Skip to main content

Resolutions 2012-2013


2012-2013 Resolutions

Resolution 2012-2013-1 Approval of the Proposed Student Perception of Instruction Form

Whereas, the Faculty Senate has previously endorsed the use of multiple measures in addition to the Student Perception of Instruction in the evaluation of faculty; and

Whereas, the revisions to the Student Perception of Instruction form have been pilot tested and evaluated; and

Whereas, the analysis of results from the tested Student Perception of Instruction form identified several items that contributed little additional information due to low correlation; and

Whereas, the purpose of the Student Perception of Instruction is primarily to provide a mechanism to assist faculty in improving their teaching; and

Whereas, the Faculty Senate has considered these factors and a final revision has been reviewed,

Be it resolved, that the Faculty Senate hereby approves the final revisions to the Student Perception of Instruction form.

Student Perception of Instruction

Instructions: Please answer each question based on your current class experience. You can provide additional information where indicated.

All responses are anonymous. Responses to these questions are important to help improve the course and how it is taught. Results may be used in personnel decisions. The results will be shared with the instructor after the semester is over.

Please rate the instructor’s effectiveness in the following areas:

  1. Organizing the course:

    2. a) Excellent &nbsp &nbsp b) Very Good &nbsp &nbsp c) Good &nbsp &nbsp d) Fair &nbsp &nbsp e) Poor

  2. Explaining course requirements, grading criteria, and expectations:

    3. a) Excellent &nbsp &nbsp b) Very Good &nbsp &nbsp c) Good &nbsp &nbsp d) Fair &nbsp &nbsp e) Poor

  3. Communicating ideas and/or information:

    4. a) Excellent &nbsp &nbsp b) Very Good &nbsp &nbsp c) Good &nbsp &nbsp d) Fair &nbsp &nbsp e) Poor

  4. Showing respect and concern for students:

    5. a) Excellent &nbsp &nbsp b) Very Good &nbsp &nbsp c) Good &nbsp &nbsp d) Fair &nbsp &nbsp e) Poor

  5. Stimulating interest in the course:

    6. a) Excellent &nbsp &nbsp b) Very Good &nbsp &nbsp c) Good &nbsp &nbsp d) Fair &nbsp &nbsp e) Poor

  6. Creating an environment that helps students learn:

    7. a) Excellent &nbsp &nbsp b) Very Good &nbsp &nbsp c) Good &nbsp &nbsp d) Fair &nbsp &nbsp e) Poor

  7. Giving useful feedback on course performance:

    8. a) Excellent &nbsp &nbsp b) Very Good &nbsp &nbsp c) Good &nbsp &nbsp d) Fair &nbsp &nbsp e) Poor

  8. Helping students achieve course objectives:

    9. a) Excellent &nbsp &nbsp b) Very Good &nbsp &nbsp c) Good &nbsp &nbsp d) Fair &nbsp &nbsp e) Poor

  9. Overall, the effectiveness of the instructor in this course was:

    10. a) Excellent &nbsp &nbsp b) Very Good &nbsp &nbsp c) Good &nbsp &nbsp d) Fair &nbsp &nbsp e) Poor

  10. What did you like best about the course and/or how the instructor taught it?
  11. What suggestions do you have for improving the course and/or how the instructor taught it?

Approved by the Faculty Senate on November 15, 2012.
Transmitted to Provost Tony Waldrop on November 16, 2012.
Approved by Provost Waldrop on December 12,2012.

Resolution 2012-2013-2 Fair and Equitable Treatment and Benefits for University Personnel

Whereas, the UCF Faculty Senate, university administration, and Board of Trustees have previously recognized and endorsed diversity and non-discrimination; and

Whereas, the UCF Faculty Senate has affirmed that fair and equitable treatment of university personnel should exist; and

Whereas, the policy of endorsing the extension of benefits to university registered domestic partners ensures equity and non-discrimination for university personnel,

Be It Resolved that the UCF Faculty Senate recommends the extension of benefits to university registered domestic partners.

Approved by the Faculty Senate on November 15, 2012.
Transmitted to Provost Tony Waldrop on November 16, 2012.
Approved by Provost Tony Waldrop on December 12, 2012.

