[COSEAfaculty] Faculty meeting on June 20th for 12.03.99.R1FacultyWorkload.docx

Thu Jun 20 10:41:17 CDT 2013

                 Dear Grady,
       I'll not be able to participate, because I am out of US.                      

            Dear Jeff,

      Thank you for the detailed notes, which

shaded light on the questions asked below.

       I would like to comment on some of the points because

the problem is more complex, I think. May be all the

questions discussed by you holds for Biology but not

all of them apply for all other science disciplines.

>I don't think that GA's should be supervising labs. ....

            In my opinion there are labs that could be supervised by

GA, but there are other Labs the GAs can't even dream about. It depends

on the subject and the level of preparation of the GA.

> 1. There are safety issues to deal with.

           In some disciplines there are no safety issues: Math, Comp. Sci.

>4. GA's have neither the experience, the responsibility, nor the maturity to supervise labs. 

               Again this depends on the discipline and the level of the student knowledge.

I always select the best prepared student and each of my GA's takes a few

independent study classes (ISC) with me. For example my present GA took with me in the field

of his specialization: 2 advanced master classes + 2 independent study classes (ISC) + 2 Thesis classes

 + 1 ISC Fall 2013. He did 4 presentations on student and professional research symposiums and is working on a research paper to a top venue.

               I am sure, such a student may supervise some low level labs.

               But if a GA is not tested, I completely agree with you.

>None of these students have any teaching experience and they have not demonstrated mastery of the content >area by virture of a higher >degree.

        This is true, but spending with the GA that many hours as above, we will

prepare the student for the challenge to teach. Moreover, having such an experience in his

CV helps the GA find better paid job and/or high level Ph.D. program.  This, in return

brings to us more and better prepared students.

                           Best regards and wishes

                                        Nikolay

Dr. Nikolay Metodeiv Sirakov

Chair CoSEA T&P Committee 

Associate Professor at
Department of Mathematics
Department of Computer Science
Texas A&M University - Commerce
Commerce, Texas 75429
Ph.: 903 886 5943, Fax: 903 886 5945
http://faculty.tamuc.edu/nsirakov/ <http://faculty.tamuc.edu/nsirakov/> 

________________________________

From: coseafaculty-bounces at tamuc.edu on behalf of Jeffrey Kopachena
Sent: Wed 6/19/2013 7:06 PM
To: Grady P Blount; coseafaculty at tamuc.edu
Subject: Re: [COSEAfaculty] Faculty meeting on June 20th for 12.03.99.R1FacultyWorkload.docx

Grady,

Unfortunately I will not be able to make the meeting tomorrow (field work is in full swing).  However, here are my rather hastily put together thoughts on the subject:

1) workload credit for lab hours.

Faculty teaching upper level lecture classes need to get credit for all the labs associated with that course.  This should also apply to lower level classes in those cases where the lab grade is directly associated with the lecture grade in calculating the final grade in the course.  Why is this important?
1.  In these courses the final grade for the class is a combination of both the lecture grade and the lab grade.  Consequently the ultimate responsibility for content and learning outcomes needs to be borne by the same individual.  Furthermore, this will ensure that the same standards are applied to both and will ensure that the content of labs and lectures compliment each other appropriately.
2.  More importantly, faculty, presumably, are hired for their knowledge, skills, and expertise in a particular subject area.  These same faculty apply this knowledge and expertise in the development and delivery of lab exercises.  GA's do not develop lab exercises, nor are they ultimately resposible for the content and delivery of those exercises.  These exercises and the faculty expertise that goes into them should be considered intellectual property and the faculty must be recognized for this intellectual property.   Giving the faculty workload credit for labs serves to recognize both the work that faculty put into labs and their intellectual property.
For US classes where the lab might be a separate entity, it may not be as important for a lecturer to also be lab instructor.  However, we must ensure that the people who are getting credit for the labs are 1) qualified to teach the labs and 2) are actually teaching the labs.  I do not think that graduate students and undergraduate students should be supervising labs.  See below.
As a last comment on this subject, I think that labs in which a faculty member has a GA assisting them should be credited 0.67 sh of workload for every 1 sh of contact.  Therefore a 3-hour lab would count as 2 sh of workload.  A faculty member who does not have a GA assisting them should be credited for 1 sh of workload for every 1 sh of contact.  In this case a 3-hour lab would count as 3 sh of workload.

2) Workload credit for supervising GAs and Adjuncts teaching labs.

