During the eighth week of each spring and fall semester, midterm grades will be reported to the Registrar's Office in an approved fashion for each undergraduate student in each class, as an indication of that student's academic performance as of that time. Internships, independent study classes, eight-week classes, and graduate classes are exempt from these reporting requirements. Interim grades will be reported in the same format (letter grade, credit/no credit) as the final course grade for that class. For studio, clinical, field classes, etc., in which progress may be difficult to assess by conventional means, a department may develop guidelines by which the instructor can gauge student progress for reporting purposes.
Amended by Faculty Senate Bill 12-A-22 April 4, 2012, Reviewed by President April 23, 2012, Approved by Board of Regents May 12, 2012
Faculty Senate Bill 12-A-23 begins here
A student's reported midterm grades shall be made available by the Registrar's Office to: 1) that student through an on-line mechanism, 2) that student's faculty advisor, 3) the college advising center to which that student is assigned, and 4) other units/entities authorized by the student to receive them, such as Athletic Advising, International Programs, Learning Assistance Programs, fraternities, sororities, etc. These units/entities shall receive the student progress information which they require solely through this reporting mechanism, and shall not request faculty assessment of student progress through other means. Faculty who receive such requests are entitled to refuse or disregard them.
A student who receives a midterm grade below a C, or one indicating unsatisfactory progress, shall receive a follow-up e-mail from the Dean of Students. In this e-mail, the student will be provided with suggestions for improving performance, be notified of available university resources, and be encouraged to take responsibility for his/her own academic success. The midterm grade will be replaced by the final grade, and no permanent record of the midterm grade will be kept.
Amended by Faculty Senate Bill 12-A-23 April 4, 2012, Reviewed by President April 23, 2012, Posted for 15 Day Review April 2012.
Each student is assigned an advisor. Undeclared students are advised by the Coordinator of Academic Advising for the School of University Studies. Students who have declared a major are advised by faculty in their major departments. Students must consult with their advisors to obtain their degree audit reports, to enroll, and to make changes in their class schedules.
Each college has an advising office which coordinates advising in that college for undeclared majors within the college. All questions regarding advising should be directed to a college advising office. All faculty members should be prepared to carry out this responsibility as assigned by the department chairperson.
Faculty Senate Bill 12-A-18 begins here.
Students are expected to attend all classes and to complete all assignments for courses in which they are enrolled. An absence does not relieve the student of the responsibility to complete all assignments. If an absence is associated with a University-sanctioned activity, the instructor will provide an opportunity for assignment makeup. However, it is the instructor's discretion to provide, or not to provide, makeup work related to absences for any other reason.
A student not present for class during the entire initial week of a scheduled course may be removed from that course roster unless notification by the student is provided to the course instructor by the end of the first week.
Amended by Faculty Senate Bill 12-A-18 April 4, 2012, Reviewed by President April 23, 2012, Approved by Board of Regents May 12, 2012
Faculty Senate Bill 12-A-19 begins here.
Faculty will keep written records of course attendance. Financial Services may require last day of attendance from faculty members for students receiving certain types of federal funds. Faculty must be able to document last day of attendance, or last log-in for an online course.
A student who is absent from class during the first week of a course, or who has not logged into an online course, may be removed from the course through the online instructor initiated drop, unless notification by the student is provided to the course instructor by the end of the first week.
Amended by Faculty Senate Bill 12-A-19 April 4, 2012, Reviewed by President April 23, 2012, Posted for 15 Day Review April 2012
Each faculty member is required to schedule at least three office hours per week and should otherwise be accessible for conferences with students by appointment. A schedule of each faculty member's regular office hours should be posted for the convenience of students and a copy made available to the department chairperson.
Faculty Senate bill 12-A-20 begins here
It is expected that periodic examinations or other assessments will be given in every
course. Final examinations, including online finals, are required and should be administered
at the times established for them in the regular or special final examination schedules.
Online finals will be due during finals week. Faculty requests for exceptions from
either of these schedules will be granted only in cases of extreme hardship.
Amended by Faculty Senate Bill 12-A-20, Reviewed by Presodent April 23, 2012, Approved by Board of Regents May 4, 2012
Faculty Senate Bill 12-A-21 begins here.
A student seeking to take a final examination at an alternate time must submit a request in writing or by e-mail to the instructor. Faculty members are encouraged to submit final grades to the Registrar's Office as soon as possible after the final examination and no later than the deadlines established by the Registrar's Office.