Resolution 2012-2013-3 Encouraging Funded Interdisciplinary Research

Whereas, the current academic climate across many disciplines, if not all, is to encourage and promote multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary research; and

Whereas, entities, such as National Academies of Science, have recommended that to facilitate interdisciplinary research academic institutions should focus on the development of policies to address cost-sharing and credit splits that are equitable to all parties involved; therefore

Be It Resolved that the Faculty Senate endorses current university efforts to allow equitable cost-sharing and credit splits among all involved parties.

Approved by the Faculty Senate on January 24, 2013.
Transmitted to Provost Tony Waldrop on January 28, 2013.
Approved by Provost Waldrop on February 15, 2013.

Resolution 2012-2013-4 Addition of Honors/Pass/Fail to the MD Program Grading Scale

Whereas, it is common practice in medical schools nationwide to use a Pass/Fail grading scale, particularly in clinical courses where students meet a series of competency milestones; and

Whereas, an honors designation is used to recognize exemplary performance and professionalism; and

Whereas, the UCF College of Medicine has requested that Honors/Pass/Fail be added to the grading scale for the MD program; therefore

Be It Resolved that Honors/Pass/Fail be added to the grading scale for the MD program.

Approved by the Faculty Senate on February 21, 2013.
Transmitted to Provost Tony Waldrop on February 22, 2013.
Approved by Provost Waldrop on March 7, 2013.

Resolution 2012-2013-5 An Advisory Urging Caution in the Implementation of STEM Initiatives
(Not Approved)

Whereas, the idea of universities as unified entities encompassing and valuing all fields of higher learning is necessary to cultivate an intellectually sophisticated and civically engaged citizenry for the sake of the common good of society as a whole; and

Whereas, the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) disciplines have always recognized and promoted incorporating a strong liberal arts foundation to STEM education in enhancing student preparation in terms of practice and accreditation; and

Whereas, the professional preparation of graduates in STEM fields has always been recognized as one important dimension of the purpose and mission of universities historically, but only as one of many similarly important dimensions; and

Whereas, some of the changes of a funding and curricular nature for the sake of increased STEM enrollments are acknowledged to be desirable for those interested in careers in those fields, to satisfy the growing need for graduates in STEM fields in our increasingly technological and scientific state; therefore

Be It Resolved that the Faculty Senate of the University of Central Florida urges the University of Central Florida administration that any plans and actions taken to emphasize placement of students in STEM fields be balanced to maintain the identity and mission of the university as an institution that embraces and fosters learning in all academic fields. And, furthermore, that any implementation of STEM changes be undertaken only with the active involvement of the Faculty Senate, in the spirit of genuine shared governance.

Approved by the Faculty Senate on March 28, 2013.
Transmitted to Provost Tony Waldrop on March 29, 2013.
Returned by Provost Waldrop on November 7, 2013:

“I cannot support this resolution in its current form. However, if the Senate will add one additional word (bolded), as noted below, I will approve.

And, furthermore, that any implementation of STEM curricular changes be undertaken only with the active involvement of the Faculty Senate, in the spirit of genuine shared governance.”

[Note: This resolution was revised and approved in Senate year 2013-2014. The revised version is here.]

Resolution 2012-2013-6 Sustained Performance Evaluations for Tenured Faculty
(Not Approved)

Whereas, the faculty at UCF has demonstrated high academic achievement and research productivity as confirmed by the University earning the Carnegie classification of “Research University with very high research activity” (RU/VH), and

Whereas, UCF tenured faculty needs to maintain a record of continuing scholarship and productivity commensurate with other research universities of the same Carnegie rank, and

Whereas, UCF recognizes that sustained performance evaluation is an important best-practices means of not only identifying areas for development of faculty after having earned tenure, but also recognizing and rewarding productivity of tenured faculty, and

Whereas, UCF recognizes that no procedure for evaluation of faculty should be used to weaken or undermine the principles of academic freedom and tenure but instead should be used to facilitate faculty development, and

Whereas, UCF wishes to address not only areas for improvement but also recognize and reward sustained productivity; therefore

Be It Resolved that the sustained performance evaluation policy is revised so that below satisfactory performance in areas of designated duties is defined as an average rating of below two (2) for Satisfactory in that area of assigned duties during the evaluation period of seven consecutive years. The average shall be determined as stated in the current policy by assigning a value to the annual faculty evaluation of 4 for Outstanding, 3 for Above Satisfactory, 2 for Satisfactory, 1 for Conditional, and 0 for Unsatisfactory.

