Past ad hoc committees

expand all

Committee Membership  2023-2024

  • Eugenia Opuda, Library, Chair
  • Ryan Gibson, COLA, Vice Chair
  • Anna Wainwright, COLA, Past Chair
  • David Benedetto, CEPS
  • Serita Frey, COLSA
  • Iago Hale, COLSA
  • Sherri Simmons-Horton, CHHS
  • Clarissa Michalak, CHHS
  • Lauren Haley, PAUL 
  • Noele Lee, PAUL
  • Laurie Shaffer, CPS
  • Molly Tucker, Student Representative 

Non-voting members

  • Kate Ziemer, Senior Vice Provost for Academic Affairs or her delegate
  • Nadine Petty, Chief Diversity Officer

Committee Charges

Approved by the Faculty Senate on November 29, 2021 

Motion # XXV-M23 (to create a new Ad Hoc Committee on a General Education Diversity Requirement) stipulates that the Diversity Requirement ad hoc committee is “to develop the framework, objectives, and student learning outcomes (SLOs) for this requirement.”  

To this end, the Agenda Committee issues the following charges to the new Diversity Requirement ad hoc committee. 

Logistics and Research 

Arrange an initial meeting (with Faculty Senate Chair and/or Vice Chair in attendance). If a committee chair has not already been appointed, the committee will hold an election.  

Collect and review all relevant documents from previous and/or current committees at UNH, including especially documents from the 2019-21 Discovery Review Committee. Contact Kathy Brunet to secure access to these documents.  

Construct a list of existing UNH course offerings that may be relevant. Solicit input from faculty across the university. Since the SLOs for the new requirement are not yet finalized, the committee should initially defer to faculty in deciding which existing courses may be relevant.  

Solicit and review existing SLOs for any relevant courses identified (above). Drafts of SLOs should already be available in some form as an outcome of the recent NECHE accreditation process. They may be included in course syllabi, or they may exist as separate documents on a departmental level.  

Locate and review existing general education diversity requirements at comparable institutions. In reviewing such programs and requirements, focus on their student learning outcomes and overarching objectives, rather than the details of their requirements (number of credits/courses, etc.).

Analysis and Deliberation

The committee's first report to the full Senate should cover 1) the scope of the diversity requirement, including clear guidelines for the range of content, methodologies, and disciplinary approaches anticipated in courses satisfying this requirement and 2) how this range of content, methodologies, and disciplinary approaches would satisfy the principal SLOs of this requirement.   

In order to prepare this report, the committee should consult any additional faculty, students, researchers, or professionals whose expertise may be helpful in focusing the committee’s discussions or addressing questions that may arise. These persons may be employees at UNH or elsewhere, including from other institutions’ programs as identified above.  

The Faculty Senate is committed to shared governance.  Therefore, the work of the committee should involve discussions and coordination with relevant university administrators and staff, including the Chief Diversity Officer, directors of the Beauregard Center, with DEI college committees, the Student Senate, and the Graduate Student Senate.  Seek advice from the Agenda Committee, if necessary, to identify relevant experts who may serve as consultants or guest speakers for the committee.  

In collaboration with the Agenda Committee, consider hosting one or more open-forum sessions where faculty, administration, and staff may discuss the work in progress in developing SLOs. These forums may serve as feedback sessions for the committee to address emerging questions, and may also serve as information sessions to increase transparency around the SLO development process. 

Expected Outcomes

In preparation for a final recommendation to the Senate, an iterative approach is necessary that should include presentations to and discussions with the Senate, and motions to endorse elements of the recommendation in advance of the final recommendation.  

The ad hoc committee will submit a final report on its recommendations and present it to the full Senate for approval. The final report and presentation will include recommendations for the framework, objectives, and student learning outcomes of a new general education diversity requirement.  

This committee will be working concurrently with the ad hoc committee on General Education Review (GERC).  The work of identifying how a diversity requirement will fit into the general education curriculum will be a joint effort.  For example, questions about whether the diversity requirement is a stand-alone course or whether it could overlap with another requirement will need to be considered by both committees and ultimately approved by the Senate.   

Timetable

The committee will present an update on their progress to Senate by the end of the fall 2021 semester, and another update early in the spring 2022 semester.

