telling individuals how to lead their lives.  If individuals want to leave campus to smoke, they may do so.

Survey Results

During the 2006 IntroDucktion, the University Health CenterÕs Health Promotion Director surveyed parents regarding their concerns about ETS on their students, and asked if they would support a smoke-free campus. Although the survey was not random and the sample size was small (n = 92), the results showed that 77% were concerned about their student being exposed to secondhand smoke on campus, and that  75 % supported a policy prohibiting tobacco use throughout the UO campus. For IntroDucktion 2007, the plan is to survey parents again with a more comprehensive survey and to capture a larger sample size.

In order to determine the level of concern among our faculty, staff and OAÕs to exposure to ETS and their interest in moving towards a smoke-free campus, the ETS sub-committee put together a survey, with the input from the entire EIC (a copy of the survey can be found in the appendix).  This survey was sent out via campus mail to 500 randomized faculty, staff and OAÕs, and 177 surveys were returned, for a response rate of 35.4%.  Below are some of the preliminary results from the survey (a more thorough analysis will be completed this summer):

• Bothered by secondhand smoke on campus?

      Often                           19%  

Occasionally                60%  

Never                          21%

• What should UO do to minimize contact with ETS?

      Smoking in isolated areas only            59%   

Not allow smoking on campus            34%

Nothing                                                 7%

• Do you support or oppose the UO becoming a smoke-free campus?

      Highly support            44%

      Somewhat support      28%

Somewhat oppose       16%

Highly oppose             13%

• The right to breathe clean air should take precedence over the right to smoke?   

Strongly agree             69%

Somewhat agree          21%

Somewhat disagree       4%

Strongly disagree          5%

• Do you smoke?

Every day                      4%  

Often but not daily        1%  

Never                                      95%

• Gender?

Female             69%    

Male                31%

• Type?

Faculty            34%  

Staff                46%  

OA                  20%

Note that 79% of respondents are bothered by ETS at least occasionally,  93% feel something needs to change with respect to ETS, and 72% at least somewhat support a smoke-free campus.

The survey also provided a space for comments.  The complete set of comments can be found in the appendix.

Implementing a Smoke-free Policy

Some universities have taken the bold step of implementing a smoke-free campus in a year or two.  An alternative would be to take 4-5 years to phase in such a policy.  This allows smoking staff the time to transition or search for new employment, and means that most students that are affected will be ones that enter the university with the knowledge that the policy will be implemented.  Any policy should include a comprehensive cessation plan to help smokers quit smoking.

Recommendations

We recommend that the Administration convene a campus-wide ad hoc committee to investigate the advisability of revising the current smoking policy, with special consideration of implementing a smoke-free campus.  The University of IowaÕs experience might provide a useful model .

We believe it is just a matter of time when most major universities will become smoke-free, the question is when.  The University of Oregon has a chance to become a leader in the state and nation on this issue, demonstrating that it believes in creating and maintaining a healthy environment for all its members.

Appendix to ETS Subcommittee Report

1. Copy of survey sent to faculty and staff concerning environmental tobacco smoke by the ETS subcommittee.

2. Comments recorded from surveys.

The Environmental Issues Committee is studying the issue of secondhand tobacco smoke on campus.

Please take a minute to complete the following, tear off at perforation to remove your name, fold and drop in campus mail with PaulaÕs address to outside. If you have questions you may contact Paula Staight, Director of Health Promotion at the University Health Center at 346-2728 or pstaight@uoregon.edu.

If youÕd like to comment, use the back page that remains intact and does not have the return address.  

Please return by May 18.

Thank you,

Jim Blick, Ben Farrell, JR Gaddis and Paula Staight, Members of the Environmental Issues Committee

Please clearly check the box that represents your answer.

1. Are you ever bothered by secondhand smoke on campus?    Often      Occasionally      Never

2. Do you have any allergy/sensitivity (i.e. asthma, sneezing, watery eyes, etc.) that are             

      triggered by exposure to tobacco smoke?          Yes       No

3. To what extent are you ever concerned about secondhand smoke on campus?   

 Very concerned      Somewhat concerned    Not very concerned    Not at all concerned

4. The Surgeon General reported in June 2006 that Òthere is no risk-free level of secondhand

      smoke exposureÓ.  Does this conclusion affect your level of concern?

             More concerned        No Change                Less Concerned

5.What should UO do to minimize contact with secondhand smoke? Check only one.

       Nothing      Allow smoking in isolated areas only      Do not allow smoking anywhere on campus

6. Do you support or oppose the UO becoming a smoke-free campus (no smoking anywhere on campus)?

                                                                                       

         Highly            Somewhat                        Somewhat             Highly

        Support               Support                   Oppose                 Oppose

7. Please respond to this statement:

            The right to breathe clean air should take precedence over the right to smoke.

                                                                                                                           

       Strongly             Somewhat                       Somewhat            Strongly

        Agree                    Agree               Disagree            Disagree

8. Your gender:   Female     Male                9. You are?     Faculty      Staff       OA

10. Your age?      16-19   20-29     30-39   40-49      50-59   60+

11. Do you smoke?      Every day       Often but not daily         Never

** IF YOU CHECKED ÒNEVERÓ YOU ARE DONE WITH THE SURVEY **

 12. Do you plan to quit or would you like to quit sometime in the future?    Yes   No

 13. Do you know of resources for help in quitting smoking?      Yes   No

 14. Do you smoke on campus?       Yes   No

                 If yes, please indicate where you usually smoke on campus:__________________

Survey Comments

• Smoke comes through the ventilation system into my office!
• When I try to sit outside on the porch at Oregon Hall I have to sit at the other end.
• People congregate near entrances to buildings to smoke. On occasion it creates a real zone that on has to pass through. The overhang in the Lawrence courtyard creates a particularly noticeable cloud.
• Keep smoke away from windows or doors. My office always gets smoke by passersbys in the Cascade Fountain area at Pacific Hall.
• The entrance to my building always looks trashy and you have to run the gauntlet through the smokers to get in.
• In some cases the "50 feet from the door" rule doesn't work because the wind still blows the smoke in the doors and windows.
• Thanks for looking into this issue! The university needs better signage around buildings (especially PLC!) that limits smoking. Smoke comes right in the windows which causes a pregnant woman much anxiety!!
• I do not smoke but feel smokers have a right to smoke. They should have to go away from the building however, as the smell at the entrances is terrible and not that great for visitors and prospective students. Maybe several smokers' stations on campus.
• Why is this an issue? Frankly I'm more concerned with the fumes from over use of automobiles and feel efforts to reduce car use a higher priority.
• Allow smoking FAR from doorways to buildings.
• Highly supports smoke-free campus because campus is an Arboretum.
• Thank you for this survey! I wish we could do the same concerning asbestos – is ÒabatementÓ really enough?
• Could the smoke-free status apply to UO buildings off the campus? (I hope!)
• Occasionally bothered by secondhand smoke when passing people smoking.
• I think this is partly a diversity issue. With our Asian students smoking is still prevalent and accepted in Asia and we need to help them adjust.
• The wording of questions telegraphs the opinion of those who wrote them. They should have been vetted for neutrality.
• Student smokers are disregarding signs asking them to smoke away from the building.
• I am particularly bothered that people are allowed to smoke by the doorways to buildings. They should not be allowed there. Only in designated areas away from others.
• What I find annoying is the smell of diesel that filters thru halls and into windows of my office. I call them diesel days and they are not healthy.
• I worked with tobacco related cancers at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle. Would love to see the UO set an example and make it smoke-free campus!
• I'm a realist. My father died of self-inflicted lung cancer. So I hate smoking with a passion, but can't see outlawing it completely.
• Clearly far from entrances and have DPS enforce it.
• Ban smoking in certain areas by airway ducts, doorways etc and enforce ban.
• Enforce existing guidelines.
• In response to the Surgeon GeneralÕs statement one person wrote, ÒI donÕt think this statement is proactive enough or strong enough about the risks.Ó