I don't think GA's need credit for labs.  I don't think that GA's should be supervising labs.  This is just bad practice for the following reasons:
1.  There are safety issues to deal with.  If an incident happens, it is more appropriate for a faculty member to be present to deal with it than for an inexperience student.  Imagine what it would sound like on the news if someone got acid burns and the only person in the room was an inexperienced graduate student. 
2.  In Biology nearly all the GA's are going to have less than the 18 sh that the state requires them to have.  This is because most of them are thesis students who only require 24 sh of classes for their degree (plus 6 sh of thesis).  Consequently, most graduate students won't be qualified to be instructors of record until their very last semester.
3.  Because of point 2., if we limit GA's to only those who have 18 sh, then we will never have enough GA's to adequately cover the lab sections.
4. Because of point 2, if we limit GA's to only those who have 18 sh, then we will not be able to use the assistantships as a recruiting tool.
4. GA's have neither the experience, the responsibility, nor the maturity to supervise labs.  None of these students have any teaching experience and they have not demonstrated mastery of the content area by virture of a higher degree.  Furthermore, because they are also students, they are uniquely situated:  they have less to lose if they do a poor job, they are not directly responsible for the performance of other students, and because they may have personal relationships with the students they are teaching, they may have conflicts of interest.  These students can only do an adquate job under the direct supervision of a faculty member. 

I think that graduate students should look upon teaching assistantships as an opportunity to get some financial assistance but, more importantly, to work with a faculty member to gain experience in higher education.  These graduate assistants should view a teaching assistantship as an important component of their education.  What they get is some financial assistance and a valuable addition to their resume.  What the faculty member gets is an individual that can help them set up and deliver labs and, with appropriate supervision, do some grading for them. 

Hope the meeting goes well.  Please update me on the outcome of the meeting.

Jeff

Dr. Jeff Kopachena
Department of Biology
Texas A&M University - Commerce
Commerce, Texas, 75429

-----Original Message-----
From: coseafaculty-bounces at tamuc.edu on behalf of Grady P Blount
Sent: Wed 6/12/2013 9:39 AM
To: coseafaculty at tamuc.edu
Subject: [COSEAfaculty] Faculty meeting on June 20th for 12.03.99.R1 FacultyWorkload.docx

Good morning:

As you can see from the thread below we had a landmark day for faculty governance yesterday with both the Faculty Senate and Dean's Council approving the new workload document (attached). A huge round of thanks go out to Derald Harp for his leadership and bird-dogging skills on making this happen. This is the most dramatic change I have seen since my arrival here in 2011. I am very happy to see this vote of confidence in, by, and for our colleagues.

As you can see from looking at the final procedure we need to develop a CoSEA-specific version of the workload procedure. In order to have this in place for the fall term we need to have that document ready for submission to the Provost' office by July 5th.

I will host a meeting in the CoSEA Conference Room next Thursday afternoon at 2:00 PM to begin the process of writing that document. Please join us if your schedule permits. If not, please send your comments to me via email before that date.

Major Issues to be addressed include:

1) workload credit for lab hours.

2) workload credit for supervising GAs and Adjuncts teaching labs.

3) _______________________?

-Grady

===============================================
Grady Price Blount (??), Ph.D., Professor of Physics and Dean
College of Science, Engineering & Agriculture (CoSEA)
Regional Representative, Texas Engineering Experiment Station

Texas A&M University-Commerce
Commerce, Texas 75429-3011
Telephones:  903-886-5781 (office)      325-716-0450 (cell)
===============================================
Talent hits a target no one else can hit.

Genius hits a target no one else can see.

                                    -Schopenhauer

From: Cynthia Rhodes
Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2013 5:12 PM
To: James Vanbebber
Cc: Daniel Edelman; Salvatore Attardo; Derald Harp; Heidi R Wright; Gail Johnson; Grady P Blount; Dale Funderburk; Charlotte Larkin; Melinda Schlager; Arlene Horne; Mary Beth Sampson
Subject: FW: 12.03.99.R1 Faculty Workload.docx

James,

Today at Dean's Council meeting, members unanimously approved the attached rule.

Thanks, Cynthia

Cynthia Rhodes |Executive Assistant to the Provost

Academic Affairs | Texas A&M University - Commerce

P.O. Box 3011 | Commerce, Texas 75429

Tel. 903.886.5514 | Fax 903.886.5019

From: James Vanbebber
Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2013 1:48 PM
To: Salvatore Attardo; Derald Harp; Daniel Edelman; Cynthia Rhodes
Cc: Heidi R Wright
Subject: 12.03.99.R1 Faculty Workload.docx

Attached is formatted copy of Dr. Harp's draft.

James, Vanbebber, B.S.

Compliance Coordinator

University Compliance Office

Texas A&M University-Commerce

Phone 903-886-5996 Fax 903-886-5989

James.Vanbebber at tamuc.edu

This communication, including any attachments, may contain confidential and privileged information and is intended only for the individual or entity to which it is addressed.  Any review, dissemination, or copying of this communication by anyone other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail, delete and destroy all copies of the original message. Thank you.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.tamuc.edu/pipermail/coseafaculty/attachments/20130620/27707dc2/attachment-0001.htm