Membership Parameters

Approved by the Faculty Senate on August 30, 2021 

The Agenda Committee recommends that membership of the General Education Diversity Requirement Ad Hoc Committee include, to the extent possible, the following with due recognition of the overlapping nature of the categories: 

  1. Representation across categories of gender, ethnicity, career stage (junior to senior), and appointment type (lecturer, TT, Clinical), as is feasible.
  2. Faculty from all undergraduate degree-granting colleges, as well as the Library.
  3. Faculty from relevant stakeholder groups, including college DEI working groups.
  4. Faculty or staff with relevant disciplinary and/or professional expertise.
  5. At least one undergraduate student representative.
  6. Adequate representation of Faculty Senators.
  7. Senior Vice Provost for Academic Affairs Kate Ziemer or designee (in a non-voting role) 
  8. Chief Diversity Officer Nadine Petty (in a non-voting role)

Note: The ad hoc committee should consult with any and all constituencies who may be affected or have specialized expertise (e.g., Beauregard Center, Student Affairs, etc.).  

ARCHIVE

Committee Membership  2022-2023

  • David Benedetto, CEPS
  • Casey Golomski, COLA
  • Anna Wainwright, COLA
  • Iago Hale, COLSA
  • Alicia Ingargiola, CHHS
  • Clarissa Michalak, CHHS 
  • Eugenia Opuda, Library, Chair 
  • Lauren Haley, PAUL 
  • Noele Lee, PAUL
  • Ryan Gibson, COLA, Vice-Chair
  • Laurie Shaffer, UNH - Manchester
  • Christian Zepeda-Lipovsky, Student Representative 

Non-voting members

  • Kate Ziemer, Senior Vice Provost for Academic Affairs or her delegate
  • Nadine Petty, Chief Diversity Officer

Committee Membership  2023-2024

  • Co-Chair Kate Ziemer, SVPAA
  • Co Chair Semra Aytur, COLSA
  • Vidya Sundar, CHHS
  • Bruce Pfeiffer, PAUL
  • Adam Boucher, CEPS
  • Xuanmao Chen, COLSA 
  • Kristen Johnson, CPS-Manchester
  • Smita Lahiri, COLA
  • Sharon McCrone, CEPS
  • Catherine Peebles, Hamel Honors and Scholars College
  • Katherine Gaudet, Hamel Honors and Scholars College
  • Noell Bergeron, Student Representative 
  • Cassie Lefleur, Student Representative

Committee Charges

Review current best-practices in Honors education at comparable R-1, public institutions.


Vision, Mission, Values

1. Draft mission, vision, value statement, and overarching educational goals for the Hamel Honors and Scholars College.

  • Articulate the unique identity of Hamel Honors & Scholars College - What distinguishes the Hamel Honors & Scholars College from other Honors colleges, current Honors program, and other programs at UNH
  • Ensure Honors College mission is tied to university mission and strategic priorities. 

2. Draft standards for acceptance/admission into the Hamel Honors & Scholars College. Consider holistic admission (e.g., faculty recommendations vs academic excellence).

3. Consider input from stakeholders, including Honors Program staff and students, Admissions and Enrollment Management, Advancement to understand how the Honors College curriculum may be used to attract and serve high achieving students.

Develop Student Learning Outcomes (SLOs) and curricular framework. Include consideration of:

  • current courses that match the developing (new) SLOs
  • both credit and non-credit requirements to meet flexibility needs of students as well as the need for deep challenges
  • development of high-impact learning experiences specific to honors students
  • alignment with the new general education/Discovery program
  • alignment with the Diversity initiatives. Liaise with Ad Hoc Diversity Committee to identify ways to integrate SLOs developed by Ad Hoc Diversity Committee

Residential component/requirement of University Honors program; liaise with Res Life to explore residential student experience components of the Hamel Honors College. Consider exceptions for our non-residential campuses.