FINAL WINTER 2007 CURRICULUM REPORT

Passed, as amended, by the University Senate on March 14, 2007

The body of this report consists of two major sections: Course Proposals reviewed winter 2007 and Other Curricular Matters. Policies and definitions governing group and multicultural general-education requirements are under Other Curricular Matters.

Course proposals approved by both the University of Oregon Committee on Courses (UOCC) and the University Senate are effective fall term 2007, unless a specific term is requested by an academic department and stated otherwise in this report.

The UOCC will consider new proposals during spring term and will submit a spring quarterly report to the University Senate in May 2007.

Routing of Minor Changes: The UOCC has confirmed that the following minor course changes may be made without review by the full committee: minor edits of course description, pre- or corequisites, grading option, and conditions of repeatability. Changes may be submitted in writing directly to the Office of the Registrar and Creative Publishing, in care of Mike Jefferis (jefferis@uoregon.edu) and Scott Skelton (sskelton@uoregon.edu). The memorandum should indicate the effective term for the change(s). Note: extensive changes may be referred to the UOCC for review.

Courses Not Taught Report: The UOCC has changed the policy of dropping courses not taught within the past three years from the fall curriculum report to the spring curriculum report. This allows the correct listing of courses in the catalog for the following curricular year. The intention for this change is to allow departments a chance to reply earlier and provide a more thoughtful response while still involved in curricular planning and staffing for the next academic year and can best determine which courses they are able to offer.

Multicultural Courses Policy:As part of general-education, offerings of multicultural courses at the 100, 200, and 300 levels need to be available to a wide spectrum of students from all across the University. Departments wishing to offer courses to satisfy the multicultural requirement should make such these courses available at the more general 100, 200, or 300 levels whenever possible, rather than at the more specialized 400 level.

Extended Course Descriptions for Group Satisfying Courses: All proposals for courses that would satisfy a group requirement for general-education must include a suitable extended course description, for use with the course, as specified in senate legislation:

“For all group-satisfying courses to be offered during a particular term, faculty or departments are asked to post electronically, in the Schedule of Classes, course descriptions that are substantially expanded over those provided in the catalog. The posted course information should be understandable to someone unfamiliar with the field and should emphasize the questions or issues that reveal, by their breadth and significance, why the course has earned Group status.”(US03/04-8, May 12, 2004)

March 21, 2007:          Curricular proposals for consideration in the spring round must be submitted to the provost’s office.

May 6, 2007:              University Senate considers spring 2007 preliminary report of the University of Oregon Committee on Courses.

July 2007:                  Publication of 2007–8 University of Oregon Catalog. The changes in the fall report will first appear in this catalog.

September 12, 2007:    Curricular proposals for consideration in the fall round must be submitted to the provost’s office.

November 29, 2007:     University Senate considers fall 2007 preliminary report of the University of Oregon Committee on Courses.

December 19, 2007:     Curricular proposals for consideration in the winter round must be submitted to the provost’s office.

March 12, 2008:          University Senate considers winter 2007 preliminary report of the University of Oregon Committee on Courses.

Members, University of Oregon Committee on Courses

Voting:       Paul Engelking, Chair                        Ex officio:        Jack Bennett

                  Jack Boss                                                               Herb Chereck

                  Emma Martin                                                          John Crosiar

                  Paul Peppis                                                             Marian Friestad

                  Arkady Vaintrob                                                      Scott Skelton      

                  Frances White

Student:      None                                               Staff:               Linda Adkins

                                                                                               Mike Jefferis

The University of Oregon Committee on Courses moves that the following course proposals and Other Curricular Matters be approved.

Unless indicated otherwise, courses may be taken either pass/no pass or for letter grades. “P/N only” or “graded only”indicates that all students must take the course as specified in the bold print. Separate grading options for majors are bracketed in this report and appear in UO class schedule notes; they are not printed in the UO Catalog. R after course credits means that the course number may be repeated for credit. “Sequence”after the description means the courses must be taken in numerical order.

REINSTATED COURSE

(UOCC Administrative Action)

BI 486/586 Population Genetics (4)

NEW COURSES

(Course previously taught as BI 410/510)

BI 422/522 Protein Toxins in Cell Biology (4) Mechanisms used by protein toxins to kill other organisms and how they have been used as molecular scalpels to dissect pathways in cell and neurobiology. Prereq: BI 322 or BI 360.

(Course previously taught as BI 410/510)

BI 433/533 Bacterial-Host Interactions (4) Examines spectrum of interactions between bacteria and animals, from pathogenesis to symbiosis, focusing on the molecular and cellular bases of these interactions. Prereq: BI 320 or 322 or 330.

(Course previously taught as BI 410/510)

BI 464/564 Biological Clocks (4) Biological time keeping at ecological, evolutionary, behavioral, physiological, neurological, and molecular levels, with emphasis on daily and seasonal rhythmicity. Prereq for BI 464: BI 360 and BI 320 or BI 328.

(Course previously taught as BI 410/510)

BI 496/596 Conservation Genetics (4) Causes and consequences of changes in genetic diversity in natural populations using tools and techniques from population, quantitative, and molecular genetics, and systematics and phylogenetics. Prereq for BI 496: BI 320 or BI 380. Offered alternate years. Effective summer session 2007.

REINSTATED COURSE

(UOCC Administrative Action)

CIS 423 Software Methodology II (4) Effective spring term 2007.

NEW COURSES

(Course previously taught as LING 199)

ARB 101 First-Year Arabic (5) Introduction to Arabic with emphasis on speaking, reading, writing, and comprehension. Sequence with ARB 102, 103. Effective spring term 2007.

(Course previously taught as LING 199)

ARB 102 First-Year Arabic (5) Introduction to Arabic with emphasis on speaking, reading, writing, and comprehension. Sequence with ARB 101, 103. Prereq: ARB 101. Effective spring term 2007.

(Course previously taught as LING 199)

ARB 103 First-Year Arabic (5) Introduction to Arabic with emphasis on speaking, reading, writing, and comprehension. Sequence with ARB 101, 102. Prereq: ARB 102. Effective spring term 2007.

