MINUTES

Faculty Senate Student and Faculty Honors Committee

March 14, 2008

8:00 – 10:00 a.m.

Room 130 Hullihen Hall

 

Members Present: Kirsten Andrews, Mohsen Badiey, Jan Bibik, Michael Gilbert, Linda Gottfredson, Rhonda Hyde, Katharine Kerrane, Zachary Schafer, Ismat Shah, and Jonathan Urick

 

  1. The March 7, 2008 minutes were approved.

 

  1. Excellence Awards

 

    1. Discussion of criteria: One correspondent with the chair asked whether the committee might inadvertently give the teaching award to someone who “gives easy A’s.” Committee members noted that the nominations submitted provide substantial evidence about rigor of instruction. The sentiment was that we need not, should not, and probably could not get grade distributions for candidates.
    2. Selection of recipients: Rhonda asked to be recused from the deliberations on the teaching award for faculty. The committee selected 4 faculty for the faculty teaching award, 2 students for the graduate student teaching award, and 1 faculty for the advising and mentoring award. Linda will notify the Provost, the recipients, and Public Relations.
    3. Should there be a lifetime limit on number of awards received? The committee continued its discussion of previous weeks and decided not to set a limit. If a professor continues to inspire new generations of undergraduates, that professor should be recognized, not excluded because of consistently excellent past performance. As a practical matter, there will not be enough multiple-win faculty to materially affect opportunities for junior faculty to win the award. The committee thought that using good judgment on an individual candidate basis was the best way to approach these issues.
    4. Should there be a lifetime achievement award? This suggestion had also come from a correspondent with the chair. We decided “no.” If we are willing to continue recognizing multiple-winning instructors, then establishing a new award is not worth the effort and headaches it would cause. Should the committee recognize excellence among the professional (not just faculty) academic advisors on campus? Linda had earlier reported numerous queries after putting out the call for nominations; they asked, essentially, “why aren’t some of the best advisors on campus eligible for the Excellence in Advising Award?” She replied to these queries, noting that the committee is tasked, as a body within the Faculty Senate, to administer awards established for faculty and faculty-to-be (graduate students), and that it would not be a level playing field for faculty if they had to compete with fulltime advisers. She also invited suggestions, given our constraints (she got none). However, the perception and dissatisfaction remain, so the committee considered whether it ought to change the criteria for the advising-mentoring award or add others. It decided not to do so, but suggested that the matter be brought to the attention of two bodies outside the Senate: Maxine Colm (VP for personnel, since this is a matter of recognizing staff excellence) and the Student Government Association (which might on its own want to mobilize recognition for excellence in advising). Linda will mention this to Colm.   
    5.  How can we better reach alumni to make nominations? Linda read an email from Lauren Simione, of Public Relations, explaining that Messenger was the primary way to contact Alumni because it mails to all Alumni and issues are sent out each December. This would be a good way to highlight recipients who have won in the past. Linda will also be looking into why some alumni are currently having difficulty submitting nominations via our website.

 

  1. Alison Award
    1. There are four dossiers to be reviewed. Linda will post a link to our website giving the procedures and criteria for the Alison Award (see b below), and will leave copies of the evaluation rubric with the dossiers.
    2. The following webpage has links to the (a) Alison evaluation criteria and (b) rubric for recording evaluations

http://www.udel.edu/teachingawards/secure/Templates.html

    1. Zach now works in Hullihen Hall, so he will look into finding a room for members to review the dossiers (result—they will be kept in Zach’s own office in Rm 109, and members can examine them in David Hollowell’s old office across the hall).
    2. The committee was reminded that this award is more for excellence in scholarship than it is for superb teaching.

 

  1. Next meeting: April 18, 8:00 to 10:00 am.

 

The meeting was adjourned at 9:50 am.

 

Minutes recorded by Kirsten Andrews.