Implementation Plan

  • Develop an organizational structure (including faculty governance) for the Honors College, as it is unique and does not hold the same structure and responsibilities of a discipline-based college (e.g., no Dean, no tenure home). Note that the committee’s recommendation is subject to final approval by Provost, after consideration by Faculty Senate

  • Design roles, appointment, and evaluation process for faculty fellows

  • Develop recommendations for extending educational best practices from Honors to all other undergraduates

  • Consider alignment of University Honors program with requirements for Honors-in-Major (e.g., dual capstone requirement)

  • Work with Deans’ Council for insight on faculty workload implications and to develop equitable processes for faculty development and advancement, and to ensure the needs of all students in all colleges are met. Note that the committee’s recommendation is subject to final approval by Provost, after consideration by Faculty Senate

  • Work with the UNH CFO or designee to understand the short, medium, and long-term financial implications of the Honors College. Develop recommendations that enhance financial viability

  • Develop robust plan for the assessment of curricular framework to meet the values and mission of the Honors College

Timeline

  • Bi-weekly updates to Faculty Senate Agenda Committee throughout the summer and beyond.
  • By August 15th 2023, produce a document of recommended Values, Mission and Learning Outcomes for the Honors College and its curricula, and a draft of the curricular framework and implementation plan
  • Update to Student Affairs committee (or Academic Affairs committee?) biweekly
  • Curricular framework presented to Faculty Senate Agenda Committee by Friday, October 27, 2024
  • Final recommendations for implementation plan submitted to Faculty Senate Agenda Committee by March 1, 2024

Committee Membership (updated 11/5/21)

  • Nicholas Kirsch, CEPS
  • Ellen Fitzpatrick, COLA
  • Tim Montminy, COLSA
  • Semra Aytur, CHHS
  • Neil Niman, Paul College
  • Sarah Prescott, UNH Manchester
  • Wendy Pothier, Library
  • Amanda Lohnes, Undergraduate representative
  • SVPAA, Kate Ziemer or designee in non-voting ex officio role

Charges and Membership Parameters - Approved by the Senate on August 30, 2021

Background 

On April 19, 2021, the Faculty Senate passed Motion  # XXV-M20 to Recommit and Create a New Ad Hoc Committee to Reassess the Discovery Review Committee (DRC) recommendations. This motion instructs the Agenda Committee “to form an ad hoc committee to reassess the DRC recommendations to UNH’s general education curriculum” and to “draft the parameters for committee membership and the specific committee goals and timeline and share these with the Senate for approval.” To this end, Agenda Committee members met with administrators and faculty including Provost Wayne Jones, Senior Vice Provost for Academic Affairs Kate Ziemer, and Discovery Committee Chair Nicoletta Gullace. 

Note that to avoid unnecessary confusion the Agenda Committee recommends that this ad hoc committee be named the General Education Review Committee (GERC).

Recommendations 

The Agenda Committee’s recommendations for the membership parameters, goals, and timeline for the new ad hoc committee are as follows. 

  1. Membership parameters. Membership of the GERC should address all of the following concerns as much as is feasible, with due recognition of the overlapping nature of such categories: 
    • Adequate representation across categories of gender, ethnicity, career stage (junior to senior), and appointment type (lecturer, TT, Clinical)    
    • Representation from across all undergraduate degree-granting colleges, as well as the Library. 
    • Inclusion of persons with relevant disciplinary and/or professional expertise as it relates to the pedagogy of general education.  
    • At least one undergraduate student.   
    • Substantial representation of Faculty Senators. 
    • Inclusion of Senior Vice Provost for Academic Affairs Kate Ziemer or designee in a non-voting ex officio role.

The  committee should consult with any other individuals or departments that they think will be useful.  This includes the co-chairs of the Discovery Review Committee, the Discovery Committee, CEITL, as well as administrators, and departments  who may be affected or have specialized expertise.

2. Goals. The primary goal of the GERC is to reassess the 2021 DRC recommendations to UNH’s general education curriculum. The first step in this process is for the committee to assess whether a modified version of the 2021 DRC proposal should be prepared or whether a new proposal should be developed. The committee will then provide a report and recommendation to the Faculty Senate. The Faculty Senate will conduct a procedural vote on whether to endorse the report and its recommendations.

Any subsequent responsibilities for the GERC will depend on the outcome of the procedural vote on the committee’s initial report and recommendations. Following the vote, the Agenda Committee will draft, in consultation with the GERC, additional charges and membership parameters, and share these with the Senate for approval.

