Resolutions 2024-2025

Resolution 2024-2025-1: Bylaw Amendment:
Undergraduate Student Membership on the Undergraduate Policy and Curriculum
Committee and the General Undergraduate Requirements Committee

Whereas, the Undergraduate Policy and Curriculum Committee duties and responsibilities include providing recommendations on undergraduate academic policies, on university-wide undergraduate degree requirements, on proposals for new undergraduate degree programs and minors, and on revisions or elimination of academic programs; and
Whereas, the General Undergraduate Requirements Committee duties and responsibilities include monitoring, and reviewing changes to university-wide undergraduate curriculum requirements such as the General Education Program, civic literacy, and other state-mandated requirements; and
Whereas, the topics discussed by the UPCC and GURC committees are of critical importance to undergraduate students, yet the large population of undergraduate students at UCF currently have no voice in the debate of those topics or the decisions made by the Undergraduate Policy and Curriculum Committee and the General Undergraduate Requirements Committee; and
Whereas, Faculty Senate committees currently include representation by graduate students on eight different Faculty Senate committees, and by undergraduate students on eleven different Faculty Senate committees, including the Information Technology Committee, the Admissions and Standards Committee, the Commencement, Convocations, and Recognition Committee, the Faculty Senate Campus Safety and
Security Committee, the Faculty Senate Student Success Council, the Library Advisory Committee, the Strategic Planning Council, the Textbook Committee, the University Athletics Advisory Committee, the University Honors Committee, the University Parking and Transportation Committee; and
Whereas, the inclusion of an undergraduate student would provide critical perspective and viewpoints to the business conducted by the Undergraduate Policy and Curriculum Committee and by the General Undergraduate Requirements Committee; therefore
Be It Resolved, that the voting membership of the Undergraduate Policy and Curriculum Committee membership be amended to include an undergraduate student, (nominated by the president of the Student Government Association), and
Be It Further Resolved, that the voting membership of the General Undergraduate Requirements Committee be amended to include an undergraduate student, (nominated by the president of the Student Government Association).

Approved by the Faculty Senate Steering Committee on September 19, 2024
Approved by the Faculty Senate on October 3, 2024
Submitted to Provost Michael D. Johnson for information only on October 4, 2024

Resolution 2024-2025-2
Constitution Amendment:
Adjusting Faculty Senate Term Durations to Stagger Senate Terms
within an Academic Unit

Whereas, the UCF Faculty Constitution in Article II.C.3 states:
“3. Terms. The term of each senate seat shall be two years, beginning the first Senate meeting following the confirmation of elections results by the office of the Faculty Senate. A person may seek re-election for more than one term.”; and
Whereas, many representative bodies comprised of elected members, such as the United States Senate, the Florida Senate, and the Orange County Board of Commissioners, utilize staggered terms of their elected members; and
Whereas, academic units that are part of the UCF Faculty Senate would be best served if their unit senators had staggered terms, with some senators elected in even years and others elected in odd years, to allow for continuity of experienced members, smooth transitions of responsibilities after elections, institutional memory for an individual academic unit, and the reduced risk of complete turnover of all members from an academic unit; and
Whereas, adjusting the term length of a senate seat to stagger election terms in an academic unit can be considered beneficial to that unit in instances where all senators from that academic unit currently have the same two-year term, or when a single change in the apportionment of senators in an academic unit due to yearly apportionment could result in all senators from that academic unit having the same
two year term; therefore
Be it Resolved, that the UCF Faculty Constitution be amended in Article II.C.3 to state:

Terms.
a. The term of each senate seat shall be two years, with the provision for adjusting a senate term duration to create staggered terms of the elected members from an academic unit.
b. Adjusting a senate term duration to stagger senate seats within an academic unit can be considered when all senate members from an academic unit have the same two-year term, or when a single change in the number of senators in an academic unit due to yearly apportionment
could result in all senate members from an academic unit having the same two-year term.
i. At any point in the year, the senators in an academic unit and/or the Faculty Senate leadership can identify academic units that could potentially benefit from adjusting an upcoming senate term for
staggering senate terms as described above.
ii. If the number of senators in an academic unit changes due to yearly apportionment, the Faculty Senate leadership shall identify and notify those academic units that could potentially benefit from
adjusting an upcoming senate term to maintain staggered senate terms in the unit.
iii. There is a two-step approval process to adjust a senate term duration for a senate election to either create or maintain staggered senate terms.
a. First, the current senators within an academic unit can approve, by majority vote, a proposal for adjusting the term of a specific senate seat. The proposal must identify if the adjusted term is for an at-large seat or a specific department seat and must also identify if the adjusted term will be
a one-year or three-year term In the upcoming senate election.
b. Second, the senate eligible faculty from the unit can ratify the proposal by a majority vote. Any such adjusted senate term that is ratified shall convert to a standard two-year senate term upon completion.
c. Failure to complete the two steps outlined above will result in the senate elections for the unit continuing without introducing an adjusted term for staggering purposes.
c. Senate terms begin the first Faculty Senate meeting following the confirmation of elections results by the office of the Faculty Senate, typically, in April of each year. A person may seek re-election for more than one term.

