1. Each Department should develop, adopt, and implement an appropriate teaching evaluation process. While procedures will vary from department to department, a systematic assessment process should be in place in every department, a systematic assessment process should be in place in every department by the fall of 1984.
2. Students should have the opportunity to evaluate instruction in every course. The form of that evaluation should be consistent with the nature of the academic experience.
3. Department chairs should review (at least annually) with each faculty member the results of student evaluations and of other forms of assessment adopted by the Department. The principal purpose of such reviews shall be to provide faculty members with the opportunity to improve the quality of their teaching.
4. Professorial faculty from each Department should directly monitor and supervise all teaching by graduate teaching assistants. Moreover, each Department should have in place, by fall 1984, a mandatory teaching effectiveness program for its teaching assistants.

1. BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Senate recommends that every faculty member be involved in academic advisement. Further, it is recommended that every student be assigned a faculty advisor.
   
   Finally, the Provost and Deans are strongly urged to implement a campus-wide advisement system which enables advisors to function effectively, facilitates information flow, and assists students in broadening their academic horizons.
   [passed by Faculty Senate on 2/8/94 by voice vote]
   [endorsed by the President on 2/22/94]



2. WHEREAS the University at Buffalo, in response to President Greiner's call for a "renewed emphasis on teaching and student development," must find effective ways, in addition to the efforts of the professional advising staff, to guide its many students who have not yet been accepted into undergraduate programs, and
   
   WHEREAS advising undergraduates about academic matters and other concerns, while also providing guidance for departmental majors, has long been an important professional function for faculty here and at other universities;
   
   THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Faculty Senate endorses the intention of the Vice Provost for Academic Affairs to explore and initiate, where appropriate, more organized activities for faculty members in undergraduate advisement, and
   
   BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Executive Committee of the Faculty Senate shall, during the current academic year and thereafter, invite the Vice Provost to report regularly on developments in student advisement by faculty and shall, at its discretion, refer matters of concern to the Committee on Educational Programs and Policies for discussion and possible recommendations. (passed by Faculty Senate on 2/8/94 by voice vote)

Whereas the primary responsibility for assessment of educational programs is held by the faculty who are most closely associated with those programs;

Therefore, Be It Resolved:

That we the faculty of the University at Buffalo recognize our responsibility to participate fully in assessment of educational programs, including setting goals for student learning, choosing appropriate assessment procedures and indices, and modifying and strengthening of educational programs as appropriate; and

That the President of the University is called upon to ensure, through appropriate leadership, collaboration with UB's faculty, provision of resources, and recognition of faculty assessment efforts as significant service to the University, that assessment of all educational programs at UB, including UB's general education program for undergraduate students, be conducted both regularly and frequently.

In the short term, modest resources may be required for external consultants on assessment and faculty development seminars on assessment in order to quickly bring about the required level of faculty expertise on assessment at the University at Buffalo. Once regular assessment procedures are in place, the overall budget impact will be positive. Assessment procedures, properly carried out, will strengthen educational programs at UB. Stronger educational programs will attract better-prepared students to our campus and improve retention rates and graduation rates, thus leading to budgetary economies. In addition, educational programs with a documented record of success will be better able to attract external funds from foundations and government agencies for program enrichment and expansion.

1. In accordance with the Faculty Senate resolution implemented December 1983, entitled: Teaching Assessment and Improvement," the policy of this University is to mandate student evaluations of all courses.
2. Deans are responsible for appointing faculty committees to establish policies for the administration of these evaluations, including among others:
1. Ensuring within discipline clusters standardization of the instrument and procedures used to collect data;
2. Constructing or otherwise ensuring use of appropriate items for the instrument.
3. Establishing, specifying, collecting, and updating (in a timely fashion), appropriate normative data against which instructors and courses will be compared;
4. Assuring that ratings from criterion-referenced questions are reported appropriately and not as norm-referenced data (e.g., T-Scores) and vice versa.
5. Deciding whether and how to publish, or otherwise make available, course ratings and the norms for providing the context for interpreting those ratings.
3. Students' written comments should be given to the instructor and distributed to chairs, deans, or others (such as personnel committees), depending on the needs, traditions, and protections offered by these units. The responsibility falls to each Dean to have a published policy on publication of student written comments.
4. Since, by definition, norm-referenced comparisons do not provide feedback that is, specific information on what is commendable, what needs improvement, and how to improve a given component of a course - some of the questions on the course evaluations should be designed for criterion-referenced purposes. This is especially important for mentoring new faculty and teaching assistants, but is useful throughout an academic career.
5. Those who are responsible for supervising instruction and making promotion/ tenure decisions need to be fully informed about 1-4.

• From the teaching side: Instructors are responsible for clear course goals and expectations, for effective instruction, and for continued expansion of their teaching/testing repertoires to provide a wide variety of equitable opportunities for students to succeed.
• From the learning side: Students are responsible for their own learning, for taking advantage of the opportunities provided in class (and for seeking out remedial and advanced opportunities outside of class), and for adopting and contributing to the culture of the university regarding the advancement and fair distribution of knowledge.