For the duration of its work, the committee should take into account all relevant research, documentation, and feedback previously compiled by the DRC and the Senate Agenda Committee. It should focus on the educational merits and learning outcomes of general education requirements, while making an attempt to forgo discussions of revenue generation or budget concerns.

3. Timeline. The GERC shall make their initial assessment (regarding whether to reintroduce the 2021 DRC proposal or to develop a new proposal) and report to the Senate as soon as possible. As noted above, additional charges and membership.

The GERC submitted it's report/recommendations to the Faculty Senate on Monday, February 7, 2022. 

GERC Final Report

The GERC should consult with the Agenda Committee as often as necessary for guidance and for any assistance in obtaining information or resources to conduct their work.

Faculty Senate Motion to create a new ad hoc committee on a General Education Diversity Requirement 
(approved on May 3, 2021, with 60 in favor, 4 opposed, and no abstentions)

Faculty Senate motion to Recommit and Create a New ad hoc committee to reassess the DRC recommendations 
(approved on April 19, 2021, with 36 in favor, 19 opposed, and 2 abstentions) 

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) on the 02/22/21 version of the DRC Proposal 
(03/04/21) 

Summary of 02/22/21 version of DRC Proposal
(Distributed to the Senate on 02/24/21)

Motion to Endorse DRC Recommendations  (this motion was not approved) 
(presented to the Senate 02/22/21) 
 
PPT slide deck from Nicky Gullace's 02/22/21 presentation 

Agenda Committee Summary of Feedback on DRC Recommendations
(02/01/21)

Summary of DRC Proposal that was presented on December 7, 2020
- Distributed to the Faculty Senate on 12/20  (No longer current.  See 02/23/21 version above)

Presentation of DRC proposal to the Faculty Senate on December 7, 2020 - See Minutes, including slides here 

2020 Discovery Review Committee Final Report and Proposed Modifications 
-Presented to Agenda Committee and Administration in September 2020
-Distributed to Faculty Senate members in November 2020 

Discovery Review Committee Charges 2019-2020

  1. Investigate ways the Discovery Program can become more manageable for students in highly structured pre-Professional majors.
  2. Investigate ways the Discovery Program can develop the flexibility to allow Transfer Students to achieve their degrees in a timely fashion.
  3. Investigate the First Year experience at UNH to achieve academic and community engagement through interdisciplinary Discovery offerings.1)
  4. Investigate ways to encourage High Impact practices (such as Study Abroad and Internships) by aligning the transfer and assessment of credits with the goal of encouraging, rather than deterring, students who wish to take advantage of these enriching opportunities.
  5. Investigate ways Discovery can accommodate qualified students who wish to fulfill distributive requirements in upper-division courses, possibly as part of a Minor or Cognate cluster and/or through a deeper understanding of a content area or category (depth).
  6. Investigate the possibility of incorporating Ethical Attributes (such as Diversity, Civic Education, and Sustainability) that are politically, socially, and culturally inclusive.
  7. Review the concerns about Discovery delivery by colleges and "turf" battles over Discovery courses.
  8. Tasks 1–7 should be carried out in concert with a review of the best practices and successful strategies adopted by other universities, especially our comparators.

Discovery Review Committee Membership

Voting Members

  • Chair - Scott Smith (CHI) COLA
  • Sajay Arthanat (OT) CHHS
  • Kathrine Aydelott – Dimond Library
  • Devkamal Dutta (ADMN) PCBE
  • Art Greenberg (CHEM) CEPS
  • Nicoletta Gullace (HIST) COLA; Discovery Program
  • Jesse Stabile Morrell (ANFS) COLSA
  • Melinda Negron-Gonzales (PS) UNHM
  • Bill Stine (PSYC) COLA

Non-Voting Members

  • Kimberly Babbitt, Assoc Dean, COLSA
  • Andy Colby, Univ. Registrar
  • P.T. Vasudevan, Sr. Vice Provost for Academic Affairs
  • Charles Zercher, Dean, CEPS

(UPDATED 05/27/22)

Formation

This committee is established in response to the 02/22/21 Faculty Senate Motion to form Ad Hoc Committee to Revise Teaching Evaluations 

Reports and Presentations

11/1/2021:  Interim report to the Faculty Senate

3/23/2022: Report and Recommendations on Student Evaluations of Teaching

3/28/2022 Presentation to Faculty Senate

Find more information and to review the recommended guidelines on the use of the Student Experiences of Learning  Survey please click here.