Amended by Faculty Senate Bill 12-A-21 April 4, 2012, Reviewed by President April 23, 2012, Posted for 15 Day Review April 2012
Facutly Senate Bill 12-A-26 begins here.
An incomplete ("I") may be given when the undergraduate student is doing passing work but is unable to complete all requirements because of unusual or unique circumstances acceptable to the instructor. In no case may an "I" be agreed to by an instructor prior to the drop date. An "I" may not be used to permit a student to repeat a course or to improve a grade.
Approved by Faculty Senate Bill 12-A-26 April 11, 2012, Reviewed by President April 23, 2012, Approved by Board of Regents October 19, 2012
Faculty Senate Bill 13-A-01 begins here.
Faculty members of Southeast Missouri State University toshould communicate to students early in the term a clear statement of the grading practices and procedures that will be used to determine the student's final grade. Students are responsible for meeting the standards of academic performance established for each course in which they are enrolled, and the evaluation of student academic performance is an essential responsibility of the faculty. Grading procedures and criteria should be included in the course outline provided to students. If a student believes those practices and procedures were not consistently and accurately followed when the faculty member determined the student's final grade for the course, the student shall have the right to appeal the case first with the faculty member, then with the department chair, and finally, with a committee of faculty members. It should be noted that grade appeals are for rare instances of arbitrary and capricious grading on the part of the faculty member. Arbitrary and capricious grading, as that term is used here, comprises any of the following:
For instances not dealing with arbitrary and capricious grading, such as a mistake made in the grading process, students should first seek to resolve the grading mistake with the faculty member.
Approved by Faculty Senate Bill 13-A-01 January 30, 2013, Reviewed by President april 5, 2013, Approved by Board of Regents April 10, 2013
Faculty Senate Bill 13-A-02 begins here.
The grade appeal procedure is primarily for the review of allegedly arbitrary and capricious grading, and not for review of the instructor's evaluation of the student's academic performance.
In order to maintain accurate records, faculty members are recommended to retain certain items for various time periods. These are:
Students should be encouraged to resolve immediate grading questions when they occur and keep copies of exams, projects, and other graded assignments at least until grade reports are received following the completion of a course.
If the final course grade is in question, the student should first discuss the grade fully with the instructor of the course. This informal appeal may occur at any time within the first six weeks of the next regular semester (Fall or Spring) following the receipt of the grade, but it is strongly suggested that this inquiry take place as soon as possible.
If an informal appeal does not resolve the problem, the student may file a formal written appeal to the instructor by October 1 (Fall semester) or March 1 (Spring semester). Included in the written appeal should be the basis for the appeal and copies of pertinent documents which support the appeal. The letter should include the full name of the student, the student's social security number, course number, course title, semester and year enrolled, section number, and the name of the instructor. The instructor of the course should respond in writing to this appeal request within two weeks of receiving the request and no later than October 15 (Fall) or March 15 (Spring). If the instructor is no longer available on campus, the department chair may try to contact the instructor or may act in place of the instructor. The unavailability of the instructor may necessitate a slight change in time frame, if so determined by the department chair.
If the matter cannot be resolved by interaction with the instructor for any reason, the student may file a written appeal with the department chair within two weeks of receiving the instructor's response, or by November 1 (Fall) or April 1 (Spring). The department chair may request a meeting with the student and the instructor in order to mediate a possible settlement of the disagreement and must respond to the appeal within two weeks, or by November 15 (Fall) or April 15 (Spring). It is neither the right nor within the responsibility of the department chair to change the grade, but rather to find whether any error may have been made and to counsel the faculty member on this regard. If the instructor is no longer available on campus, the department chair may try to contact the instructor or may act in place of the instructor. The unavailability of the instructor may necessitate a slight change in time frame, if so determined by the department chair. In the event that the Department Chair is the instructor whose grade is being questioned, the College Dean will function as noted above. Should the Dean or other administrative officer be the instructor whose grade is being questioned, the Chair of the department to which the administrator is assigned will handle the appeal process.
If the student still believes the grade was issued in error, one further step may be taken.
If the matter is still not resolved through mediation with the department chair, a three member committee shall be appointed by the chair to handle the final appeal. This committee shall be made up of three full-time tenured or tenure track faculty members, two or whom should be from outside the department in which the appeal was initiated, and may be a regular standing committee or a committee specially convened as circumstances warrant. A written appeal, including supporting documentation, must be made by the student to this committee. This appeal should be received in the departmental office no more than two weeks following the department chair's recommendation. It is requested that the committee then investigate the matter and render a decision within one month. This committee may reject the student's appeal, ask the faculty member to change the grade to an appropriate level, or, as a last resort, change the grade themselves. The decision of the faculty appeal committee constitutes the final level of university appeal open to the student.