1. It is already University policy that instructors publish a syllabus for each course (as specified in “Faculty Teaching Responsibilities” in the Faculty/Staff Handbook, 1993-94, p. 3.9.1. Passed by Faculty Senate, April 1983);
2. Neither teaching nor learning can be assessed in the absence of clear expectations of what is required to succeed in the course, which, of necessity, differs across disciplines and according to diverse professional accreditation processes; and
3. A syllabus is here defined as the established policies and major requirements of a course, publishable in perhaps 2-5 pages, which is different from the day-to-day schedule of classroom events and requirements;

1. general goals for the course;
2. specific objectives, in accordance with the requirements of all oversight and certifying units, which must be achieved to demonstrate sufficient mastery of the content to receive a passing grade;
3. whether and how course requirements and schedules might change throughout the semester (e.g., based on research being conducted);
4. how attainment of goals and objectives (in a & b) will be evaluated;
5. what additional support, tutorial remediation, etc. is available and how to access it;
6. attendance policies;
7. what else (over and above a-f), such as laboratory or recitation policies, is required in the course and how it will be evaluated;
8. the overall grading scheme.
9. a statement that students are responsible for the academicintegrity policies of the University and the unit.

1. course syllabus;
2. student evaluations of instruction (see Faculty Senate resolution on this topic, adopted February 15, 2000);
3. instructor self-evaluations of their teaching philosophy, methods, and effectiveness;
4. evidence on the effectiveness of instruction – that is, how students who passed the course benefited from the instruction (e.g. pretest – posttest gains, type of student projects produced, student testimonials on specific effects of the course, examination results, etc.);
5. information on course policy and procedures for identifying the difficulties students are having and how students can access help.

1. Faculty have always been expected to remain up-to-date in the instructional techniques and technologies available for teaching in their disciplines;
2. Continuing development and expansion of the instructional repertoires, both high- and low-tech, are more likely to occur via “a campus-wide collaborative effort around teaching”*; and
3. A campus-wide culture of teaching can and should be central to every program level of governance at the university, especially with leadership and support – both moral and financial – from the highest levels of governance on campus, including the President and the Provost;

1. graduate courses (on teaching and learning, instructional technology, mentoring and supervision, innovative teaching and testing strategies, etc.) which can be audited or taken for credit (perhaps through the UUP tuition payment plan);
2. workshops, speakers and other programs, with discussions and reflections scheduled as follow-ups;
3. advertising and encouragement for faculty to participate in both intradisciplinary and interdisciplinary programs;
4. encouragement for faculty to visit one another’s classes; and
5. if the former Office of Teaching Effectiveness is not reinstated, then the Provost should establish and ensure that its functions are fulfilled in some way.

1. High quality instruction provides opportunities for academic achievements, the processes and content of that learning ultimately depend upon what students do; and
2. Academic assignments, schedules, lectures – indeed, almost all course requirements and options – assume certain amounts of preparation, prerequisite skills and/or an attitude of readiness;

1. knowing and following University policy regarding drop-add dates, making up incomplete grades, etc;
2. understanding and following each course syllabus, particularly in regard to assignments, due dates, attendance policies, office hours, available assistance and how to access it (by e-mail, graduate assistants, extra labs), etc;
3. preparing for and participating in class;
4. informing the instructor, in advance if possible, if for any reason a deadline cannot be met or a class must be missed; and
5. requesting of the instructor as soon as possible the need for extra help on an assignment or topic.

1. Amount of learning can be defined as the extent to which students persevere to spend the time they need, which likely differs for each student across academic domains;*
2. Many students are not prepared for the kind of learning experiences required at UB: that is, to understand what it takes to succeed at this level – to self-diagnose how well they are comprehending; when their study or writing skills are weak; the value of attending office hours, review sessions, or extracurricular campus-wide events; or how much time they need to learn; and
3. UB and individual schools and departments have invented several programs specifically to teach strategies of learning and metacognition, self-diagnosis, and time management;

1. providing workshops for faculty;
2. highlighting these courses in the course schedules; and
3. regularly circulating the goals, cognitive and metacognitive skills and instructional techniques used to teach them in these courses.

1. their input on the policy issues in this document;
2. the establishment of lectures, panels, discussion groups on practical topics of teaching, learning, cognitive processes, and so forth for their own academic careers; and
3. whether GSEU members should be included in, or have separate programs like, the Professional Development effort in Resolution #3.

Every class instructor shall provide to students a course syllabus during the first week of class that specifies attendance policies and dates and times for classes, exams and all other required activities. Instructors shall provide reasonable alternatives to students for required course activities from which they are justifiably absent. Instructors shall observe University policy when scheduling class activities: “Classes are to meet at the time and on the campus listed in the SARA schedule, unless changed with the consent of the entire class.” [The Faculty Handbook, III.E., Faculty Teaching Responsibilities]

Students may be justifiably absent from classes due to religious observances, illness documented by a physician or other appropriate health care professional, conflicts with University sanctioned activities, public emergencies, and documented personal or family emergencies. The student is responsible for notifying the instructor in writing with as much advance notice as possible of required absences in a timely manner, preferably at the beginning of the course. It is recognized that such absences, especially for illness, emergencies, or University sanctioned activities, may not be known at the beginning of a semester. Absences for University sanctioned activities shall be certified in writing by an appropriate senior University administrator, e.g., the Vice President for Student Affairs, the Dean for Student Affairs, the Director of Athletics, or the Vice Provost for Academic Affairs. Students are responsible for the prompt completion of any alternative assignments.

In the event a student absence situation cannot be resolved between the student and the class instructor, or either party is aggrieved by the process, appeal shall proceed sequentially to the department chair, unit dean, and finally the Vice Provost for Academic Affairs.

In applying the provisions of this policy, faculty and administrative officers are responsible for exercising the fullest measure of good faith.