Student Experiences of Learning Survey

Committee Membership

(Committee can consider forming subcommittees as needed to approach the charges)

  1. Co-chair: Senior Vice Provost - Kate Ziemer
  2. Co-chair: Faculty Senate representative - Barbara White (Spring 2022); Robin Hackett (Fall 2021)
  3. Tenure-track Faculty representation from degree-granting colleges
    1. College of Engineering and Physical Science - Maurik Holtrop
    2. College of Health and Human Services - Karen Collins
    3. College of Liberal Arts - David Pillemer
    4. College of Life Sciences and Agriculture - Russ Congalton
    5. Peter T. Paul College of Business and Economics - Michael Kukenberger
    6. UNH Manchester - Michaela Sabin
    7. UNH Franklin Pierce School of Law - Sophie Sparrow
  4. CCLEAR Faculty representation
             a. Lecturer faculty - Lawrence (Larry) Beemer, Smita Lahiri, and Stephen Pimpare
             b. One clinical faculty nominated by the relevant organization
             c.  One research faculty nominated by the relevant organization
  5.  CEITL representative
  6.  Community, Equity and Diversity representative
  7.  NECHE accreditation representative
  8.   Associate Dean / ASAC representative
  9.  Academic technology representative
  10.  Undergraduate student representative - Kylee Rock
  11.  Graduate student representative

Committee Charges

Because of the complexity of this work around student feedback on teaching (purpose, design, and implementation), it is recommended that the committee structure check-in conversations with faculty senate, the faculty union representation, and the UNH contract administrator.  

  1. Provide written guidance defining the role of student surveys of teaching and learning in demonstrating teaching effectiveness for the purpose of annual reviews, renewal, promotion, and tenure decisions. How should student surveys of teaching and learning interact with other methods for evaluating teaching effectiveness (e.g. regular peer review by departmental colleagues, and specially designed departmental evaluation forms)? Consider whether guidance will apply across all faculty types (rank and title, e.g. three-year reviews for associate professors versus five-year reviews for full professors). These guidelines must agree/fit with current union contract guidelines.
    • Present final report and any recommended motions for Senate action.
  2. Design a new tool to replace the current Student Evaluation of Teaching (SET) form.
    • a. Establish what the tool should assess in terms of student feedback on teaching and learning. What specific areas should be measured? What should be the balance of open-ended and closed-ended items? 
    • b. Make recommendations about unique circumstances that might require different evaluation considerations like courses that are co-taught and clinical and internship courses, and classes with smaller enrollments.
    • c. Make recommendations about the best balance between common survey questions and those that might vary by discipline, modality, venue, and program.
    • d. Engage survey design experts (e.g., UNH survey research center) to translate the above into a survey tool.
    • Present final report and any recommended motions for Senate action.
  3. Establish implementation plan.
    • a.  Establish recommendations for how to engage students to increase the value of feedback, including how to reduce impact of bias when responding. 
    • b.  Establish recommendations for when to distribute student surveys in the course of the semester - whether to distribute student surveys once per semester at the end or twice a semester at a mid-point and end, and strategies to increase student response rates in completing surveys. These recommendations must address implementation across the different academic terms (UNH online, Summer, J-term).
    • c.  Establish recommendations to increase student response rate. Is there a certain response rate necessary to include student surveys in an evaluation process?
    • d.  Clearly define the organizational roles and resources needed to support survey implementation.
    • Present final report and any recommended motions for Senate action.

Timeline for Committee

Committee should develop a timeline based on the work required but aim for a Spring 2022 launch of the new tool.  

Resources & Guidance Documents

1.  Academic Program Committee’s guidance document for this work: https://www.unh.edu/sites/default/files/departments/faculty_senate/moti…

2.  The 2107 Report on Teaching Evaluations can be found here:  https://www.unh.edu/sites/default/files/departments/faculty_senate/facu…

3.   Survey items designed for COVID-19 evaluations can be found here:https://www.unh.edu/sites/default/files/departments/faculty_senate/moti…

4.  References on bias in teaching evaluations provided by the Academic Program Committee:

J. Arbuckle and B. D. Williams. Students’ Perceptions of Expressiveness: Age and Gender Effects on Teacher Evaluations. Sex Roles, 49(November):507–516, 2003.