REINSTATED COURSE

(UOCC Administrative Action)

EC 451/551 Issues in Labor Economics (4)

NEW COURSES

(Course previously taught as EC 399)

EC 327 Introduction to Game Theory (4) [Graded only for majors] Introductory course in game theory. Develops game-theoretic methods of rational decision making and equilibriums, using many in-class active games. Prereq: EC 101 or 201. Approved to satisfy Group II: Social Science general-education group requirement.

COURSES DROPPED

ENG 495/595 English Grammar (4)

EXISTING COURSE CHANGES

ENG 429/529 Old English II (4R)

(Changed Course Description, Course Title, Repeatability)

ENG 429/529 Old English II: [Topic] (4R) Study of Old English prose or poetry in the original language. R twice when topic changes. Pre- or coreq: ENG 428/528.

ENG 430/530 Old English III (4R)

(Changed Course Description, Course Title, Repeatability)

ENG 430/530 Old English III: [Topic] (4R) Study of Beowulf or works by other major Old English authors in the original language. R twice when topic changes. Pre- or coreq: ENG 429/529.

EXISTING COURSE CHANGES

GEOG 471/571 North American Cultural Landscapes (4)

(Changed Course Title)

GEOG 471/571 North American Historical Landscapes

NEW COURSES

(Course previously taught as 410/510)

GEOG 412/512 Review of Geospatial Concepts (2) An online, self-guided introduction to the basic concepts behind modern cartography and geographic information systems.

EXISTING COURSE CHANGES

GEOL 473/573 Isotope Geochemistry (3)

(Changed Course Description, Credits/Workload)

GEOL 473/573 Isotope Geochemistry (4) Introduction to nuclear physics and isotope systematics; techniques of isotope analysis; applications of stable and radioactive isotopes in geochronology and as tracers of geological processes.

NEW COURSES

(Course previously taught as GEOL 410/510)

GEOL 420/520 Geocommunication (3) [Graded only for majors] Scientific writing and presentations for the geological sciences. Focus on writing scientific papers and proposals, preparing oral and visual presentations.

(Course previously taught as GEOL 410/510)

GEOL 455/555 Mechanical Earth (4) [Graded only for majors] Introduction to continuum mechanics. Includes stress and strain, friction, elasticity, viscous fluids, constitutive laws, equations of motion, and deformation of the earth. Prereq: GEOL 315, PHYS 202, or equivalent; MATH 256.

GEOL 463/563 Computational Earth Science (4) [Graded only for majors] Practical techniques for scientific computing using the interactive environment Matlab. Topics include root finding, curve fitting, interpolation, integration and differentiation, optimization, ordinary differential equations. Prereq: MATH 253.

(Course previously taught as Geol 410/510)

GEOL 470/570 General and Environmental Geochemistry (4) [Graded only for majors] Lecture- and project-based introduction to geochemical classification of elements, element cycling, trace element geochemistry, geochemistry of surface environments, basics of radiogenic, and stable isotope geochemistry. Prereq: CHEM 221 and 222 and 223 and GEOL 311 or 332.

EXISTING COURSE CHANGES

HIST 310 Perceptions and Roles of Women from the Greeks through the 17th century (4)

(Changed Course Title)

HIST 310 Early Modern Women (4)  Course retained Group II: Social Science general-education group requirement.

HIST 329 The Mediterranean World: [Topic] (4)

(Changed Course Description, Course Title, General Education Requirements, Repeatability)

HIST 329 Mediterranean World, Antiquity to 1453 (4) Late antiquity, Byzantium, rise of Islam, Abbasid caliphate, conquests of Spain and Sicily, religious tolerance, the roles of women, trade, and intellectual exchange. Approved to satisfy Group II: Social Science general-education group requirement and Category B: Identity, Pluralism, and Tolerance multicultural requirement.

NEW COURSES

HIST 330 Mediterranean World, 1453–1700 (4) The rise of the Ottomans, Venetian trade, Jewish diaspora from Spain, the roles of women, piracy, slavery, and the decline of the Mediterranean. Approved to satisfy Group II: Social Science general-education group requirement and Category B: Identity, Pluralism, and Tolerance multicultural requirement.

HIST 438/538 Golden Age Spain (4) [Graded only for majors] Spanish history during one of the most important eras of its past, when it was a cultural leader in Europe and a major world power. DENIED the request to satisfy Category B: Identity, Pluralism, and Tolerance multicultural requirement.

EXISTING COURSE CHANGES

(Correction from fall term 2006)

INTL 260 Culture, Capitalism, and Globalization (4)  Effective summer session 2007.

EXISTING COURSE CHANGES

LING 451/551 Syntax and Semantics I (4)

(Changed Course Title)

LING 451/551 Functional Syntax I

LING 452/552 Syntax and Semantics II (4)

(Changed Course Title)

LING 452/552 Functional Syntax II

NEW COURSES

LING 331 African Languages: Identity, Ethnicity, History (4) [Graded only for majors] Introduction to the role of languages in understanding African identities, cultures, and migrations. Major language families, linguistic diversity, multilingualism, and historical change in African languages. Approved to satisfy Category C: International Cultures multicultural requirement.

(Course previously taught as ENG 495/595)

LING 494/594 English Grammar (4) [Graded only for majors] Survey of grammatical, syntactic, and morphological structures of English in terms of semantic and functional criteria.

(Course previously taught as LING 199)

LT 199 Special Studies: [Topic] (1–5R) Various self-study languages offered through the Yamada Language Center. R when topic changes.

NEW COURSES

MDVL 199 Special Studies: [Topic] (1–5R)

MDVL 399 Special Studies: [Topic] (1–5R)

MDVL 403 Thesis  (1-8R)

MDVL 405 Reading and Conference: [Topic] (1-4R)

MDVL 406 Field Studies: [Topic] (1-4R)

MDVL 408/508 Workshop: [Topic] (1-4R)

MDVL 410/510 Experimental Course: [Topic] (1–5R)

MDVL 503 Thesis (1-8R)

REINSTATED COURSE

(UOCC Administrative Action)

PHYS 686 Quantum Optics and Laser Physics (4) Effective spring term 2007.

EXISTING COURSE CHANGES

PSY 459/559 Cultural Psychology (4)

(Changed Course Description, General Education Requirements)

PSY 459/559 Cultural Psychology (4) Examines interdependence between mind and culture in substantive domains such as social cognition, motivation, emotion, and psychopathology. Cultural pluralism, collective identities, tolerance, and diversity considered. Pre- or coreq: WR 121 and 122 or 123; PSY 303. DENIED the request to satisfy Category B: Identity, Pluralism and Tolerance multicultural requirement.

COURSES DROPPED

(UOCC Administrative Action)

REL 316 Beginnings of Christianity (4)

EXISTING COURSE CHANGES

REL 222 Introduction to the Bible (4)

(Changed Course Description, Course Title)

REL 222 Introduction to the Bible I (4) Content and organization of the Hebrew scriptures (Old Testament); examination of scholarly methods and research tools used in biblical studies.  Course retained Group I: Arts & Letters general-education group requirement.

NEW COURSES

(Course previously taught as REL 316)

REL 223 Introduction to the Bible II (4) Examination of the written traditions of early Christianity with an emphasis on the New Testament.  Approved to satisfy Group I: Arts & Letters general-education group requirement.