Approved by the Faculty Senate Steering Committee on September 19, 2024
Approved by the Faculty Senate on October 3, 2024
Submitted to President Alexander Cartwright for action on October 4, 2024

Resolution 2024-2025-3
Faculty Bylaw Amendment:
Including Office of Research Faculty into the Faculty Senate

Whereas, UCF general faculty that previously resided in the College of Graduate Studies were a part of the Faculty Senate, including having two senators apportioned to the College of Graduate Studies as well as having faculty as members of multiple Faculty Senate committees as representatives of the College of Graduate Studies, and
Whereas, there was a recent relocation of UCF faculty from the College of Graduate Studies into either the College of Engineering and Computer Sciences or the Office of Research, and
Whereas, those faculty integrated into the College of Engineering and Computer Science will continue to be part of the Faculty Senate including being eligible to serve as senators representing the College of Engineering and Computer Science and to also serve on Faculty Senate committees as members from the College of Engineering and Computer Science, and
Whereas, the faculty relocated to the Office of Research have previously demonstrated exemplary service to the Faculty Senate as shown by their membership as senators within the Faculty Senate and their service on critical Faculty Senate committees, including multiple years where those relocated Office of Research faculty served as the chairs and vice chairs of Faculty Senate committees; and
Whereas, the UCF faculty located in the Office of Research participate in teaching, research, and service; and
Whereas, faculty members associated with Institutes and Centers under the Office of Research contribute external grant funding in support of the research mission of UCF as well as multiple research-focused preeminence metrics, and these faculty undergo evaluations conducted by their directors, who report to the Vice President of Research, who subsequently reports to the provost; and
Whereas, the UCF Faculty Constitution Article II. A. states that “In establishing representation, the Faculty Senate may determine that a unit be represented that is not a recognized college”; and
Whereas, the Faculty Senate would benefit from the addition of the general faculty within the Office of Research as senators and as members of the roughly thirty Faculty Senate committees; therefore
Be It Resolved that the Faculty Bylaws Section I.A be amended to add the Office of Research as an academic unit for the purposes of representation within the senate.

Approved by the Faculty Senate Steering Committee on October 24, 2024
Approved by the Faculty Senate on December 5, 2024
Submitted to Provost Michael D. Johnson for information only on January 6, 2025

Resolution 2024-2025-4
Periodic Faculty Salary Analyses
across the University of Central Florida

Whereas, salary (or wage) erosion may occur when inflation lowers real wages as measured by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Employment Cost Index (ECI) for Education and the Consumer Price Index for Urban areas (CPI-U); and
Whereas, salary compression may occur when salary differential between junior and senior faculty is smaller than it should be based on external market forces; and
Whereas, salary inversion occurs when salary compression, left unexamined or unadjusted over time, results in junior faculty salaries being greater than senior faculty salaries; and
Whereas, salary inequities associated with gender/race/ethnicity may occur independent of other variables; and
Whereas, salary (or wage) erosion, salary compression, salary inversion, and salary inequities threaten the integrity of faculty ranks, morale, and retention at the University of Central Florida relative to College and University Professional Association (CUPA) peers; and
Whereas, while Faculty Senate Resolution 2019-2020-17 established regular periodic studies (years ending in 0 or 5), the resulting reports used datasets and indexes from different years and sources as outlined below:
The “Salary Equity Study” described “Salary and job data were based on subsets, described below, from a total (UCF) dataset containing faculty data from 1993 – 2020. Any salary increases (retroactive or otherwise) and any tenure status or job status changes applied after this date are not included in this sample. Salary, demographics, and other information on faculty members were gathered from PeopleSoft. In order to ensure data integrity, some annual records kept for longstanding employees prior to 2002 may not be included in the sample.”
The “Salary Compression and Inversion Study” examined “whether compression and inversion was due to market forces at the same ranks, a comparison of these ratios with those from 69 institutional peers who shared the same characteristics1 as UCF (Public, Very High Research) was performed using faculty salary data from the College and University Professional Association2 (CUPA-HR) for the 2019 academic year”
The “Additional Index Rate Analyses” for wage erosion utilized the “Employment Cost Index for Education (2014-2019),” “Consumer Price Index for Urban Areas (CPI-U) (2014-2019),”and “CUPA Peers Increases (2014-2019),”
Whereas, the administration may need additional time to convert PeopleSoft data to a WorkDay format; an extended period of time in order to collect data from different sources that are

1 Based on the Carnegie Classifications framework set by Indiana University’s Center for Postsecondary in Research, which identifies groups of comparable institutions.
2 CUPA peer institutions were comprised of public, very high research institutions, and include salaries of faculty who are classified in non-administrative or coordinator roles.

available at different times in the year and in different years; and the flexibility to report pieces of analysis separately as opportunity avails itself; therefore,
Be it resolved that the University of Central Florida administration update the faculty salary study process that was previously used so that future studies address faculty retention, and
Be it further resolved that the guidance for future faculty salary studies be:

the University of Central Florida administration in consultation with the Faculty Senate shall, on a regular basis, collect and analyze both tenure-track and non-tenure-earning faculty salary and retention data across and within units of the UCF system, and UCF in comparison to competing peer universities by rank and appropriate groupings of 2-digit Classification of Instructional Programs (CIP) level codes for 1) salary (or wage) erosion; 2) salary compression, 3) salary inversion, 4) salary inequities based on gender/race/ethnicity; and 5) faculty retention. A five-year time interval is suggested for regular periodic reports (years ending in 0 or 5) with data five years since the year of the same data in the prior report. Each report will be made accessible to all faculty on the Institutional Knowledge Analytics website shortly after each analysis is completed, ideally within 1-2 months from completion of the report.

