Development of OTA Honor Society

Conference Call Meeting Notes

August 20, 2009

4:00 – 5:00 PM EST

Moderators:

  1. Jessica Halterman, AOTF PTE Coordinator
  2. Melissa Oliver, PTE President

Participants Present:

  1. Rebecca Bahnke
  2. Teri Black
  3. Chuck Christiansen
  4. Jeanne Cooper
  5. Diane Sauter Davis
  6. Mary Ellen East
  7. Peggy Gettemeier
  8. Tommianne Haithcock
  9. Jessica Halterman
  10. Ada Boone Hoerl
  11. Claudia Miller
  12. Melissa Oliver
  13. Linda Orr

OTA Honor Society Blog -

Jessica encouraged everyone to continue using the blog to post ideas and updating the group on developments. Jessica will send another email invitation to all those interested in working toward developing an OTA Honor Society. Notes to meetings will be posted on the blog. Chuck has opened the blog to all Program Director’s in an effort to obtain as much feedback and participation as possible.

Structure Committee Report

Spokesperson: Diane Sauter Davis.

Members include: Rebecca, Tommianne, Peggy.

The committee held 2 conference calls. Much of the discussion centered on defining “structure.” The committee noted the differences between community college programs and 4/5 year programs. Community college programs tend to be quite lean and small with only two faculty (including advisor). The committee wanted to honor the differences between the two types of programs.

The committee noted that their discussions wandered over into the other areas of Standards and Operations due to their overlapping nature– they are looking forward to hearing the ideas and works from the other committees.

Some consideration was given to:

  1. Demographics
  2. Geography
  3. Size of Faculty
  4. Number of potential honor students available
  5. Diversity
  6. Non-traditional students
  7. Number of colleges in area

A physical structure of an open triangle came to mind with National being at the top; on the left, “Individual Institution Model” – this could be its own chapter with membership consisting of five (5) people plus (this would allow for officers). On the right side of the triangle “Partnering Model” – other institutions from the: region, local area, nationwide (depending how advisors want to align with the other institutions based on criteria to be identified) – virtual chapter. Interactions could take place via: blogging, emailing, and FACEBOOK.

Standards Committee Report

Spokesperson: Claudia Miller

Members include: Claudia, Linda, Teri, Ada and (Michelle not on call)

The committee communicated via email and the blog. The committee looked at four (4) basic criteria:

  1. GPA – Minimum 3.5 – 3.7. The minimum GPA should encompass a small number of students and convey their academic achievement.
  2. Service Component – Service is a strong component in the community college environment. Need to identify how students can go above and beyond their academic requirements:
  • Serving as an officer to an organization;
  • Serving outside the college;
  • Organizational representative or national/state association representative; serving on a committee;
  • Serving a state/city community health organization.
  1. Eligibility – When would a student be eligible to join? They could be eligible after completing one semester in the OT program.
  2. Recommendation Letter – A letter of recommendation could be submitted by faculty and/or a clinician within the community (the student should have some interaction with this person – i.e., served on a committee together).

There was some discussion on doing a survey to determine what the minimum GPA is for other honor societies – is it the top 5%? Jessica concurred that through her involvement with ACHS (association of honor societies) she has knowledge that the typical minimum GPA is set at the top 5% of students.

Peggy commented that the GPA should reflect on the OTA courses of the student and agreed that the student should have completed one full semester.

Rebecca indicated that one topic their committee discussed was when is the END point to join the honor society? They reviewed PTE’s criteria which indicated the latest possible point to join is one semester remaining prior to a student’s Fieldwork.

Questions came up regarding whether the OTA honor society will be based on a distinction model or chapter model. Jessica shared that based on the chapter model, students could work toward a goal to maintain their chapter – utilizing the service and leadership components.

Ada commented that she reviewed many different bylaws and saw some organizations had collegiate and professional member types. Criteria for eligibility will need to be defined. Jessica indicated that for PTE, once a student is inducted, they are always a member whether they actively participating or not. Students value participation while in school but once they have graduated, participation declines.

Why should a student join? What are the benefits? There is a current trend where people are not joining organizations. We will need to be creative as we develop the OTA honor society – we can no longer use old models.

Melissa suggested offering an “Honorary Membership” category.

Diane indicated that a segment of the students are focused on their GPA. Students who attend community college are typically the first person in their family to attend college and their primary focus is the GPA. How will we include these students who may not have a strong “service” component?

Someone offered that the criteria should be the best global fit and unique situations will be dealt with as they occur.

Service component will need to be defined – eligibility to become a member or for sustaining a chapter? Claudia expressed that service should not be tied to a student’s grading requirements. Linda concurred and indicated it should also be separate from Club Activity.

An honor society should be more scholarly.

Jessica stated the service component is articulated in PTE’s bylaws in a more general sense – it is left up to the individual chapters to interpret what works best in their chapter culture.

A question was posed to the group: would you allow projects tied to a student’s grades reflect in their service area? One person conveyed that the GPA is the place to start. Claudia thought it should be more of a combination: use percentages for each criteria.

Melissa offered an applicant should be required to submit a personal statement indicating why they want to join; how they will contribute to the chapter; and how they will contribute to the profession. Students could be offered guided questions to help answer those questions.

Rebecca – “scholarly” activity will need to be defined for OTA students.

Operational Committee Report

Mary Ellen East joined the call late and represented this committee. Unfortunately, the committee has not yet met.

Jessica asked for volunteers to:

  1. Develop and post questions on survey monkey to obtain a wider view from program directors across the board.
  2. Submit potential member benefits.

Ada offered to take what she’s already posted on the blog and tweak it based on this afternoon’s discussions.

The Program Director’s Meeting will be taking place in Baltimore, Maryland October 9 – 10, 2009. Linda Orr will work with AOTA to schedule Chuck and an OTA representative to make a presentation on Friday, October 9th. Once feedback is received from this presentation and meeting, we will be able to further fine tune the details and framework.

Action Items

  1. Jessica will post the notes from this meeting on the blog by Monday, August 24th;
  2. Jessica will re-send email invitations to join the OTA Honor Society blog;
  3. Each committee will forward three to four questions (and suggested member benefits) to Jessica to post onto the blog.
  4. Linda Orr will work with AOTA to schedule Chuck and an OTA representative to make a presentation on Friday, October 9th during the Program Director’s meeting.

Next Conference Call Date:

Tentatively scheduled for Thursday, September 17th from 4:00 – 5:00 PM EST.

JH:jyc

08.21.09

Page 1 of 4