REL 450/550 Readings in Daoism: [Topic] (4R) [Graded only for majors] Close reading of one or more Daoist texts in English. Emphasis on religious, philosophical, historical contexts; history of interpretation; critical scholarship. R when topic changes.

REL 454/554 Readings in Confucianism: [Topic] (4R) [Graded only for majors] Close reading of one or more Confucian texts in English translation with attention to religious, philosophical, historical contexts, history of interpretation, critical scholarship. R when topic changes.

REINSTATED COURSES

(UOCC Administrative Action)

FR 362 French Film (4)

(UOCC Administrative Action)

FR 597 Francophone Women’s Writing (4)

NEW COURSES

(Course previously taught as RL 199)

PORT 101 First-Year Portuguese (5) Introduction to Brazilian Portuguese language and culture, with emphasis on speaking, reading, writing, and listening comprehension skills. Sequence with PORT 102, 103. Effective spring term 2007.

(Course previously taught as RL 199)

PORT 102 First-Year Portuguese (5) Introduction to Brazilian Portuguese language and culture, with emphasis on speaking, reading, writing, and listening comprehension skills. Sequence with PORT 101, 103. Prereq: PORT 101 or equivalent. Effective spring term 2007.

(Course previously taught as RL 199)

PORT 103 First-Year Portuguese (5) Introduction to Brazilian Portuguese language and culture, with emphasis on speaking, reading, writing, and listening comprehension skills. Sequence with PORT 101, 102. Prereq: PORT 102 or equivalent. Effective spring term 2007.

EXISTING COURSE CHANGES

(Correction from fall term 2006)

REES 503 Thesis (1-9R) Effective spring term 2007

(Correction from fall term 2006)

RUSS 503 Thesis (1-9R) Effective spring term 2007

REINSTATED COURSE

(UOCC Administrative Action)

ARH 341 Italian Renaissance Art (4)

NEW COURSES

(Course previously taught as 199)

DSC 240 Managing Business Information (4) [Graded only for majors] Data-oriented approaches for structuring and analyzing information, with applications in the traditional functional areas of business, emphasizing modern techniques for developing fact-based decision models.

DROPPED COURSE

(UOCC Administrative Action)

MGMT 602 Supervised College Teaching (1–5R)

REINSTATED COURSE

(UOCC Administrative Action)

J 419/519 Editing Theory and Production (4) Effective winter term 2007.

DROPPED COURSE

(UOCC Administrative Action)

CRES 609 Practicum (1–8R) Effective spring term 2007.

NEW COURSE

(UOCC Administrative Action)

CRES 604 Internship (1–8R) Effective spring term 2007.

NEW COURSES

(Course previously taught as 399 in fall 2006)

PEF 291 Speed and Agility (1R) P/NP only. Topics include techniques for acquiring speed, agility, and conditioning; learning movement skills and applying energy systems. Minimal lectures complement practical application of drills. R once for credit.

The following information is not provided for approval by the University Senate. It is to inform academic and administrative departments about the status of proposals received but not approved by the UO Committee on Courses during winter term 2006.

College of Arts and Sciences

A bachelor of science degree, in addition to the bachelor of arts degree, is now an option for the international studies major program.  Effective spring term 2007.

A new minor in African studies has successfully completed the university review and approval process. Effective spring term 2007.

A new subject code for medieval studies (MDVL) and a series of generic courses have successfully completed the university review and approval process. Effective spring term 2007.

School of Music and Dance

The Oregon University System has approved a degree title change from M.A. or Ph.D. in music history to M.A. or Ph.D. in musicology. Effective fall term 2007.

None

HIST 423/523 Gender in European History: [Topic] (4R) [Graded only for majors] Range of topics include witches and witchcraft; men, women and revolution; sex and sexual difference in premodern Europe; and medieval religious women. DENIED the request to satisfy Category B: Identity, Pluralism, and Tolerance multicultural requirement. Department’s response is needed.

(Course previously taught as HIST 410)

HIST 437/537 Medieval Spain (4) [Graded only for majors] A study of two related aspects of medieval Iberian history: Spain as a frontier society and Spain as a multicultural, multireligious society. Department’s response is needed.

PEOL 352 Backpacking II Outing (1)

(Changed Course Title)

PEOL 352 Backcountry Navigation Need clarification from department on the title change for other courses within the series.

GEOL 418/518 Data Analysis for Earth and Environmental Sciences (4) [Graded only for majors] Lecture- and lab-based introduction to descriptive statistics, data visualization, uncertainty analysis, error propagation, hypothesis testing, regression and multiple regression, directional data, and other topics. Department will resubmit the proposal at a later time.

The Committee on Courses offers the following reminders:

• Proposals to the Committee on Courses must be submitted on electronic forms, available on the CAS website, http://uocurriculum.uoregon.edu/. Arrangements for access may be made by contacting the appropriate college curriculum coordinator for each individual professional school or college. Proposals submitted on old forms will be returned, without review, to academic departments, schools, or colleges. Proposals must be submitted to the Committee on Courses prior to the beginning of the term in which they are to be considered. Proposals received after the beginning of the term will be deferred to the following term. All departments should consult their college curriculum coordinator for deadline dates or go to http://uocurriculum.uoregon.edu/ and click the “Important Dates” link.
• The following minor course changes may be made without review by the full committee: minor edits of course description, pre- or co-requisites, grading option, and conditions of repeatability. Changes may be submitted in writing directly to the Offices of the Registrar and Creative Publishing, in care of Mike Jefferis (jefferis@uoregon.edu) and Scott Skelton (sskelton@pages.uoregon.edu), respectively. The memorandum should indicate the effective term for the change(s). Note: extensive changes may be referred to the UOCC for review.
• If there is any question that a proposed new or changed course might duplicate coverage in an existing course from another department or school, the proposing department must gain written confirmation that the other department has been consulted and does not object to the new or changed course.
• Proposals for new courses must be accompanied by full syllabi.
• For 4xx/5xx level courses, both proposal forms and syllabi must state explicitly the substantive and measurable differences in type and amount of work for the two levels.
• The minimal requirements for general-education status of a course are regarded as necessary, but not always sufficient, for inclusion of a course as part of a comprehensive general-education program at the university.

Group satisfying courses are intended to provide students with a cohesive general-education program. Proposals for group-satisfying status of a course should explain how the course enhances general-education at the university, explicitly stating how the course would complement other group-satisfying courses, and which other courses would be especially suitable for students to take in accompaniment. Approved March 10, 2004.

According to University Senate legislation, courses submitted for group-satisfying status must be submitted to the Intercollege General-education Review Committee.

Proposals for undergraduate group-satisfying and multicultural courses must include written justification, regardless of whether they are new or existing courses.

• The minimal requirements for multicultural status of a course are regarded as sufficient for inclusion of a course as part of the multicultural course requirements.

Any course that might appear to satisfy the university multicultural requirements, either by title, description, or content, is carefully examined to see if it should be listed as a multicultural course. If a course might appear on its face eligible for multicultural status, the committee needs clear explanation of why the course does—or does not—satisfy multicultural course guidelines. Arbitrary exclusion of courses from the list of multicultural satisfying courses can engender student confusion or cynicism. Approved on March 10, 2004.