Be It Also Resolved that tenured faculty who meets or exceeds an average rating of 3 for Above Satisfactory on the overall evaluation, during their seven year evaluation period shall be awarded a salary raise at completion of the review cycle.

Approved by the Faculty Senate on March 28, 2013.
Transmitted to Provost Tony Waldrop on March 29, 2013.
Returned by Provost Waldrop on November 7, 2013:

“I cannot support this resolution for two reasons. First, current financial resources for the university are not adequate for funding these proposed salary increases. In addition, the level of performance is not high enough to justify salary increases.”

Resolution 2012-2013-7 Exclusion of Administrators from TIP, RIA and SoTL Award Committees
(Not Approved)

Whereas, the current policy of allowing deans, subdeans, chairs, and others in twelve-month administrative positions to serve on the committees which make the TIP, RIA, and SoTL awards may lead to conflicts of interest; therefore

Be It Resolved that current deans, subdeans, chairs, and other twelve-month administrators are not eligible to serve on TIP, RIA, and SoTL committees.

Approved by the Faculty Senate on March 28, 2013.
Transmitted to Provost Tony Waldrop on March 29, 2013.
Returned by Provost Waldrop on November 7, 2013:

“I cannot support this resolution. I believe those faculty who are in administrative positions are still faculty and many will return fulltime to the faculty. As far as conflicts of interest, there are ways that these can be managed.”

Resolution 2012-2013-8 Ineligibility of Administrators for TIP, RIA and SoTL Awards
(Not Approved)

Whereas, the current policy of allowing deans, subdeans, chairs, and others in twelve-month administrative positions to compete for TIP, RIA, and SoTL awards may lead to conflicts of interest; and

Whereas, TIP, RIA and SoTL provide significant salary increases; and

Whereas, these employees have access to other salary increases by virtue of their administrative status; therefore

Be It Resolved that current deans, subdeans, chairs, and other twelve-month administrators are not eligible for TIP, RIA, and SoTL awards.

Approved by the Faculty Senate on March 28, 2013.
Transmitted to Provost Tony Waldrop on March 29, 2013.
Returned by Provost Waldrop on November 7, 2013:

“I cannot support this resolution. I believe those faculties who are in administrative positions are still faculty who remain engaged in research and teaching activities. To exclude them from these awards could be seen as a disincentive to serving in administrative roles.”

Resolution 2012-2013-9 Expansion of the Number of TIPs and RIAs
(Not Approved)

Whereas, the number of faculty eligible for TIP and RIA has significantly expanded since the inception of the programs; and

Whereas, the number of new awards made each year has not increased proportionally; therefore

Be It Resolved that the number of new TIPs and RIAs should be increased.

Approved by the Faculty Senate on March 28, 2013.
Transmitted to Provost Tony Waldrop on March 29, 2013.
Returned by Provost Waldrop on November 7, 2013:

“As with Resolution 2012-2013-6, there are not adequate financial resources to support an expansion of these programs.”

Resolution 2012-2013-10 Compliance Check for Awards Programs
(Not Approved)

Whereas, the TIP, RIA, and SoTL programs are designed to identify excellence in teaching, research, and SoTL areas; and

Whereas, the TIP, RIA, and SoTL programs require that faculty submit a substantial folder regarding teaching, research and SoTL areas; and

Whereas, small errors in the submission of the folder (e.g. 501 words vs. 500, not obscuring information about Faculty Annual Review categories other than teaching for TIP) have caused faculty who are otherwise excellent candidates to be excluded from consideration; therefore

Be It Resolved that a compliance check system be created to give the candidate the opportunity to correct such minor errors, so as to avoid rejecting the candidate from eligibility.