Approved by the Faculty Senate Steering Committee on November 21, 2024
Approved by the Faculty Senate on December 5, 2024
Submitted to Provost Michael D. Johnson for action on November 18, 2024
Denied by Provost Michael D. Johnson on January 16, 2025 with the following comments:

“The salary analysis is helpful and we will continue to provide it at appropriate intervals. I am rejecting this for two reasons. (1) Most Big 12 peers were included in the peer set used last time this study was done. In my view, a separate Big 12 comparison would be unhelpful. (2) Wage erosion is not unique to UCF or ever to higher education, and should not be included in a comparison with other employers in our economic sector.“

Resolution 2024-2025-5
Bylaw Amendment
Adjusting Constituency of UCF Research Council Membership

Whereas, the University of Central Florida Faculty Bylaws, in Section VI.F.2, define the membership of the Faculty Senate Research Council as follows:

Membership. The committee shall consist of twenty-eight faculty members with at least one representative from each of the academic units selected by the Committee on Committees and three additional faculty members from the institutes and/or centers will be designated by the vice president for Research. Academic unit faculty membership shall proportionally represent the number of faculty of the colleges. Only faculty members holding the rank of associate professor or professor or professional librarians of comparable rank shall be eligible for membership; and

Whereas, apportionment of faculty in the Faculty Senate and thus in the Research Council has changed with the faculty housed in the Office of Research now considered part of an academic unit for the purposes of senate representation. Faculty in the Office of Research will now automatically be given representation on both the Faculty Senate and the Research Council, eliminating the need for the vice president for Research to appoint members to the Research Council; and

Whereas, all UCF general faculty (as defined by the University of Central Florida Faculty Bylaws, in Section I.A) that are research active should have the opportunity to serve on Research Council rather than just Associate Professors, Professors, and Librarians of comparable rank; therefore

Be it Resolved, that the UCF Faculty Bylaws be amended in Section VI-F2 to state:

2. Membership. The committee shall consist of twenty-eight faculty members with at least one representative from each of the academic units selected by the Committee on Committees. Academic unit faculty membership shall proportionally represent the number of faculty of the colleges. All research-active general faculty members shall be eligible for membership.

Approved by the Faculty Senate Steering Committee on January 30, 2025
Approved by the Faculty Senate on March 13, 2025
Submitted to Provost Michael D. Johnson for information only on April 25, 2025

Resolution 2024-2025-6
Faculty Senate Bylaw Change
Textbook Committee

Whereas, in 2020, the Bookstore Advisory Committee was renamed the Textbook Committee to broaden its focus; and

Whereas, the Textbook Committee requires broader membership to include expertise and representation for course materials beyond just textbooks; and

Whereas, Florida Statutes and university initiatives place a greater emphasis on course material affordability, accessibility, and open educational resources (OER) and practices
(OEP); and

Whereas, the inclusion of both undergraduate and graduate student representatives is critical, as course materials impact students across all academic levels; and

Whereas, the recent institutional reorganization changes the committee’s executive sponsor to be the Provost and Executive Vice President for Academic Affairs or designee; therefore

Be it Resolved, that the bylaws for the Textbook Committee be modified to include changing the name of the committee to the “Course Materials Committee” and to update that the committee reports to the Provost and Executive Vice President for Academic Affairs or designee; and

Be it Further Resolved, to amend the Membership section of the Faculty Bylaws of the
Textbook Committee to state
“The committee shall consist of one faculty member from each academic unit (selected by the Committee on Committees), one undergraduate student (nominated by the president of the Student Government Association), one graduate student (appointed by the dean of the College of Graduate Studies based on the
recommendation of the president of the Graduate Student Association), one representative from the Faculty Center for Teaching and Learning, the chair of the Affordable Instructional Materials Initiative (or designee), the chair of the Open Education Coordinating Committee (or designee), the administrative project manager for Textbook Affordability & Compliance, and the bookstore manager. The Provost and Executive Vice President for Academic Affairs (or designee) is an ex officio member and administrator for the committee and shall identify additional ex officio members to provide useful expertise related to course materials, affordability, accessibility, and open education. The chair and vice chair shall be elected annually from its faculty membership. Terms of service shall be two years, staggered, with the exception of the student members, who shall serve for one year.”