• The UO Committee on Courses has established the policy that the phrase “or instructor’s consent” will not be stated along with any other course prerequisites. The prerequisites of any course may be overridden by instructor’s consent, and need not be stated explicitly for individual courses. Academic departments are able to override any prerequisite requirements in Banner should a student qualify to enroll.

“Instructor’s consent” is reserved for use alone as a sole prerequisite to allow departments to monitor suitability of enrollment in courses for individual students, preventing enrollment without prior approval. Academic departments should be aware they must code the courses correctly and assume enrollment management responsibilities, preauthorizing each student individually, with this option. Approved March 10, 2004.

As the primary, commonly available summary of a course, the syllabus serves several purposes. It outlines the course, it denotes what students may expect from the course, and it locates the course in the curriculum. The syllabus is the best, most concise description of a course by its teacher available to both prospective students and colleagues. The Committee on Courses uses syllabuses in its review of courses. To maximize the usefulness of a syllabus to students and faculty, it should contain the following contents:

1. Course Number

2. Title

3. Credits

4. Term, place, time, instructor

(For a new course proposal, indicate when it is likely to be offered, and how frequently)

(For a new course proposal, indicate who is likely to teach the course)

5. Position in the curriculum

• Satisfies group requirement? Explain why

• Satisfies multicultural requirement? Explain why

• Satisfies other general-education requirement?

• Satisfies other major or program requirement?

• Preparatory for other courses?

• List prerequisites or other suggested preparation

6. Format (lecture, discussion, laboratory)

7. Outline of subject and topics explored

8. Course materials (texts, books, readings)

9. Instructor expectations of students

• Be explicit (by pages assigned, lengths of assignments)

• Level of student engagement expected (see suggested Student Engagement Inventory on following page)

• Readings

• Problems

• Attendance

• Project

• Writing

• Laboratory

• Field work

• Work with electronic media, network, online

• Performance

• Presentation

• Exams

• Differential expected for graduate work for joint 4xx/5xx-level courses

10. Assessment

• Methods (testing, homework)

• Times or frequency

• Grading policy

• Incomplete policy

[See Faculty Handbook for other recommendations regarding university policies.]

To aid in assigning student credit hours uniformly to courses in the curriculum, the committee inventories the amount of student engagement in a course. The committee has found the following tool to be useful. Departments preparing course proposals are invited to use this form when deciding how many SCH units to request for a proposed course. Departments are encouraged to report to the committee how this tool may be improved for their use.

Please identify the number of hours a typical or average student would expect to spend in each of the following activities. The general guideline is that each undergraduate credit should reflect thirty hours of student engagement. Therefore, a 3-credit course would engage students for ninety hours total among the activities listed below, whereas a 4-credit course would list 120 hours of activities in which students are engaged over the course of the term. (Graduate students are expected to perform work of higher quality and quantity, typically with an additional 20–25 percent effort expected.)

Definition of terms:

The following criterions were proposed by the Undergraduate Council and the College of Arts and Sciences Curriculum Committee. The University Senate approved them in May 2001 by Motion US0001-3 Replacement Motion governing the approval of courses meeting general-education requirements and the distribution of courses student must complete within each group.

1. Group satisfying courses in Arts and Letters, Social Science, and Science must meet the following general criteria:

1.1. Group satisfying courses in arts and letters must create meaningful opportunities for students to engage actively in the modes of inquiry that define a discipline. Proposed courses must be broad in scope and demonstrably liberal in nature (that is, courses that promote open inquiry from a variety of perspectives). Though some courses may focus on specialized subjects or approaches, there must be a substantial course content locating that subject in the broader context of the major issues of the discipline. Qualifying courses will not focus on teaching basic skills but will require the application or engagement of those skills through analysis and interpretation.

1.2. Group satisfying courses in the social sciences must be liberal in nature rather than being professionally oriented or limited to the performance of professional skills. They must cover a representative cross-section of key issues, perspectives, and modes of analysis employed by scholars working on the subject matter addressed by the course. The subject matter of the course will be relatively broad, e.g. involving more than one issue, place, or time. Courses with an emphasis on methods and skills will satisfy the requirement only if there is also a substantial and coherent theoretical component.

1.3. Group satisfying courses in the sciences should introduce students to the foundations of one or more scientific disciplines, or should provide an introduction to fundamental methods (such as mathematics) that are widely used in scientific disciplines. Courses should introduce students to the process of scientific reasoning.

2. Specific Criteria:

2.1. Group satisfying courses must be numbered at the 100, 200, and 300 levels.

2.2. Lower division courses must be offered annually, and upper division courses at least every other year.

2.3. Approved courses must be at least 4 credits each.

2.4. Upper division group satisfying courses must provide depth and rigor beyond that of typical lower-division general-education courses. Departments must justify, in terms of content, workload, and method of instruction, the assignment of a course to the upper level.

2.5. Courses that are offered for majors only are excluded from group status, but courses that are designed for both majors and other students may qualify.

2.6. Although laboratory courses are not automatically excluded from group status in the sciences, to acquire this status, the courses must not focus primarily on techniques or data collection.

3. Procedures governing the approval of all courses designed to meet General-education requirements.:

3.1. Before submission to the Senate, such courses proposed by departments must be reviewed at several levels:

3.1.1. By the curricular committees of the various colleges and schools

3.1.2. By an inter-college committee including the members of the CAS Curricular Committee and two representatives appointed by the deans of the others schools and colleges. This second committee is also charged to review such courses as do not meet the standards set in paragraph (2.) and to negotiate a solution with the sponsoring department.

3.1.3. By the University Committee on Courses.

3.2. The inter college committee is authorized to establish procedures governing the review process.

4. Completion of group requirements (student progress):

4.1. Within the full set of courses that fulfills all of the requirements, students may not count

4.1.1. more than one course that has the subject code of the major, or

4.1.2. more than three courses that have the same subject code.

4.2. Within the smaller set of courses that fulfills the requirements of each group, students must complete at least two courses that have the same subject code.

The 2000–2001 academic year was the first year that the Committee on Courses systematically deleted from the university catalog courses that have not been taught for three years or more.

In several cases, departments had not offered a specialized course under a course number and title specified in the catalog. Yet similar courses had been taught regularly in the department in various formats, under experimental numbers (410, 510, 610), or under the general designations for special topics seminars, workshops, or practicums (the 406/407/408/409, 506/507/508/509, 606/607/608/609 series). With time, departments had discovered that a course description in the catalog was too specialized to apply to any of their courses as actually being taught.

Unfortunately, removal of an overly specialized course, although untaught, still might have consequences for departments. Often that course had been the sole representative in the catalog of subjects that are taught by a department and are part of the regular curriculum. Dropping that course could make it appear that a department offered no courses in that course’s subject area.

The committee has noted another, companion problem. Over the years, the committee has observed that new courses tailored to the particular research interests and instructional style of an individual faculty member are likely to fall into disuse within a few years as the person’s teaching assignments and interests change, or if the instructor becomes unavailable for teaching that particular course.

