Resolutions 2023-2024

Resolution 2023-2024-1
Bylaws Amendment Resolution
Inclusion of Instructional Designers on Faculty Senate Committees and Councils

Whereas, Instructional Designers are included in the definition of faculty for the Faculty Senate in Section I.A.5 of the Faculty Bylaws; and

Whereas, prior to being included within the definition of faculty for Faculty Senate representation, Instructional Designers were explicitly included in the membership of several Faculty Senate committees by title; and

Whereas, the Division of Digital Learning is considered an academic unit for the purposes of Faculty Senate representation in Section I.A of the Faculty Bylaws and thus faculty from this unit will be included in Faculty Senate committee membership whenever committees include faculty from each academic unit; and

Whereas, those committees that explicitly include Instructional Designers by title and that also include a faculty member from each academic unit would now have two Instructional Designers as members in the upcoming year (one by title and one by academic unit); and

Whereas, Instructional Designers would be able to provide significant input on topics coming before the Graduate Curriculum committee, yet are not generally able to obtain graduate faculty status, as required for service on Senate Graduate committees; and

Whereas, the bylaws for the Faculty Senate Personnel Committee state that all committee members from academic units must be at the two higher faculty ranks per position; therefore

Be it Resolved to amend the Faculty Bylaws to remove the explicit inclusion of Instructional Designers by title in those Faculty Senate committees where the Division of Digital Learning would also have a faculty member included by academic unit; and

Be it Further Resolved to amend the Faculty Bylaws of the Graduate Curriculum Committee to include an Instructional Designer as a voting member of the committee; and

Be it Further Resolved, to amend the Faculty Bylaws of the Personnel Committee to include the ranks of associate or senior Instructional Designer in the committee membership description.

• Approved by the Faculty Senate Steering Committee on August 24, 2023
• Approved by the Faculty Senate on October 5, 2023
• Submitted to Provost Michael D. Johnson for information only on October 26, 2023

Resolution 2023-2024-2
Bylaw Amendment Resolution
Faculty Senate Officer Election Procedures

Whereas, Faculty Senate officer elections occur annually by secret ballot elections at the first meeting of the newly seated Faculty Senate at the end of each spring semester; and

Whereas, the current Faculty Bylaws relating to officer elections contain potential calendar discrepancies, unclear and conflicting language, and limitations on putting forth willing candidates, and have been open to varied interpretation each election cycle; and

Whereas, Faculty Senate officer elections are one of the most visible and critical acts the senate performs, and the Faculty Senate would be best served by clear nomination and election procedures that are fair, transparent, and follow agreed upon procedures that are plainly defined in the Faculty Bylaws; therefore

Be it Resolved, the Faculty Bylaws shall be amended and replaced in Sections III.B, IV.C and VI.A.5.b with the text detailed below:

Section III.B Election of Officers
At the first meeting of the new Senate in April, the Senate shall elect from its voting membership by majority vote a chair, vice chair and secretary to perform the duties and functions as described in Section A. Each of the officers has a one-year term, beginning immediately following the annual election.

Prior to the March Senate meeting, the Office of the Faculty Senate shall make public a list of all Faculty Senate members for the coming year and issue a call to the general faculty for nominations for Faculty Senate officers from this list. Prior to the Steering committee meeting that directly precedes the election, the Nominating Committee shall identify willing candidates for each office from among the candidates nominated by the general faculty. In addition, the Nominating Committee may add additional willing nominees for each office not previously put forward by the faculty. The Nominating committee shall present a list of the names of willing candidates as a report to the Steering committee at the meeting that directly precedes the election. There is no vote upon the Nominating committee report.

At least one week prior to the first meeting of the new Faculty Senate, the Office of the Faculty Senate shall distribute the names, biographical sketches, and candidate statements of nominees to all members of the Faculty Senate. Additional nominations for each office shall also be accepted from the floor of the Faculty Senate.

Voting for officers will be conducted by secret ballot. Election of officers will be by majority of those senators present and voting. There shall be no voting by proxy. Should the chair of the Faculty Senate resign that office, the vice 47 chair shall assume the office of chair, and the Steering Committee shall appoint a vice chair for the remainder of the term. Should the vice chair or secretary resign, the Steering Committee shall appoint replacements to those positions.

Section IV.C. First Meeting
The newly elected Faculty Senate will hold its first meeting during or before the last week of the spring semester, typically in April.

At the first meeting of the new Senate there shall be an abbreviated agenda as follows:
Call to Order
Roll Call
Minutes
Recognition of Guests
Announcements
Report of the President
Report of the Provost
Presentation of the List of Candidates by the Nominating Committee Chair
Election of Faculty Senate Officers
Establishment of the Steering Committee
Establishment of the Committee on Committees
New Business
Adjournment
The Election of Faculty Senate officers for the coming year shall occur using the procedures described in Bylaws, Section III.C.