Under no circumstances may a grade appeal be initiated more than one year after the
grade has been issued.
Approved by Faculty Senate, Bill 00-A-01 - February 16, 2000 Approved by Board of Regents - March 24, 2000
Approved by Faculty Senate Bill 13-A-02 January 30, 2013, Reviewed by President April 5, 2013, Posted for 15 Day Review April 11, 2013
Faculty Senate Bill 13-A-03 begins here.
Undergraduate students who have received a grade below an ‘A' in a course may repeat
the course, provided they have not completed a course for which the repeated course
is a prerequisite. Individual academic units and programs may set more stringent conditions
and restrictions than these on the repeating of courses, so long as the conditions
and restrictions are clearly communicated to students in advance. Thus, students should
visit with an academic adviser to determine whether re-enrollment is advisable, since
certain department or divisional policies may be important in this regard. Furthermore,
students should be aware that repeating a course may have an impact on financial aid,
insurance, veterans benefits, entrance to professional schools, participation in athletics,
immigration status, and other academic and non-academic matters.
Approved by Faculty Senate Bill 13-A-03 January 30, 2013, Reviewed by President April 5, 2013, Approved by Board of Regents April 11, 2013
Faculty Senate Bill 13-A-04 begins here
When a course is repeated, the first grade remains on the student's permanent record, but the latter grade is used in computing grade points and hours accumulated. In the calculation of honors at graduation, all course grades are to be considered by the Registrar.
Approved by Faculty Senate Bill 13-A-04 January 30, 2013, Reviewed by President April 5, 2013, Posted for 15 Day Review April 11, 2013
Faculty Senate Bill 12-A-8 begins here
Student evaluation of instruction at Southeast Missouri State University shall be conducted for four distinct purposes:
In recognition of the strong teaching mission of Southeast Missouri State University, formal faculty evaluation processes and incentives shall be implemented and maintained to encourage continuing improvement in instruction and a commitment to quality instruction by all faculty.
Procedures and processes should not only include rigorous peer review and self-evaluation of instructional effectiveness but also systematic, credible student evaluation of instruction.
All faculty shall be evaluated by systematic, anonymous student evaluations in all sections of each course taught. Those faculty teaching the same students in an integrated framework of interconnected courses, such as the College of Education's Block program, may have the option to administer just one evaluation per set of courses.
Faculty Senate Bill 12-A-34 begins here
The course/instructor evaluation instrument(s) used within a department during the semesters when a nationally-normed, university-wide evaluation instrument is not utilized must be approved by a 2/3 vote of the faculty of that department. The instrument(s) should recognize the diversity of subject matter, instructional styles, and student groups across and within disciplines. Faculty may add additional questions to the instrument(s) to ensure that all appropriate data needed for instructional improvement are provided.
The student evaluation is to be administered by the departmental chair or designate. Appropriate procedures will be developed by the Center for Scholarship in Teaching and Learning and/or department chairs to require timely administration and processing of the evaluations and to ensure the integrity of the entire student evaluation process. Instructions for completing the instrument and adequate time for the completion in class will be provided. Students will be informed (a) that the data and written comments on the evaluation form are confidential, (b) that the data will be an important part of the information considered in improving instruction at Southeast Missouri State, and (c) that the instructor will not have access to the data until final grades have been processed. The faculty member will not be present during the evaluation, and the results will not be available until after final grades have been processed.
The Center for Scholarship in Teaching and Learning will assist in the processing of the evaluations. The results will be returned to the faculty member. Evaluations will also be forwarded by the department chair to the dean of the college for all courses in a semester when a summary measure of teaching effectiveness selected by Faculty Senate is below the nationally-normed 20th percentile for at least two courses in the same semester. The dean, in consultation with the department chair and faculty member, may then suggest further classroom evaluation by peers, attendance at instructional development activities provided by the Center for Scholarship in Teaching and Learning, or attendance at other instructional development workshops or programs relevant to the appropriate discipline. It is expressly understood that the department chair and dean of the college will use the results only for encouraging teaching improvement, and not for any other personnel decisions. It is also understood that evaluations with response rates that are too low to be reliable will not be forwarded to the dean of the college. The Center for Scholarship in Teaching and Learning will receive a copy of the results from the nationally-normed instrument and may receive a copy of the department assessment if the faculty member so desires. The results of the evaluation of the department chair will be distributed to the dean and a faculty member designated by the department. Confidentiality among these individuals must be maintained. Any other use of the results requires the approval of the faculty member, except in cases where the aggregate data are used for specific institutional reporting purposes.