Approved by the Faculty Senate Steering Committee on January 30, 2025
Approved by the Faculty Senate on March 13, 2025
Submitted to Provost Michael D. Johnson for information only on April 25, 2025

Resolution 2024-2025-7: Bylaw Amendment
Establishing the Committee on Committees as an
autonomous Faculty Senate operational committee

Whereas, the Committee on Committees is currently a subcommittee of the Steering Committee, requiring its members to also serve on the Steering Committee; and

Whereas, the duties and responsibilities of the Steering Committee and the Committee on
Committees are unrelated, and the skills, experience, and characteristics that make senators effective in one committee may not align with those needed in the other; and

Whereas, separating the Steering Committee and the Committee on Committees would enable a broader range of senators to engage with the Faculty Senate’s inner operations and leadership, thereby doubling opportunities for senators from each academic unit to gain valuable experience; therefore

Be It Resolved, that the Committee on Committees shall become an autonomous operational committee of the Faculty Senate, with its members selected from among the senators of each academic unit; and

Be It Further Resolved, that the Faculty Senate Bylaws in Section IV.C. First Meeting be amended from the current:

“The Establishment of the Committee on Committees shall occur as the senators from each academic unit nominate and approve one of their Steering Committee representatives to serve on the Committee on Committees.”

to now read:

“The Establishment of the Committee on Committees shall occur by an election of each academic units’ senators. Each academic unit shall have one member of the Committee on Committees.”

Be It Further Resolved, that the Faculty Senate Bylaws be amended to remove any reference to the Committee on Committees as a subcommittee of the Steering Committee and to establish the Committee on Committees as an independent operational committee with the following description:

Committee on Committees.

1. Duties and Responsibilities
a. To solicit committee preferences from senators for membership on the operational, curricular and joint committees and councils of the Senate, and to review and recommend committee membership.
b. To determine the interest of their academic unit faculty (by survey or other appropriate means) in serving on the various operational, curricular and joint committees and to obtain names from department chairs, deans, and others of faculty members whom they believe have the requisite interest and experience to serve on specific committees.
c. To provide the Office of the Faculty Senate with a list of nominees for all Senate operational, curricular and joint committees and councils. The Committee on Committees shall take into consideration minority and female representation, and to the extent possible, take into consideration approximate proportionate representation of the academic units to serve on operational, curricular, and joint committees.
d. To provide the Chair of the Committee on Committees and the Office of the Faculty Senate with faculty nominees for additional service opportunities that are requested of the Faculty Senate from across the university.

2. Membership:
Members of the Committee on Committees are elected at the first Senate meeting of the year
to a one-year term. The senators from each academic unit shall elect one representative to
the Committee on Committees from amongst the unit’s Senators. A senator may serve as
their unit’s representative on both the Steering Committee and the Committee on
Committees. Should a vacancy occur on the Committee on Committees, the senators from
the academic unit in which the vacancy occurs shall designate a replacement. This
committee will be chaired by the Senate vice chair.

Approved by the Faculty Senate Steering Committee on January 30, 2025
Approved by the Faculty Senate on March 13, 2025
Submitted to Provost Michael D. Johnson for information only on April 25, 2025

Resolution 2024-2025-8
Bylaw Amendment Resolution
Faculty and Staff Benefits Committee

Whereas, the current Faculty and Staff Benefits Committee duties and responsibilities include to study fringe benefits and other benefits and services provided to all faculty and staff of the university in relation to those offered in other institutions and to examine, analyze, and make recommendations on insurance and other benefit programs offered for consideration and implementation by the university; and

Whereas, the Faculty and Staff Benefits Committee recent activities have included an enhanced focus on faculty and staff wellbeing, as well as exploring improved strategies for communicating benefit-related updates to the university community; and

Whereas, the current Faculty and Staff Benefits Committee membership does not reflect the UCF Staff Advisory Council updated structure which now includes USPS and A&P employees who are both considered staff classification; and

Whereas, the current Faculty and Staff Benefits Committee Bylaws require the committee Chair be appointed by the vice president for Human Resources instead of electing the Chair from the committee faculty membership; therefore

Be it Resolved, the Faculty Bylaws shall be amended and replaced in Sections I and II with the text detailed below:

Section I. Duties and Responsibilities
a) Regularly review, compare, and assess university benefits and wellness-related programs and services to ensure they align with the evolving needs and interests of faculty and staff of the university.
b) Collaborate with university stakeholders to facilitate the development and implementation of initiatives that improve faculty and staff benefits and well-being.
c) Develop and execute strategies to communicate benefit-related updates, initiatives, and resources effectively across the university community.
d) To report the results of the committee’s findings and recommendations on opportunities for improvement and expansion of benefits and wellness-related programs to the Faculty Senate
and/or president.
Section II. Membership

The committee shall consist of at least one faculty member from each academic unit, selected by the Committee on Committees, six staff members selected by the UCF Staff Advisory Council, and two members from the Retiree Association (one retired faculty and one retired staff) nominated by the president of the UCF Retirement Association. A benefits representative from the Office of Human Resources and the associate vice president for Human Resources (or designee) shall serve as ex officio members. The committee chair and vice chair shall be elected annually by its membership at the first meeting of the committee after the new Faculty Senate is elected, normally in the early fall term. The committee chair shall be elected annually from the faculty members of the committee.