The Committee on Courses recommends that departments and programs develop more sustainable course descriptions. A sustainable course description would identify a subject area and general approach, but would not be so restrictive as to exclude different perspectives or specializations also representative of that subject area.

The committee also recommends that departments and programs be selective when proposing permanent course status for specialized courses that can only be taught by one particular instructor.

For example, a department with several experts qualified to teach ceramics, but having only one instructor who specializes in Ming porcelain per se, might currently have a specialized course titled Ming Dynasty Porcelains in the catalog. A more sustainable course title could be Chinese Porcelains or even Porcelains, depending upon the range of expertise available to teach the course. Another approach would use the topics course Ceramics, possibly repeatable as the exact subject material—and transcript title—changes.

Departments following these recommendations could then represent the full range of their curricular offerings and could maintain a sustainable list of courses in the catalog.

Category A: American Cultures. The goal is to focus on race and ethnicity in the United States by considering racial and ethnic groups from historical and comparative perspectives. Five racial or ethnic groups are identified: African American, Chicano or Latino, Native American, Asian American, European American. Approved courses deal with at least two of these groups in a comparative manner. They do not necessarily deal specifically with discrimination or prejudice, although many do.

Category B: Identity, Pluralism, and Tolerance. The goal is to gain scholarly insight into the construction of collective identities, the emergence of representative voices from varying social and cultural standpoints, and the effects of prejudice, intolerance, and discrimination. The identities at issue may include ethnicities as in the American Cultures category, as well as classes, genders, religions, sexual orientations, or other groups whose experiences contribute to cultural pluralism. This category includes courses that analyze the general principles underlying tolerance, or the lack of it.

Category C: International Cultures. The goal is to study world cultures in critical perspective. Approved courses either treat an international culture in view of the issues raised in Categories A and B (namely, race and ethnicity, pluralism and monoculturalism, prejudice and tolerance) or explicitly describe and analyze a worldview (i.e., a system of knowledge, feeling, and belief) that is substantially different from those prevalent in the twentieth-century United States.

The Committee on Courses has discussed the criteria for adding an “H” suffix to a course number and recommends the following:

The “H” suffix is intended to advise students that a course provides honors content of significant difficulty and requires honors effort from students. The Committee on Courses will be looking for evidence of the following in determining whether a course should hold an “H” suffix designation:

1.   Students enrolling should have a cumulative GPA of at least 3.30 in their major.

2. The content of the class, and the level of analysis, should be significantly deeper than for nonhonors classes.

3. Class size should be small enough to promote intensive student participation.

4. The faculty member(s) teaching the course should be available for close advising outside of class.

MAJOR

Definition

Courses in designated primary subject areas or disciplines in which a student commits to gaining in-depth knowledge, skills, competence, and attitudes through a coherent pattern of courses. A footnote accompanies the major definition: Divisional major programs emphasize a general and integrated approach to learning, with the student’s major program broadly inclusive of work in several of the discipline or subject areas within the specific division within which the student’s degree program lies (i.e., humanities, social science, science). For instance, a divisional major program in the social sciences would call for the student to include within his or her major work from several of the disciplines or subject areas in the social sciences (such as sociology, political science, or economics). Because of the breadth of disciplines or subjects included in the major, the student has less opportunity to delve in depth into a single subject area such as sociology, political science, or economics, than they would be able to do were they in a “departmental major” program in a single one of these disciplines or subject areas.

Minimal Requirements

36 credits, of which a minimum of 24 must be upper division. Departments should consider setting minimum residency requirements.

MINOR

Definition

Courses in a designated secondary subject area or discipline distinct from and usually outside the student’s degree major in which knowledge is gained in a coherent pattern of courses.

Minimal Requirements

24 credits, of which a minimum of 12 must be upper division. Should be within a discipline that already has a preexisting major or is sponsored by a department.

CERTIFICATE

Definition

An approved academic award given in conjunction with the satisfactory completion of a program of instruction requiring one year or more, but less than four years, of full-time equivalent, postsecondary-level work. The conditions and conferral of the award are governed by the faculty and ratified by the governing board of the institution granting the certificate.

Minimal Requirements

36 credits—24 upper division with 12 minimum at 400 level. The sponsoring department must provide guidance—a template or check list and the name of an adviser, with notice that the student must consult an adviser to apply for the certificate at least two terms prior to graduation.

May 7, 2007

To:             University of Oregon University Senate

From:        Joint Senate-Academic Affairs Committee on Student Evaluations

Subject:     Preliminary Report

Introduction

In winter of 2007, the University Senate and the Office of Academic Affairs charged this committee with the task of re-examining how the university assesses academic excellence in teaching through course evaluations. (See

http://pages.uoregon.edu/uosenate/dirsen067/JSAADCTE13Feb07.html). This process was first described by CAS Associate Dean Priscilla Southwell at the February 3, 2007 meeting of the University Senate. This preliminary report is a culmination of this process, and we anticipate that members of the Senate will be prepared to discuss this matter during the 07-08 academic year. A final version of this report will be circulated at the end of May 2007 after the Academic Deans have been able to review it.

Course evaluations serve many different purposes in this university. Students use this information in choosing classes; faculty are provided with feedback that helps them increase their teaching effectiveness; and administrators rely, in part, on these evaluations for the purposes of merit evaluation and promotion and tenure. Over the past several months, we became aware that certain questions are therefore more important to some of these constituencies than to others. Our recommendations attempt to provide more useful information to all of these varied groups within the university community.  

            Other considerations were more structural in nature, but crucial nonetheless. As discussed later in this report, our current student evaluations are not always in compliance with University Senate legislation  Moreover, the results are difficult to interpret and not readily accessible. Our recommendations therefore attempt to meet multiple goals: legislative, scientific, and practical.

            The recommendations provided below are but a first step in a crucial change in the method by which we evaluate teaching quality. The committee has engaged in vigorous debate and discussion and has consulted with various stakeholders. In the end, we reached consensus about these recommendations, but we urge you to continue this discussion with members of your  department or program.

COMPOSITION OF COMMITTEE AND CONSULTANTS

Committee:

Priscilla Southwell, Chair (CAS Dean’s Office and Political Science)

Bertram Malle (Psychology)

Deb Bauer (LCB)

Regina Psaki (Romance Languages and Literatures)

Michael Filippelli (ASUO student)

Gordon Sayre, ex officio, (English)

Consulted Faculty and Staff :

Charles Martinez, Vice-Provost for Institutional Equity and Diversity

Georgeanne Cooper, Teaching Effectiveness Program

Patricia Gwartney, former director, Oregon Survey Research Lab

Kate Wagle, Department of Art

Christian Cherry, Department of Dance

Herb Chereck, University Registrar

RECOMMENDATIONS

I. REQUIRED QUESTIONS 

            We have expanded the number of required questions to ten. The main rationale for this was the desire to provide questions for all of the relevant constituencies (instructors, administrators, and students) and to make course evaluations more comparable across units and schools. We also determined that two of the currently required questions (# 3 and #4, added by Senate legislation in 1999 were ambiguous composites of multiple questions that needed to be broken up. 