The Establishment of the Steering Committee shall occur by an election of each academic units’ senators. Each academic unit shall have at least one member of the Steering Committee. The number of Steering Committee members to which an academic unit is entitled is proportional to the size of that unit’s general faculty, as outlined in Bylaws, Section VI.A.1.

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.

Section VI.A.5.b. Nominating Committee

The Nominating Committee shall be formed at the Steering Committee meeting prior to the March Senate meeting at the latest. This committee consists of the Senate past chair, who shall serve as chair of the committee, and two other Steering Committee members. If the immediate past chair is not available, the Steering Committee must elect a faculty member to serve in this role. The chair of the Nominating Committee shall preside over the election of Faculty Senate officers. For nomination procedures, see
Bylaws, Section III.B.

• Approved by the Faculty Senate Steering Committee on August 24, 2023
• Approved by the Faculty Senate on October 5, 2023
• Submitted to Provost Michael D. Johnson for information only on October 26, 2023

Resolution 2023-2024-3
Bylaws Amendment Resolution
Commencements, Convocations and Recognition Committee Membership

Whereas, the Commencements, Convocations and Recognition Committee duties and responsibilities include, amongst other things, evaluation for emeritus status, honorary degrees, posthumous degrees, and other related awards; and

Whereas, the Commencements, Convocations and Recognition Committee was first established when the only faculty in the Faculty Senate and the only faculty eligible for emeritus status were tenured faculty; and

Whereas, non-tenure track faculty are now eligible to serve as senators of the faculty senate and are also eligible for the award of emeritus status; and

Whereas, the experience of a broad array of faculty is beneficial to understanding the full range of the duties and responsibilities of the Commencements, Convocations and Recognition Committee; therefore

Be it Resolved, to amend the Faculty Bylaws to remove the Commencements, Convocations and Recognition Committee membership requirement that faculty from the academic units must be tenured; and

Be it Further Resolved, to amend the Membership section of the Faculty Bylaws of the Commencements, Convocations and Recognition Committee to state “The committee shall consist of one faculty member from each academic unit selected by the Committee on Committees (in consultation with the president), two students selected by the president of the Student Government Association (in consultation with the president) and the president and the provost and vice president for Academic Affairs or their designees. All faculty committee members must be faculty holding the rank of associate professor or professor, associate or senior instructor, associate or senior lecturer, associate or university librarian, or associate or senior instructional designer.  One-half of the faculty committee members must be tenured.  The president (or designee) shall identify other ex officio members. The chair is appointed annually by the president from the faculty membership. The 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. 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 October 19, 2023
• Approved by the Faculty Senate on December 7, 2023
• Submitted to Provost Michael D. Johnson for information only on January 26, 2024

Resolution 2023-2024-4
Faculty Senate Meeting Modality

Resolution was referred back to the Bylaws Committee at the Faculty Senate Steering Committee meeting on November 16, 2023.

Resolution 2023-2024-5
Board of Governors Regulation 9.016 Prohibited Expenditures

Whereas, the First Amendment of the United States Constitution states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the
Government for a redress of grievances”; and

Whereas, the Board of Governors Regulation 9.016 Prohibited Expenditures, may prohibit universities, student-led organizations, and people working within and/or attending the State University System from exercising their duty to educate and train students and/or to support student led organizations that may engage in advocacy to effect “change to a government policy, action, or function”; and

Whereas, Appendix A State University System of Florida Statement of Free Expression was approved by the Board of Governors on April 15, 2019, and states, in part:
“A fundamental purpose of an institution of higher education is to provide a learning environment where divergent ideas, opinions, and philosophies, new and old, can be rigorously debated and critically evaluated. Through this process, often referred to as the marketplace of ideas, individuals are free to express any ideas and opinions they wish, even if others may disagree with them or find those ideas and opinions to be offensive or otherwise antithetical to their own worldview. The very process of debating divergent ideas and challenging others’ opinions develops the intellectual skills necessary to respectfully argue through civil discourse. Development of such skills leads to personal and scholarly growth and is an essential component of each of our institutions’ academic and research missions. It is equally important not to stifle the dissemination of any ideas, even if other members of our community may find those ideas abhorrent. Individuals wishing to express ideas with which others may disagree must be free to do so without fear of being bullied, threatened, or silenced. This does not mean that such ideas should go unchallenged, as that is part of the learning process. And though we believe all members of our campus communities have a role to play in promoting civility and mutual respect in that type of discourse, we must not let concerns over civility or respect be used as a reason to silence expression. We should empower and enable one another to speak and listen, rather than interfere with or silence the open expression of ideas”; and