S. K. Bennett. Student perceptions of and expectations for male and female in-structors: Evidence relating to the question of gender bias in teaching evaluation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74(2):170–179, 1982.

S. L. Benton and W. E. Cashin. Student ratings of teaching: A summary of research and literature. IDEA Paper 50, The IDEA Center, 2012.

A. Boring. Gender biases in student evaluations of teachers. Document de travail OFCE 13, OFCE, April 2015a.

A. Boring. Can students evaluate teaching quality objectively? Le blog de l’ofce, OFCE, 2015b.

A. Boring, K. Ottoboni, and P. Stark. Student evaluations of teaching (mostly) do not measure teaching effectiveness. ScienceOpen Research (2016).

M. Braga, M. Paccagnella, and M. Pellizzari. Evaluating students’ evaluations of professors. Economics of Education Review, 41:71–88, 2014.

S. E. Carrell and J. E. West. Does Professor Quality Matter? Evidence from Random Assignment of Students to Professors. Journal of Political Economy, 118(3):409– 432, June 2010. ISSN 0022-3808. doi: 10.1086/653808.

J. A. Centra. Student ratings of instruction and their relationship to student learning. American educational research journal, 14(1):17–24, 1977.

J. A. Centra and N. B. Gaubatz. Is There Gender Bias in Student Evaluations of Teaching? Journal of Higher Education, 71(1):17–33, 2000.

P. B. Elmore and K. A. LaPointe. Effects of teacher sex and student sex on the evaluation of college instructors. Journal of Educational Psychology, 66(3):386– 389, 1974.

Y. Fan, L. J. Shepherd, E. Slavich, D. Waters, M. Stone, R. Abel, et al. (2019) Gender and cultural bias in student evaluations: Why representation matters. PLoS ONE 14(2): e0209749.

C. S. Galbraith, G. B. Merrill, and D. M. Kline. Are student evaluations of teaching effectiveness valid for measuring student learning outcomes in business related classes? a neural network and bayesian analyses. Research in Higher Education, 53(3):353–374, 2012.

P. Gourley and G. Madonia (2020). The impact of tenure on faculty course evaluations, Education Economics, 10.1080/09645292.2020.1852391.

D. S. Hamermesh and A. Parker. Beauty in the classroom: Instructors pulchritude and putative pedagogical productivity. Economics of Education Review, 24(4): 369–376, 2005.

M. C. Hill and K. K. Epps. The impact of physical classroom environment on stu-dent satisfaction and student evaluation of teaching in the university environment. Academy of Educational Leadership Journal, 14(4):65–79, 2010.

H. A. Hornstein. Student evaluations of teaching are an inadequate assessment tool for evaluating faculty performance.

V. E. Johnson. Grade Inflation: A Crisis in College Education. Springer-Verlag, New York, 2003.

S. W. Joye, J. H. Wilson. (2015). Professor age and gender affect student perceptions and grades. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 15(4):126-138.

L. MacNell, A. Driscoll, and A. N. Hunt. What’s in a name: Exposing gender bias in student ratings of teaching. Innovative Higher Education, pages 1–13, 2014.

H. W. Marsh and L. A. Roche. Making Students’ Evaluations of Teaching Effective-ness Effective. American Psychologist, 52(11):1187–1197, 1997.

D. J. Merritt. Bias, the brain, and student evaluations of teaching. St. John’s Law Review, 81(1):235–288, 2008.

P. Miles and D. House. (2015).  The tail wagging the dog; an overdue examination of student teaching evaluations. International Journal of Higher Education, 4(2):116-126.

J. Neyman, D. M. Dabrowska, and T. P. Speed. On the application of probabil-ity theory to agricultural experiments. Essay on principles. Section 9. Statistical Science, 5(4):465–472, 1990.

F. Pesarin and L. Salmaso. Permutation Tests for Complex Data: Theory, Applica-tions and Software. Wiley, New York, 2010.