Approved by the Faculty Senate Steering Committee on January 30, 2025
Approved by the Faculty Senate on March 13, 2025
Submitted to Provost Michael D. Johnson for information only on April 25, 2025

Resolution 2024-2025-9
Graduate Research Assistant/Associate (GRA) Stipend Resolution for Grant
Funded Appointments

Whereas, the current Florida minimum wage is $13.00 per hour and will increase by $1.00 until the
minimum wage reaches $15.00 per hour on September 30, 2026; and

Whereas, as of February 2024, the living wage in Orlando, Florida for a single adult with no children was $23.93 per hour; and

Whereas, UCF’s current minimum stipend for a graduate research assistant/associate (GRA} on a .50 full- time equivalent (FTE} academic year appointment is currently $6,000 per semester for doctoral students (approximately $16.00 per hour} and $5,000 per semester for master’s students (approximately $13.00 per hour}; and

Whereas, in comparison to other State University System of Florida institutions, UCF has a higher cost of living and a lower minimum stipend for graduate assistantship students. The living wage for one adult with no children is $20.63 per hour in Tallahassee, FL (FSU}, $20.04 per hour in Gainesville, FL and $22.70 in Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL (USF} as of December 2024; and

Whereas, Florida State University pays a minimum stipend of $18,700 for graduate assistants on a .50 FTE academic year appointment, the University of Florida pays a minimum salary of $19,200 for a .50 FTE academic year appointment, and the University of South Florida pays a minimum of $21,624 for a doctoral student on a .50 FTE academic year appointment and a minimum of $15,304 for a master’s student on a .50FTE academic year appointment; and

Whereas, to keep research at the highest possible level at UCF and to provide a living wage to attract outstanding applicants, the assistantship stipends for Graduate Research Assistants (GRAs} must increase to a more competitive level; therefore,

Be it Resolved, effective Fall 2025, the minimum budgeted graduate research assistant/associate (GRA}
salary on sponsored projects shall be $19,200 for 0.50 FTE academic-year appointments or $25,600 for
0.50 FTE 12-month appointments, with rates for other periods of employment or FTE prorated from the
12-month rate; and

Be it Further Resolved, tuition remission shall be included for all GRAs in the proposal budget; and

Be it Further Resolved, exceptions to the increased GRA minimum stipend and tuition remission being written into proposals for sponsored projects may be granted by UCF’s Office of Research if the stipend/tuition remission is not an eligible expense for the funding opportunity, if there is a limit on the student stipend/tuition remission amount by the sponsor, or if the total funding amount is not sufficient;
and

Be it Further Resolved, GRAs funded on sponsored projects shall be paid salaries no less than those budgeted unless approved by the academic unit and the Office of Research on a case-by-case basis; and

Be it Further Resolved, these salary minima shall be raised by the Office of Research annually by July 21 for each Fall semester by a percentage equal to the larger of the most recent mean in-unit faculty raise or the annual change in the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Price Index – Urban (CPIU} for the nearest urban region to UCF (currently Tampa, St. Petersburg, Clearwater} for the month of
June; and

Be it Further Resolved, proposal budgets shall inflate GRA salaries at no less than the rate recommended
by the university for faculty salaries.

Approved by the Faculty Senate Steering Committee on January 30, 2025
Approved by the Faculty Senate on February 13, 2025
Submitted to Provost Michael D. Johnson for information only on April 29, 2025

Resolution 2024-2025-10
Centralization of Emergency Planning

Whereas, the UCF faculty have expressed concerns about the generic nature of emergency planning materials present in every classroom; and
Whereas, emergency planning materials customized for every classroom (including such information as a custom evacuation route for that exact classroom, the location of the nearest AED, etc.) do not presently exist, nor does it appear to be the purview of any identified office at UCF to create them; and
Whereas, the Faculty Center for Teaching and Learning Advisory Committee was assigned Faculty Senate topic 2024-2025-8 which stated: In the event of an emergency, classroom instructors and students need to have location-specific safety information available. How can we incorporate that information into all course syllabi for in person classes? Examples of safety information that could be included are an active shooter plan for the individual classroom and the location of the nearest AED; and
Whereas, the Faculty Center for Teaching and Learning Advisory Committee discovered a classroom tracking software called Talum, which is operated by the Office of Instructional Resources, who handles classroom technology but not emergency planning, rendering Talum an incorrect choice for housing faculty-facing safety information; therefore
Be It Resolved, that the Faculty Senate hereby calls upon the University to assign a specific central office associated with public safety to provide custom safety information for each classroom.

Approved by the Faculty Senate Steering Committee on February 27, 2025
Approved by the Faculty Senate on March 13, 2025
Submitted to Provost Michael D. Johnson for action on April 11, 2025
Denied by Provost Michael D. Johnson on June 3, 2025 with the following comments:

“I support improving classroom safety, campus safety more generally, and providing information needed in an emergency. Based on conversations with our public safety personnel, I believe that this specific approach may not be the best. I would like to ask that the Senate’s Campus Safety and Security Committee meet with UCF’s public safety officials, including the Director of Emergency Management and the Associate Vice President for Public Safety, to determine the best approach.”