Whereas, the Board of Governors Regulation 9.016 Prohibited Expenditures will stifle the discussion and consideration of speech required as described in the Board of Governor’s Statement of Free Expression relating to “race, color, sex, national origin, gender identity, or sexual orientation”, speech “with a purpose of effecting or preventing change to a government policy, action, or function, or any activity intended to achieve a desired result related to social issues”, and speech on “topics that polarize or divide society among political, ideological, moral or religious beliefs”; and

Whereas, the Board of Governors Regulation 9.016 Prohibited Expenditures is imprecisely worded and ambiguous about what activities are likely to be interpreted as attempts “to equalize or increase outcomes, participation or representation” or student activities or organizations, or university programs, that aim to “achieve a desired result related to social issues”, which may inadvertently intimidate or discourage activities that are protected by academic freedom or by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution; therefore

Be It Resolved, that University of Central Florida Faculty Senate urges the Board of Governors to revise Regulation 9.016 Prohibited Expenditures so that the definitions within the Regulation, when combined with the expenditure prohibitions of the Regulation, no longer conflict with the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, or the Board of Governors’ own Statement of Free Expression; and

Be It Further Resolved, that University of Central Florida Faculty Senate urges the Board of Governors to revise Regulation 9.016 Prohibited Expenditures so that the State University System institutions can freely support their Board of Governor-approved and Board of Trustee-approved Missions and Strategic Plans, which focus in large part on supporting the success of the more than 430,000 diverse students across
the State University System.

• Approved by the Faculty Senate Steering Committee on November 16, 2023
• Approved by the Faculty Senate on December 7, 2023
• Submitted to Provost Michael D. Johnson for information only on January 26, 2024

Resolution 2023-2024-6
Approval of a Revised Student Perception of Instruction Form

Resolution was referred back to the FCTL Advisory Committee at the Faculty Senate meeting on January 18th, 2024.

Resolution 2023-2024-7
Faculty Involvement and Transparency in the Hiring of Tenured/Tenure-Earning/Research (T/TE/R) Faculty

Resolution was referred back to the Personnel Committee at the Faculty Senate Steering Committee meeting on February 1, 2024.

Resolution 2023-2024-8
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 & Stark, 2016; 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; Eizler, 2002; Felton et al., 2008; Bragaet 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; Shouping, 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, four other universities (Colorado-Boulder, Southern California, Oregon, and Kansas) have made substantial changes to the evaluation of faculty teaching, which includes elimination of SPIs as a primary source of evaluating teaching (UCF SPI Task Force, 2020:8-9)

Be it Resolved that UCF abandon use of SPIs in faculty annual evaluations, promotion and tenure, and awards, and require committees, unit/department heads, deans, and other university personnel to employ more objective measures of teaching quality and commitment in assessing faculty instruction. Examples of alternative measures include, but are not limited to:

• quality course designations from IDL
• use of evidence-based practices or innovative or FCTL recommended teaching strategies
• creation of new courses for department curriculum
• syllabi, classroom assignments, exams
• grade distributions
• students supervised on independent studies/theses/dissertations
• publications, presentations and/or research with students
• In-class peer observation

Be it Further Resolved that UCF retain use of SPIs for faculty members’ personal use in guiding their instruction and in post-tenure review, which complies with current BOG regulations and policies.

• Approved by the Faculty Senate Steering Committee on February 1, 2024
• Approved by the Faculty Senate on February 15, 2024
• Submitted to Provost Michael D. Johnson for action on March 4, 2024
• Denied by Provost Michael D. Johnson on March 19, 2024 with the following comments:

“I cannot accept eliminating student perceptions of instruction from faculty evaluative materials, despite their imperfections. We owe our students, our most important audience, the opportunity to criticize or comment on the teaching they receive. As a result, I am denying this resolution. However, there is at present a great deal wrong with our evaluation of teaching. Most of our departmental AESPs give SPOIs too much credence – e.g., using unimportant distinctions such as 3.3 vs 3.6 averages as a way to distinguish between one rating level and another. In my experience, it is outlying SPOIs -very high or very low – that are most useful in identifying, respectively, excellent or poor instruction. This is particularly the case when comments are studied carefully. Our evaluation of teaching would greatly benefit if departments added to AESPs and P&T criteria items such as those listed as “examples of alternative measures.” However, I do note that these mostly account for effort rather than quality. I would favor adding items such as unusually high DFW rates – a sign of teaching failure, not rigor; or students avoiding a faculty member’s classes; or a careful perusal of student comments. It is also possible to examine, e.g., final exams to ensure that the course covers appropriate content, and use examples of “A” or “F” final exams to understand the course’s rigor. The best measures are those that directly compare student learning under different approaches. In addition, FCTL has a list of possible ways to evaluate teaching effectiveness (attached) that could trigger discussion. I strongly encourage departments to put much more effort into developing written criteria for quality teaching.”