As part of its commitment to improving and assuring quality instruction, the University shall provide professional development resources and assistance to improve teaching effectiveness. The Director of the Center for Scholarship in Teaching and Learning will be responsible for coordinating effective mentoring systems, seminars, workshops, instructional materials, and other professional development activities and for ensuring that faculty development is suggested and professional development resources provided to support improvement of instructional quality.
In summary, student evaluation of instruction may be viewed as part of a continuous, formative process of assessment used to measure the effectiveness of classroom instruction by faculty members. This process should culminate in an overall view of the instructional and content effectiveness of the courses being examined.
A nationally normed student rating form will be selected by a method recommended by the Faculty Senate and will be designated for this institution-wide purpose. This student rating form will be administered campus-wide, every spring semester, in every section of every class taught, except where the use of the instrument is deemed invalid by the developer or where an integrated set of courses may best be evaluated by a single administration of the evaluation instrument. The costs of administration of this form shall be borne by the Office of the Provost. The data collected from this administration will be used to compare and contrast Southeast to other universities. The nationally normed instrument will be administered campus-wide during specified semesters as described above. Separate departmental evaluation instruments, if approved by the department as previously described, may be administered during these same semesters if so desired by the department and/or the individual faculty member.
Faculty members may voluntarily choose to report numerical results from the nationally-normed instrument and/or the specific department assessment form(s) for evidence of teaching effectiveness in personnel decisions (such as promotion, tenure, merit pay, termination, etc.). Faculty members may not be compelled to submit student evaluation results for these purposes (see “Prohibited Use” below). Instead, however, faculty members should describe their responses to the numerical results and/or students' written comments. They may describe the content or teaching techniques that contribute to their success or describe changes in content or teaching techniques they have made or will make, or innovations they have made or planned that might enhance teaching effectiveness. They may describe how more recent results reflect a previous change in teaching activities. They can reflect on what the results reveal or confirm. They may explain the assistance they sought from their colleagues, the Center for Scholarship in Teaching and Learning, and/or professional organizations. The narrative thus developed would be reflective and explain how faculty members used the results of student evaluation of instruction to improve teaching. Narratives would be included in the faculty member's record of service as evidence of the implementation and response to student evaluation of instruction. Developing a response to student evaluations rather than merely reporting the summary numbers is more consistent with the formative intent of student evaluations at the individual faculty member level. It would allow faculty to avoid focusing on maximizing numbers, but rather concentrate on explaining their response to the numbers and students' written comments.
When developing recommendations or making decisions on faculty teaching effectiveness, committees and individuals must take into account other activities presented by the faculty member consistent with accomplishment in teaching effectiveness, including but not limited to:
Faculty members may voluntarily choose to report the numerical summary results of student evaluation of instruction with or without a narrative such as that described above. It is, however, improper for individuals or committees to draw inferences about the presence or absence of such data, as explained below. Such individuals or committees should also be aware that, because of the necessity of a transition period to this policy from the preceding one, faculty members could be submitting mixed evidence of teaching effectiveness for a period of several years. This is acceptable, and no adverse inferences may be drawn in such cases.
Because standardized rating instruments and department assessments may not adequately capture the nuances and variations across disciplines or between types of courses within a discipline, the use of the results of these evaluations may not be compelled in any kind of personnel decision (such as promotion, tenure, merit pay, termination, etc.) and may only be used if the individual faculty member wishes them to be so used. Individuals and bodies involved in such personnel decisions are expressly directed not to draw any inferences whatsoever about the absence of these results from any faculty member's dossier. Demonstrating teaching effectiveness, however, is the responsibility of faculty members and may be achieved in a variety of ways, such as those listed in the preceding section. It is important to reiterate that student evaluation of instruction is just a part of the teaching effectiveness. Ratings and written comments from students should be viewed as ongoing components of the overall process of professional growth and teaching improvement. Relying solely on student evaluations to assess the effectiveness of teaching and learning is inappropriate.
Approved by Faculty Senate 3-24-99. Amended Faculty Senate Bill 98-A-05. Amended Faculty Senate Bill 99-A-03.