D. A. M. Peterson, L. A. Biederman, D. Andersen, T. M. Ditonto, and K. Roe (2019). Mitigating gender bias in student evaluations of teaching. PLoS ONE, 14(5):e0216241.

J. S. Pounder. Is student evaluation of teaching worthwhile?: An analytical frame-work for answering the question. Quality Assurance in Education, 15(2):178– 191, 2007. ISSN 0968-4883. doi: 10.1108/09684880710748938.

T. C. Riniolo, K. C. Johnson, T. R. Sherman, and J. A. Misso. Hot or not: do professors perceived as physically attractive receive higher student evaluations? The Journal of general psychology, 133(1):19–35, Jan. 2006. ISSN 0022-1309. doi: 10.3200/GENP.133.1.19-35.

M. Shevlin, P. Banyard, M. Davies, and M. Griffiths. The validity of student evalu-ation of teaching in higher education: love me, love my lectures? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 25(4):397–405, 2000.

P. B. Stark and R. Freishtat. An evaluation of course evaluations. Science Open Research, 2014. doi: 10.14293/S2199-1006.1.-.AOFRQA.v1.

N. Wagner, R. Matthias, and K. Koorvelt. Gender, ethnicity and teaching evaluations: Evidence from mixed teaching teams. Economics of Education Review 54 (2016): 79-94.

Ad hoc Committee on Teaching Evaluation Standards Membership

  • Christopher Bauer, Chemistry, CEPS, chair
  • Marieka Brower-Burg, Anthropology, COLA, Lecturer
  • Karen Collins, Kinesiology, CHHS
  • Susan Endrizzi, Theatre & Dance, COLA
  • Diane Freedman, English, COLA
  • Mary Friedman, Natural Resources & the Environment, COLSA
  • William Knowles, Accounting & Finance, PCBE
  • Adele Marone, Molecular, Cellular, & Biomedical Sciences, COLSA
  • James Ramsay, UNHM
  • Nena Stracuzzi, Sociology, COLA
  •  Undergraduate Student Representative
  •  Graduate Student Representative

2015-2016 Teaching Evaluation Form Implementation Committee (Discharged)

On December 5, 2016, the TEVC fulfilled its charge when Senate Motion #XXI-M4 was passed.

Chair: Alberto Manalo

Teaching Evaluation Form Implementation Committee Membership (2015-2016)

  • Alberto Manalo, Natural Resources & the Environment, COLSA, chair
  • Chris Bauer, Chemistry, CEPS
  • Dan Innis, Marketing, PCBE
  • Bill Ross, Special collections & Archives, Library
  • Paula Salvio, Education, COLA
  • Barbara White, Occupational Therapy, CHHS
  • ____________, UNH-M
  • ____________, School of Law
  • ____________, TSAS, COLSA

On May 2, 2016, this committee fulfilled its charge in a report to the Faculty Senate.  That report is linked in the What's News section.

Chair: Chris Shea

Charge

1. On 9/14/15, The Faculty Senate approved the formation of a committee to undertake the study of the pros and cons of alternatives to the current semester system relevant to the UNH academic mission. This committee, called the Committee on Calendar Options, is charged with the   following:

1) Determine the internal need for more flexibility in the calendar and define problem areas. For example, one department may benefit from the extra time afforded by the summer term, whereas another department with significant summer programming already in place might find little to no benefit. These areas must be identified  department  by  department.

2) Explore and document the options that are currently in practice, including short terms, online terms, master's degree terms, etc. Each of these has a different calendar. Would other departments benefit  from broader  use of existing calendar  options?

3) Evaluate other universities where flexible calendar options are present. Dartmouth is one such place.

4) Report  to the Senate in early April.

Committee on Alternative Academic Calendar Options Membership

  • Christine Shea, Management, PCBE, chair
  • Michelle Capozzoli, Mathematics & Statistics, CEPS
  • Kelly Cullen, Natural Resources & the Environment, COLSA
  • Roger Ford, School of Law
  • Barry Hennessey, Assessment, Library
  • Susan Horne, Decision Sciences, PCBE
  • David Kaye, Theatre & Dance, COLA
  • Sarah Prescott, Biology Program, UNH-Manchester
  • Jovana Milosavljevic, Graduate Student Senate
  • Justin Poisson, Student Senate