Approved by the Faculty Senate on March 28, 2013.
Transmitted to Provost Tony Waldrop on March 29, 2013.
Returned by Provost Waldrop on November 7, 2013:

” I recommend a Senate Committee determine the incidence of such errors and if there is a process that could check for compliance errors that would not create a heavy load of additional work. At that time, I would be willing to consider for approval.”

Resolution 2012-2013-11 Teaching Incentive Program SCH Eligibility
(Not Approved)

Whereas, the Teaching Incentive Program (TIP) is an important recognition of an individual’s substantial commitment to excellence in teaching, in classes of all sizes and taught by all modes; and

Whereas, the TIP program was originally implemented with student credit hour restrictions which have excluded faculty who have assignments with lower than the median student credit hours, yet who have a substantial commitment to excellence in teaching; therefore

Be It Resolved that the TIP eligibility criteria will simply require a “substantial commitment to excellence in teaching,” by regular full time faculty and employees as determined by appropriate units, and will no longer restrict eligibility based on student credit hour production.

Approved by the Faculty Senate on March 28, 2013.
Transmitted to Provost Tony Waldrop on March 29, 2013.
Returned by Provost Waldrop on November 7, 2013:

“The proposed change in TIP eligibility is broad. It is not clear if SCH will play in role under the proposed resolution. I recommend that a committee be formed to define more precisely what is meant by “excellence in teaching” as well as a look at all aspects of TIPS.”

Resolution 2012-2013-12 SoTL Eligibility
(Not Approved)

Whereas, the SoTL program rewards scholarship of teaching and learning; scholarship that can benefit the university community in many ways; and

Whereas, many in-unit full time UCF employees, such as librarians, can make a substantial contribution to the scholarship of teaching and learning; therefore

Be It Resolved that the restriction of SoTL awards to faculty with the title of Instructor, Lecturer, Assistant Professor, Associate Professor or Professor should be removed, so that all full time UCF faculty and employees defined as in-unit by the UCF-UFF Collective Bargaining agreement, and equivalent full time faculty and employees in the College of Medicine, are eligible to apply for this award.

Approved by the Faculty Senate on March 28, 2013.
Transmitted to Provost Tony Waldrop on March 29, 2013.
Returned by Provost Waldrop on November 7, 2013:

“I cannot support this resolution since it would exclude faculty administrators.”

Resolution 2012-2013-13 New Service Recognition Award Program
(Not Approved)

Whereas, UCF values excellence in teaching, research, and service, as indicated by the annual evaluation criteria; and

Whereas, UCF does not have an award which adds a raise to the base salary of the faculty for excellence in Service; therefore

Be It Resolved that a new award, the Service Recognition Award Program, be established with eligibility applying to all full time UCF faculty and employees defined as in-unit by the UCF-UFF Collective Bargaining unit, and equivalent full time faculty and employees in the College of Medicine.

Approved by the Faculty Senate on March 28, 2013.
Transmitted to Provost Tony Waldrop on March 29, 2013.
Returned by Provost Waldrop on November 7, 2013:

“I cannot support this recommendation at this time. There is already a service award that is given each year. However, very few nominations are received.”

Resolution 2012-2013-14 Incentive for Students’ Completion of the Student Perception of Instruction
(Not Approved)

Whereas, the response rate for the Student Perception of Instruction (SPoI) varies greatly; and

Whereas, the response rate of SPoI is critically low in some courses including low enrollment graduate level courses and other limited access courses; and

Whereas, the use of the SPoI is crucial to the overall evaluation of faculty; and

Whereas, the data for SPoI is necessary to assist instructors in improving the quality and delivery of instructions; and

Whereas, an incentive for students can improve SPoI response rates; therefore

Be It Resolved that an incentive be created for students who complete an SPoI.

Approved by the Faculty Senate on March 28, 2013.
Transmitted to Provost Tony Waldrop on March 29, 2013.
Returned by Provost Waldrop on November 7, 2013:

“It is not clear to me what incentives might work to enhance completion of the SPoIs. In addition, we first need to determine if the new form will yield higher response rates. I recommend a Senate committee investigate what incentives have worked for other institutions and if these could be implemented at UCF. At that time, I would be willing to consider for approval.”

Top of Page