Furthermore, we concluded that the current two basic instructor and course questions were too global, inviting subjective assessments of liking, attractiveness, personality characteristics, and so on.  The recommended formulation “quality of teaching†focuses the evaluation on the instructor’s most pertinent, relatively more objective characteristics (See # 1 below.)  The course evaluation (#2) question was formulated in a parallel manner.  The committee also examined the questions used by other of our AAU peer institutions, and we discovered that most of them rely on such simple, short questions.

We added several more student-oriented questions to the set of required questions. Although many departments and programs already include such questions, the results are not available online unless they are included in the required set of questions.

Finally, all items are formulated as true questions (not as statements), and the response options follow best practices in survey research. (See sections V. and VI. for details).

1. What was the quality of the instructor’s teaching?

Exceptional | Very good | Good | Fair | Poor | Unsatisfactory  

| Decline to answer

2. What was the quality of this course? 

Exceptional | Very good | Good | Fair | Poor | Unsatisfactory

| Decline to answer

3. How organized was this course (e.g., syllabus, schedule)?

Very organized | Somewhat organized | Not very organized | Not at all organized

| Decline to answer

4. How efficient was the instructor’s use of class time?

Very efficient | Somewhat efficient| Not very efficient | Not at all efficient
 | Decline to answer

5. How available was the instructor for communication outside of class (e.g., during posted office hours)?

Very available | Somewhat available | Not very available | Not at all available

| Decline to answer

6. How clear were the guidelines for grading students in this course?

Very clear | Fairly clear | Somewhat unclear | Unclear

| Decline to answer

7. How much did you learn in this course?

A great deal | A considerable amount | A little | Not much

| Decline to answer

8. How often did you attend class?

Always | Often | Sometimes | Rarely or never                                   

| Does not apply | Decline to answer [here either one of the version is suitable. For example, if it’s an on-line course, the concept of class attendance does not apply.]

9. How many hours per week did you spend on this course, other than time in class?

 ____ hours per week

| Decline to answer

10. What grade do you expect in this course?

A | B | C | D | F            P| NP              

| Decline to answer

II. Suggested Wording for Qualitative Questions

• Please comment on the instructor’s strengths and areas for possible improvement.
  [Textbox]
  
• Please comment on the course’s strengths and areas for possible improvement.
  [Textbox]

III. Optional Questions (See Appendix A for Commonly-Used Questions) 

In order to increase the completion rate, we recommend that the total number of questions be limited to 20 quantitative questions. We also recommend that all such questions follow the recommended format - in the form of a question with 4 or 6 possible responses. See Section V (“Question Formulationâ€) for the discussion of this format.

Note:  Some departments and programs currently include a question related to the instructor’s demonstration of respect or fairness toward students. The committee had much discussion about the desirability of including this type of question within the required set, but we concluded with the recommendation that each unit have a discussion about the appropriateness of including such a question or questions.

IV. Recommended Introduction and Order of Questions

• Before the questions are presented, there should be a preamble that highlights the importance of teaching evaluations: “Please take your time in completing the questions below.  Your responses are important both for students, as a guide to choosing their courses, and for the instructor, as a basis for tenure, promotion, and merit evaluations.â€
• Next, three questions assess student demographics (sex, year in school, ethnicity), all with a “Decline to Answer†option.
• Finally, all other questions follow in this recommended order: first, the required quantitative questions; second; the qualitative questions; third, the set of optional questions chosen by the unit.

V. Question Formulation

In our existing course evaluations, some items were questions, some were statements.  Statements were always formulated as positive and therefore carried with them the presumption of positivity (e.g., “The course was intellectually stimulatingâ€). As a result, responses were likely pulled toward the positive end of the scale.

Currently, certain questions violate basic rules of survey methodology—for example, they asked two things at once (e.g., “Do you believe that the class time was well organized and efficiently used?â€) or were ambiguous (e.g., “Did the instructor encourage communication outside of class timeâ€? — communication between whom?).

Certain existing items also include phrasing designed to invite a relative judgment (e.g., “In comparison with other UO courses of this size and level…â€).  There was much discussion about such phrasing. One perspective was that relative judgments are desirable, because they may provide a fairer assessment (e.g., large lecture courses vs. seminars).  Another perspective was that, even though relative judgments may be desirable, there is little reason to believe that the phrase in question will reliably trigger the correct relative standard.  There may be confusion over what exactly the terms “size†and “level†mean; and some students may not have had UO courses of this particular size and level.  Additionally, if we truly assume that students succeed in making a relative judgment, then the average ratings of all courses must be assumed to be directly comparable. Scores in a large lecture course in chemistry (e.g., 7.0) must then be directly compared to scores in an upper-division seminar on relationships (e.g., 9.0), because students, by assumption, already corrected for any differences in size and level.  Most instructors would resist this interpretation, which suggests that there is little faith in the success of the relative phrasing of questions.

            Exploratory structured interviews with five current students (see Appendix B) suggested three conclusions:  The “in comparison†preamble appears to be ignored for three out of the four currently required questions, and for the one question in which it is heeded (the overall course evaluation question), only the size comparison is taken into account.  That size comparison, however, seems to be made automatically, as a result of the term-long experience in the given kind of course (e.g., large lecture, small seminar), making the comparison phrasing superfluous. 

            Our recommended strategy is therefore to let students make their judgments in the most intuitive and direct way, and users of course evaluations can perform proper statistical comparisons afterwards: Ratings in upper-division seminars will be compared to ratings in other such seminars; ratings in required large lecture courses (with a known definition of such courses) will be compared to other such courses, and so on.

VI. Response Options

Response options in existing evaluation materials suffered from three problems.  First, they were inflexible, using the same labels (Exceptionally good, good … unsatisfactory) for all questions, even when not fitting the specific question. Second, the number of response options was five whereas good survey methodology suggests an even number, typically four or six, in order to avoid having respondents easily choose the noncommittal middle category. Third, the five response options were transformed into number scores of 10, 8, 6, 4, 2, which is mathematically awkward and confusing (e.g., the scale may be read as a 10-point scale but has a midpoint of 6).

The newly proposed response options do not suffer from any of these problems. 

First, labels are tailored to the question asked.  For example, “What was the quality of the instructor’s teaching?† has response options: Exceptional | Very good | Good | Fair | Poor | Unsatisfactory. The “How often did you attend class?†question has options: Always | Often | Sometimes | Rarely or never. 

            Second, all questions have either four or six response options, with four being the default. Where fine distinctions seem possible and desirable, six options are offered.

            Third, the four or six response options should be transformed into numbers 5,4,3,2,1,0 using zero as a reference point or lowest possible score.

            An additional recommendation is to provide a no-response option for cases in which students either don’t have information to answer the question or prefer not to answer it.  At the same time, this no-response option should not be too attractive (or too inviting as an alternative to thinking about the question).  Thus, the formulation “Decline to Answer†and “Does Not Apply†is recommended.

VII. Availability of Data

Besides the means (and percentages) for required questions that are currently posted on the University Registrar’s website, we propose to a future implementation committee that the following data be delivered to departments and instructors, at least for each of the required questions. We also recommend that these data be accessible to students while they register via Duck Web, ideally within one month after the grades are due.