Resolution 2024-2025-11
Evaluating Faculty Instruction

Whereas, despite UCF Regulation 3.010 indicating that Student Perceptions of Instruction (SPIs) should not be the only source of evaluating teaching, SPIs remain one of the primary and most convenient methods of evaluating faculty instruction for purposes of annual evaluation, tenure and promotion, and teaching awards at UCF; and
Whereas, empirical research has shown that SPIs are biased against women, with women being judged more harshly than their male counterparts (Boring, 2017; Centra & Gaubatz, 2000; Kogan, Schoenfeld-Tacher, & Hellyer, 2010; Laube, Massoni et al., 2007; Mitchell & Martin, 2018). Empirical research has equally shown that SPIs are biased against ethnic and minority groups, resulting in African American professors being rated, on average, as 21% more mean spirited and 24% harder as compared to Caucasian faculty ratings (Harlow, 2003); and
Whereas, a recommendation of the 2020 report of the UCF SPI Task Force states: “As one of the largest and most innovative universities in the U.S., a designated Hispanic-Serving and Minority Serving institution that is committed to access, inclusion, and diversity, UCF should discontinue the use of SPIs, which perpetuate race- and gender-based biases, in the process of Faculty Performance evaluations” (p.6). The rationale for this recommendation was based in part on an argument that appeared in an issue of Inside Higher Ed, which stated: “Relying on biased instruments to evaluate faculty members is institutional discrimination.” (Owen, 2019); and
Whereas, empirical research, including a recent meta-analysis (Uttl, White & Gonzalez, 2017), has shown that SPIs are a poor measure of teaching effectiveness, primarily measuring perceptions of students who are not experts in pedagogy, and are influenced by non-teaching based factors like time of day, subject, and class size (Boring, Ottoboni, 2016; Stark & Freishtat, 2014; Flaherty, 2020; Lederman, 2020; Stroebe, 2020); and
Whereas, empirical research has shown that students rate teaching methods that have been proven effective [such as active learning] as less effective than passive learning strategies (Deslauriers, McCarty et al., 2019); and
Whereas, UCF research has shown that less than 60% of students complete SPIs, despite continuous reminders and subsequent barriers to enrollment and other university activities for those failing to complete them (Dziuban, Moskal, Self, & Hubertz, 2022); and
Whereas, UCF research has shown that 66.1% of students from 2017 to 2021 straight lined their SPI responses (Dziuban, Moskal, Self, & Hubertz, 2022); and
Whereas, empirical research has shown that “up to a third of students use instructor ratings to get revenge on instructors they do not like, even to the extent of submitting false information” (Clayson & Haley, 2011; as cited in UCF SPI Task Force Report, 2020:7).
Whereas, empirical research has shown that student grade satisfaction, receiving expected grades, perceived and actual grading leniency, and/or “consumer satisfaction” are important drivers of [positive] faculty evaluations (Johnson, 2002; Eiszler, 2002; Felton et al., 2008; Braga, et al., 2014; Stroebe, 2020); and
Whereas, empirical research has shown that SPIs, especially when used in high-stake personnel decisions, encourage grade inflation (Johnson, 2006; Hu, 2005), ultimately affecting the credibility of institutions and creating dubious impressions of student learning and teaching effectiveness; and
Whereas, at UCF, from 2018 to 2023, in lower-level undergraduate courses, 46.8 percent [range of 42.3 – 49] of grades were A’s (A /A-) and 26.2 percent [range of 25.3 – 28.2] were B’s (B+/B/B-). From 2018 to 2023, in upper-level undergraduate courses, 47.2 percent [range of 44 – 48.9] of grades were A’s and 26.1 percent [range of 25.7 – 27.9] were B’s (Source:IKM); and
Whereas, at UCF, from 2018 to 2023, the average percentage of A’s received in upper-level undergraduate courses was at or exceeded 55 percent [range of 55 – 65] in 6 of 10 colleges. In the remaining 4 colleges, which are responsible for 62% of all grades at UCF, the most commonly reported percentage of A’s for upper-level undergraduate courses was 45 percent [range of 31 – 46] and 26 and 36 percent for B’s (Data Source: IKM; College of Medicine and Graduate Studies, and Honor’s College, where 80 percent of grades are “S,” are not included in these figures).
Whereas, research by scholars from Brigham Young, Purdue, and Stanford University (Denning, Eide, Mumford, Patterson & Warnick, 2023) found that the “no direct cost to the university” practice of grade inflation [not changing enrollment patterns, better performance on standardized tests, student-to-faculty ratios or instructional expenditures] is most responsible for increased graduation rates (“The Grade Inflation Conversation We’re Not Having,” April 13, 2023 issue of Chronicle of Higher Education); and
Whereas, the Faculty Senate ad hoc committee on Teaching Evaluations was charged to: “Examine teaching evaluation practices from other higher ed institutions that do not rely on student perceptions of instruction including Colorado-Boulder, Southern California, Oregon, Kansas along with current research and present a resolution to the faculty senate regarding mechanisms to measure effective teaching that do not rely on documented biased measures of student perception.” These four universities have made substantial changes to the evaluation of faculty teaching, which includes elimination of SPIs as a sole source of evaluating teaching in favor of more balanced frameworks (UCF SPI Task Force, 2020:8-9)
Be it Resolved, that UCF direct AESP, promotion, tenure, and award committees to implement teaching evaluation standards that recognize the pervasive and persistent problems with SPIs at UCF and across the country, by requiring that they do the following:

Adopt teaching evaluation standards that include a minimum of 3 other substantive measures of
teaching quality and commitment as determined by your department or listed in the CBA (for a
suggested but not exhaustive list see below or the Collective Bargaining Agreement), that
individually have at least the same weight as SPIs.

Adopt teaching evaluation standards that give the instructor the option to exclude SPIs for a given
class if the number of students responding to the survey is less
than 25 percent of enrollment.

Examples of alternative measures include, but are not limited to:
I. Materials created by the faculty member (primary documents)
a. Syllabi
b. Lesson plans
c. Exams
d. Assignment prompts
e. Presentation materials
f. Use of evidence-based practices in classroom
g. Creation of new courses for department curriculum
h. Students supervised on independent studies/theses/dissertations

II. Materials created by the faculty member (reflective documents)
a. Statement of teaching philosophy
b. Narrative of teaching practices (specific examples of how theory is put into practice)
c. Annual reflection statement (teaching innovations and continuous improvement in the classroom
this year)
d. Statement of teaching responsibilities
e. Statement of professional development attended

III. Materials created by others
a. Peer observation feedback (by department peer or Chair)
b. Peer observation feedback (by UCF faculty member outside department)
c. Peer observation feedback (by FCTL)
d. Peer observation feedback (same discipline, different instruction, via recording)
e. Annual letter of participation in various events from FCTL
f. Teaching awards received
g. FCTL video capture of instructor teaching a class
h. Online and blended course designations from CDL
i. Evidence of participation in High Impact Practice designation

IV. Evidence of student learning
a. Before-and-after results (test or writing samples, especially comparing early semester to end)
b. Passing rates of students (especially compared to department average)
c. Graded student essays, with explanation on grading results
d. Student publications on course-related work
e. Statements/videos from previous students in the course
f. Publications and presentations with students

References
Boring, A. (2017). Gender biases in student evaluations of teaching. Journal of Public Economics, 145, 27-41.

Boring, A., & Ottoboni, K. (2016). Student evaluations of teaching (mostly) do not measure teaching effectiveness. ScienceOpen research.

Braga, M., Paccagnella, M., & Pellizzari, M. (2014). Evaluating students’ evaluations of professors. Economics of Education review, 41, 71-88.

Centra, J. A., & Gaubatz, N. B. (2000). Is There Gender Bias in Student Evaluations of Teaching? The Journal of Higher Education, 71(1), 17. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2649280?origin=crossref

Clayson, D. E., & Haley, D. A. (2011). Are students telling us the truth? A critical look at the student evaluation of teaching. Marketing Education Review, 21(2), 101-112.

Denning, J. T., Eide, E. R., Mumford, K. J., Patterson, R. W., & Warnick, M. (2023, Apr 13). The grade inflation conversation we’re not having. The Chronicle of Higher Education. https://www. chronicle. com/article/the-grade-inflation-conversation-were-not-having.

Deslauriers, L., McCarty, L. S., Miller, K., Callaghan, K., & Kestin, G. (2019). Measuring actual learning versus feeling of learning in response to being actively engaged in the classroom. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116, 19251-19257.

Dziuban, C., Moskal, P., Self, J., & Hubertz, M. (2022, May 11). Updates on the Student Perception of Instruction Process at UCF: Can We Improve It? FCTL Summer Conference. FCTL, Summer 2022.

Eiszler, C. F. (2002). College students’ evaluations of teaching and grade inflation. Research in Higher Education, 43, 483-501.

Felton, J., Koper, P. T., Mitchell, J., & Stinson, M. (2008). Attractiveness, easiness and other issues: Student evaluations of professors on ratemyprofessors. com. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 33(1), 45-61.

Flaherty, C. (2020, Feb 27). Study: Student evaluations of teaching are deeply flawed. Inside Higher Ed. https://www.insidehighered.com

Harlow, R. (2003). “Race Doesn’t Matter, but…”: The Effect of Race on Professors’ Experiences and Emotion Management in the Undergraduate College Classroom. Social Psychology Quarterly, 66(4), 348. http://doi.org/10.2307/1519834

Hu, S. (2005). Beyond grade inflation: Grading problems in higher education. Wiley Periodicals.
Johnson, V.E. (2006). [Review of the book Beyond Grade Inflation: Grading Problems in Higher Education]. The Review of Higher Education 30(1), 76-77. https://dx.doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2006.0051.

