Skip to Content

Faculty Development Committee Minutes (October 4, 2012)



Meeting of October 4, 2012

(and subsequent email conversations)

Call to order: 12:35 pm

Present: K. Brooks, B. Celik, K. Donnell, C. Fagan, K. Gentles-Peart, C. Murphy, T. Wright,


  1. Introductions
  1. Develop a plan to “ascertain the ways in which adjunct faculty are appointed in the various schools/departments across the university and report back to the Senate” (charge from Senate).
  • We decided that the best way to objectively assess the hiring practices of adjuncts is to generate 4/5 standard questions (both open and closed-ended) that will be asked of each department chair. Some preliminary questions were generated, but FDC members are to send revisions and additions by email. October 15 is the deadline for the final version.
  • Each member of the committee was asked to identify the chairs of the relevant departments in their schools/divisions. Committee members are to provide the names by October 15.
  • Once the questions are confirmed, they will be distributed (perhaps through Qualtrics) to the department chairs; they will have about 2 weeks to respond.

**Discussion conducted via email:

After the meeting, two existing reports on adjunct hiring practices were brought to our attention. Therefore, before proceeding with a third review, the Committee decided to review the existing reports to highlight any unanswered questions or gaps that exist across the reports, and identify any concerns that the information raises about adjunct hiring practices that were not previously addressed by the Senate. This review has informed the following statement to the Senate:

Upon review of the existing reports on adjunct hiring practices, the Faculty Development Committee (FDC) has determined that, while some marginal revisions could improve the reports (for example, gathering information from all departments rather than a sample, and presenting the data in a manner that facilitates easy comparison across departments), the substantive material presented in the reports seem to provide the information requested by the Senate in its latest charge. Therefore, in order to carry out the charge more efficiently and avoid duplication, the FDC would like clarification from the Senate as to what was found lacking and/or unsatisfactory in the previous reports that has warranted the reassignment of the task to the Committee.

  1. Ideas for improving pedagogy at RWU.
  • As a committee, we want to propose (to the Provost and/or Senate) 3 major teaching development tools. Over the next few weeks, we will highlight the most feasible ideas, and research the best ways to structure and implement them.
  • Some of the ideas include faculty learning communities, faculty internships in their professional fields, and structured faculty mentorship.

Adjourned: 1:40 pm.

Respectfully submitted,

Kamille Gentles-Peart


This entry was posted in Minutes (FDC). Bookmark the permalink.