Grand mean (or percentages for categorical questions) for UO (on an annual basis)

Mean (or percentages for categorical questions) for School (e.g., CAS)

Mean (or percentages for categorical questions) for Department (on an annual basis)

Mean (or percentages for categorical questions) of each course over the past n years

Mean (or percentages for categorical questions) of each instructor for this course

Third-week enrollment for this class

Response rate (# of student responses/3^rd week enrollment)

VII. ADDitional ISSUES

            Although our committee was asked to consider whether student course evaluations should include some assessment of the instructor’s research, we agreed that such evaluations should be done in a separate manner.

            Similarly, we did not want to incorporate into course evaluation the students’ assessment of other university academic requirements, such as the effectiveness of general education or multicultural courses. However, we did view positively the idea of an optional link from the course evaluation page to a separate on-line survey of such aspects of academic life.

Overview of Current University of Oregon Numerical Course Evaluation Forms:

1. Number of questions ranges from 7 (English, Geology) to 43 (LCB)

2. Not all forms actually include the four required questions mandated by Senate legislation in 1999. They are missing from forms used in Education and Chemistry, and possibly others.

3. Not all forms clearly distinguish between questions which pertain to the qualities of the instructor, and questions which pertain to other aspects, such as textbook, laboratory handbooks, etc. However, there are some units which have devised particular forms to be distributed to students in labs or discussion sections, which do have questions targeted to those settings, and to the GTFs or lab technicians to teach or run them.

4. Many forms include additional questions which do not use the common 5-pt. scale. Examples are questions about major, college affiliation, # of hours studying each week, or:

            YOUR performance in this class

            What is your primary reason for taking this course?

A - required for major  B- University Graduation Req. D-personal interest D-career interest

5. Many units ask a series of question about students' effort and performance, such as expected grade: ABCDF, grade at midterm, or:

At the final, I will have completed: A - all assigned material  B-3/4  C-1/2  D-1/3

How often did you attend class?: A - every class  B - 3/4  C - 1/2  D - less than 1/2

6. Some units include questions related to respect, tolerance, or classroom atmosphere. Examples:

The teacher treated students with respect (several units)

The classroom atmosphere invited students to express their ideas openly and seriously (English, College Writing)

The instructor treats students with respect. (East Asian Langs. and Lits., German)

The INSTRUCTOR'S allowance of the expression of other viewpoints.(Art)

(in "Evaluate the Instructor's Teaching" section): Objective and fair in considering student viewpoint.

Below are notes and memory protocols of structured interviews with five students (juniors and seniors in psychology, with double majors in other fields) about the currently required course evaluation questions.  The goal of theses interviews was to establish students’ interpretations of these questions.  In particular, we were interested in students’ reading of introductory clause --- “In comparison with other UO courses of this size and level…†and the clarity of the questions about organization and class time use.  

For each students interviewed, the initial instruction was: “I am going to show you a few questions that you are familiar with.  Just read them and tell me what you normally think when you answer those questions, what goes through your head when you answer them. Let’s start with the first question.  Tell me what you think when you read this.† Students then received a sheet of paper with the four questions printed on it. 

16.  “In comparison with other UO courses of this size and level, how do you evaluate this course?â€

Student A.  I think of classes I took of the same size. (What did you do when you were a freshman?) I compared the course to those I had in high school. [Never mentions level.]

Student B.  I don’t normally take the first part of the sentence into consideration. With a bad course, you know it. I may visualize the size of the course, it’s like having associations, it reminds you of other classes like it…, but you already know that during the term. (What did you do when you were a freshman?) I guess I just evaluated it directly (And how about level?) I never look at that.

Student C.  I think of the type of class it was: smaller, interactive or a larger lecture course. (How about level?) You mean, how hard it is? (No like 300, 400.) Oh. I never think of that.

Student D.  I kind of think of the room size, how many students are in the course, maybe numeric level, level of students… But it’s all pretty quick.  Yeah, I guess room size is what I think of.

Student E.  In general, how the course worked for me. You know, quizzes, exams, how effective it was, what I learned.  (Do you ever think of the size or level of the course?) No, it’s easy to just say what it was like.

Interpretation: At best, the introductory clause encourages students to think about class size (not about the ambiguous “levelâ€).  However, it appears that students cannot help but think of class size throughout the term, so this clause may not achieve anything that a straightforward question about the course wouldn’t achieve.

17. “In comparison with other UO courses of this size and level, how do you evaluate this instructor?â€

A.  I don’t really think of anything special. (You just think of the instructor?) Yeah.

B.  (And how about the second question?) ah,… just the instructor. How I felt about the instructor.  But you compare people over time (you gain a frame of reference from all your classes?) Yeah.

C.  If it’s a large class you can tell if they can handle it; I think of the same classes as in the previous question. You know, whether they make eye contact, whether it’s easy to communicate with them… (that makes for a more positive evaluation?) Yeah.

D.  I base it pretty much entirely on the instructor.  Don’t take size into account.

E.  When someone is a good lecturer, fair grader, when they are available. And I guess person things: whether they are interesting, boring. (Do you ever think of size or level?) No.

Interpretation: There is little evidence that  the introductory clause encourages size- and level-specific comparisons with other instructors.  (Also note that to do so the clause would have to be written as “In comparison with instructors of other UO courses of this size and level,…).  More so than with evaluations of the course as a whole, students appear to express their appreciation (or lack thereof) for the instructor’s teaching.

18. “In comparison with other UO courses of this size and level, do you believe that class time was well organized and efficiently used throughout the course?â€

A. N/A

B.  How the lectures were organized, whether the slides were helpful, whether the lecture drags on to fill the last 20 minutes or cram everything in at the end.

C.  You know, the unorganized professor, whether they are prepared, whether the power point stuff is working, whether they finish the slides or have all kinds of side stories. Or whether they tell you “Don’t remember any of what I just told you.†

D.  Whether they are well-prepared, have all their notes, waste time with paperwork at the beginning, and also whether there is too much question & answer during the lecture, you know, whether they get side-tracked.

E.  I think of the syllabus, whether they actually go through it. You know, hold to “the contract.†Whether they go through with the plans. (And efficient?) Whether they use class time well — whether there’s enough time to the get material into the time.

Interpretation: The comparison clause does not seem to have any particular impact.  Students take the question to refer primarily to the organization of class time.  A split into class time and overall course organization appears prudent.

19. “In comparison with other UO courses of this size and level, how well did the instructor encourage communication outside of class time?â€

A. N/A

B. I think of office hours, Blackboard.

C. What they say during class about office hours, how many office hours they have, whether they are available.

D. How often they remind you about office hours.  And, ‘if you have questions, here is the email.’  Also the TA, whether they repeat that you can contact them. And available meeting times, and when you can’t make the times, whether they are accommodating about other times.

E. I think of office hours, whether they encourage study groups, yeah… mainly office hours. 

Interpretation: The comparison clause does not seem to have any particular impact.  Communication is clearly interpreted as communication between student and instructor.  A slight reformulation may sharpen this focus (e.g., “How available was the instructor for communication outside of class (e.g., during posted office hours)?â€