Kogan, L. R., Schoenfeld-Tacher, R., & Hellyer, P. W. (2010). Student evaluations of teaching: perceptions of faculty based on gender, position, and rank. Teaching in Higher Education, 15(6), 623–636. http://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2010.491911

Laube, H., Massoni, K., Sprague, J., & Ferber, A. (2007). The impact of gender on the evaluation of teaching: What we know and what we can do. National Women’s Studies Association Journal, 19(3), 87-104.

Lederman, D. (2020, Apr 8). Evaluating teaching during the pandemic. Inside Higher Ed. Inside Higher Ed. https://www.insidehighered.com

Mitchell, K. M., & Martin, J. (2018). Gender bias in student evaluations. PS: Political Science & Politics, 51(3), 648-652.

Owen, A. (2019, Jun 23). The next lawsuits to hit higher education. Inside Higher Ed. https://www.insidehighered.com

Stark, P. & Freishtat, R. (2014). An evaluation of course evaluations. ScienceOpen Research (doi: 10.14293/S2199-1006.1.SOR-EDU.AOFRQA.v1)

Stroebe, W. (2020). Student evaluations of teaching encourages poor teaching and contributes to grade inflation: A theoretical and empirical analysis. Basic and applied social psychology, 42(4), 276-294.

Approved by the Faculty Senate Steering Committee on February 27, 2025
Approved by the Faculty Senate on March 13, 2025
Submitted to Provost Michael D. Johnson for action on April 11, 2025
Approved by Provost Michael D. Johnson on April 29, 2025 with the following comments:

“I accept this resolution in part. Perhaps because SPIs are quantitative, some units have treated them as more objective and determinative than they can ever be; e.g., requiring an average of 4.0 to get a certain rating. As required by university regulation and the CBA, SPIs should never be the sole means of evaluating instruction. Neither, in my view, should they usually be the primary means of evaluating instruction; however, I believe there are exceptional cases, e.g., when SPIs are dramatically high or low,
coupled with comments that help the evaluator assess instructional quality. I entirely support the principle of this resolution: teaching evaluation standards must include multiple measures of teaching quality and not only rely on SPIs. (This is one of the main efforts in our evaluation of proposed AESPs during this academic year.) However, I do not accept the requirement that SPIs be weighted no more than 25%, because acceptable criteria do not need to use weighting schemes. And I do not accept giving the option to exclude SPIs when the response rate is low; even a low number of responses might provide important information if they are very high or very low and backed by supporting comments.”

Resolution 2024-2025-12
Approval of a Revised Student Perception of Instruction Form

Whereas, the UCF faculty have expressed ongoing concerns about the quality and usage of the current Student Perception of Instruction form; and
Whereas, several Faculty Senate committees, administrators, the Faculty Center for Teaching and Learning, and a designated Faculty Senate ad hoc committee have developed constructive recommendations to revise the Student Perception of Instruction form; and
Whereas, these recommendations stressed moving away from questions that asked students to rate topics they had no expertise in, questions that were out of the instructor’s control, and questions that inappropriately conflated the course/instruction with the instructor; and
Whereas, the Faculty Senate ad hoc committee on Teaching Evaluations was charged to: “present a resolution with a revised set of objective SPI questions for use in 5-year reviews,” which stemmed from Faculty Senate resolution 2023-2024-8 Evaluating Faculty Instruction and Faculty Senate resolution 2023-2024-6 Approval of a Revised Student Perception of Instruction Form; and
Whereas, the ad hoc Faculty Senate committee on Teaching Evaluations has considered the available reports, debated various options, and approved a Revised Student Perception of Instruction form; therefore
Be It Resolved, that the Faculty Senate hereby accepts and approves the proposed revisions to the Student Perception of Instruction form and transmits that Revised Student Perception of Instruction form to the Provost for incorporation into future evaluations; and
Be It Further Resolved, that the presentation of SPI results will be revised to include departmental and college average comparisons that match the size (small, medium, or large) of the course in question; and
Be It Further Resolved, that the presentation of SPI results will not include university average comparisons.

Replacement Likert Scale Questions

1. The course expectations were clear.

2. The course was well organized.

3. Graded work was aligned with course content.

4. The instructor made clear efforts to engage students.

5. The instructor was helpful in responding to questions.

6. I received sufficient feedback on my performance in the class.

7. The instructor was available for assistance.

8. The instructor enhanced my understanding of the material.

Scale: Strongly Agree, Agree, Neutral, Disagree, Strongly Disagree

Nonstudent facing averages.

Overall Effectiveness of the course and content (Automated Average Score) 1-3

Overall Effectiveness of the instructor and instruction (Automated Average Score) 4-8

Replacement Open Ended Questions

Describe to the instructor the most effective elements of the course and its instruction.

Explain to the instructor your suggestions for improving the course and its instruction.

Approved by the Faculty Senate Steering Committee on February 27, 2025
Approved by the Faculty Senate on March 13, 2025
Submitted to Provost Michael D. Johnson for action on April 11, 2025
Approved by Provost Michael D. Johnson on April 29, 2025