Faculty Senate Bill 12-A-30 begins here
The University maintains students' educational records in a manner consistent with the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 (Buckley Amendment), Missouri statutes R.S.MO. 610.021(6) and 610.010(4), and the implementation of these acts. These acts are designed to protect the privacy of students and parents regarding access to records and release of such records, and to provide opportunity for a hearing to challenge such records should they be inaccurate, misleading, or inappropriate.
Under the University's Open Meetings and Open Records Policy, adopted by the Board of Regents October 30, 1987, public records are closed to public inspection and copying to the extent that they relate to scholastic probation, expulsion, or graduation of identifiable individuals and personally identifiable student records.
Amended by Faculty Senate Bill 12-A-30 April 11, 2012, Reviewed by President April 23, 2012, Approved by Board of Regents May 12, 2012
Faculty Senate Bill 12-A-31 begins here
The faculty member should be aware of the following areas affected by the Buckley Amendment:
Amended by Faculty Senate Bill 12-A-31, April 11, 2012, Reviewed by President April 23, 2012, Posted for 15 Day Review April 2012
"1976 Agreement on Guidelines for Classroom Copying in Not-for-Profit Educational Institutions with Respect to Books and Periodicals," as adopted by 38 education organizations and the publishing industry
The purpose of the following guidelines is to state the minimum and not the maximum standards of educational fair use under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976. The parties agree that the conditions determining the extent of permissible copying for educational purposes may change in the future, that certain types of copying permitted under these guidelines may not be permissible in the future, and conversely that in the future other types of copying not permitted under these guidelines may be permissible under revised guidelines.
Moreover, the following statement of guidelines is not intended to limit the types of copying permitted under the standards of fair use under judicial decision and which are stated in Section 107 of the act. There may be instances in which copying which does not fall under the guidelines stated below may nonetheless be permitted under the criteria of fair use.
A single copy may be made of any of the following by or for a teacher at his or her individual request for his or her scholarly research or use in teaching or preparation to teach a class:
Multiple copies (not to exceed in any event more than one copy per pupil in a course) may be made by or for the teacher conducting the course for classroom use or discussion provided that
Not withstanding any of the above, the following shall be prohibited:
The objective of the Southeast Bookstore/Textbook Rental Department is to support the educational mission of the University by providing textbooks to the undergraduate students through a cost effective rental system.
The University policy regarding the rental system is that textbooks shall be adopted for a period of two calendar years with a limit of one book per course and with all sections of a course using the same text.
A variance of the limit of one book per course is automatically granted for:
Requests for exceptions from the stated policy shall be decided at the department or School of University Studies level and should be based on academic needs and sound financial principles. The bookstore manager will be available for consultation with the department chairperson when necessary.
In order to protect the financial soundness of Textbook Rental, adoptions will be processed in the following order: first, all requests in compliance with the stated policy, and second, all requests for exceptions to the stated policy in the order in which they were received by Textbook Rental until the limit of budget for new acquisitions is reached.
A report will be compiled and distributed each semester, stating the number of variations
granted by each department. The reports will be distributed to the Administrative
Council and the department chairpersons.
Revised, July 1992 Updated August 15, 1997
The academic internship is a viable extension of the formal academic setting that affords students an opportunity to gain valuable professional experiences and to ensure that these are interfaced with the learning objectives in the student's major area of study. As a learning alternative, the internship provides career-related experiences that build upon and extend the more formal student experiences on campus.
This joint educational venture requires close cooperation between the various campus constituencies involved in the program and the agencies, organizations, or businesses associated with the program. Colleges and departments have specific responsibilities in terms of ensuring quality, academic standards, and consistency of operation. Faculty members assume various roles of supervising students, maintaining relations with professional supervisors, and ensuring effective administration of the program. Students assume responsibility for achieving the appropriate learning outcomes while working under the close supervision of the faculty member and one or more recognized professionals in the work setting.
An academic internship affords the student a unique opportunity to combine formal learning experiences with the professional work setting. Internships are planned experiences that are approved prior to enrollment for credit. Internship programs may be established for between three and fifteen semester hours of credit. As a normal guide, it is expected that for three hours of credit, the student would be employed in a supervised learning experience for at least 120 hours spread over the academic session. While the number of hours provides the basis for a set time frame, the emphasis throughout the internship is on the quality of the planned learning experiences.
To ensure that the internship is a meaningful learning experience requires clarity in process, consistency in standards, and shared responsibilities among various constituencies. To assist in this process, the following guidelines are utilized.
These guidelines are based upon the recommendations as presented in Faculty Senate Bill 78-A-02 Academic Services, 1982