Transcript Slide 1

Art Spisak & Mary Lynne Golden, Provost’s Office
Helen Reid & Julie Masterson, CHHS Dean’s Office
May 4, 2010
Date
Item
Responsible
NOW
Select External Reviewers
Applicant
Dept. Head (DH)
Dept. Committee
NOW
Prepare materials for external reviewers
Applicant
July 2
Lists of faculty intending to apply for P/T submitted to Provost
Dean
August
Materials sent to external reviewers
DH
October 8
Dossier submitted to Dept. Head
Applicant
Late SeptEarly Oct.
Ensure external reviews are returned, solicit additional if
necessary;
DH
October 11
Transfer dossier to Dept. Committee
October 29
Check dossier for completeness, consistency
Review and submit recommendation to DH
Dept. T/P Chair
Dept. Committee
November 1-3
Review, respond, sign, return form to Dept.
Applicant
November 19
Check dossier for completeness, consistency
Review and submit recommendation to Applicant
DH
Nov 22-24
Review, respond, sign, return form to Dept.
Applicant
November 24
DH submits dossier to Dean
DH
December
Review and submit recommendation to Provost
Dean
CHHS Committee
January, 2011
Provost schedules meetings with applicants
Provost Office
March 11, 2011
Review portfolio and notify Applicant of approval or nonapproval
Provost
PACTP
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Application Form
Personal Summary
Statement
Current Vita
Yearly Performance
Reviews
External Review Letters
Guidelines at time of hire
Dept. Criteria Matrix:
Applicant
Accomplishments
Teaching Documentation
Research Documentation
Service Documentation
Required Items



Two 3-Ring Binders
Separate with Tabs
First Binder
◦ Items 1-6

Second Binder
◦ Items 7-10
Preparation Logistics
◦
◦
◦
◦
◦
◦
◦
Name
Rank/Year of Appointment
Current Status
Application for Tenure?
Application for Promotion (to….)
Years Credited toward Tenure
Years on Leave from Tenure
Consideration

CHHS Dean’s Office

Each Evaluation Entity
◦ Verifies applicant info
◦
◦
◦
◦
Recommendation for Tenure
Recommendation for Promotion
Initials
Date


Make your case! Strong, convincing….
Faculty Handbook Definitions/Criteria
◦ Promotion to Associate: “sustained record” (FH 3.4.2)
◦ Promotion to Full: “cumulative record” (FH 3.4.3)

Consider your readers
◦ External Reviewers (maximum familiarity with
scholarship, but not teaching, service… provide context)
◦ Dept. Committee and Dept. Head (maximum familiarity)
◦ College Committee and Dean (somewhat familiar)
◦ PACTP and Provost (less familiar)


Comment about interrelatedness of teaching,
research, and service
Comment about increases in contributions to
university and leadership throughout the years at
current rank








Comment about your accomplishments within
context of requirements
Describe your research focus
Work is cohesive, programmatic, makes an
impact
Information about dissemination venues (impact
factors, international audiences, acceptance
rates)
Information about funding
Personal contributions within collaborations
Highlight involvement of students
Comment about future research agenda






Comment about your accomplishments within context of
requirements
Discuss any allocated time for administrative activities
related to teaching (i.e., program coordinator)
Discuss approach to teaching, how it has evolved as a
result of experience and feedback
Discuss innovative teaching methods
◦ Technology
◦ Problem-Based Learning
◦ Service Learning
Describe professional development you’ve completed
related to teaching and its effects on your approach
Discuss evidence of your teaching effectiveness
◦ Pre-Post Measures
◦ Student Evaluations
◦ Peer Reviews



Comment about your accomplishments within
context of requirements
Highlight contributions to various levels
(department, college, university, community,
national/international professional)
Describe any impact of your service activities
on your students, colleagues, community,
professional organization
Criteria
JJM Accomplishments
Materials
Student evals of 2.5
or better; Response
to student feedback
(required)
Table with each summary course evaluation data is
included in Teaching Documentation section. All course
evaluations met departmental requirements and improved
steadily throughout probation period.
Teaching: pp. 2-3
My response to student feedback, including specific
course adjustments, is provided in the Teaching
Documentation section. Examples of changes I made in
response to feedback, as well as course aspects that I did
not change along with the rationale, are included.
Teaching: pp. 4-5
A table summarizing all peer evaluations is included in
Teaching Documentation section. They indicate steady
improvements in the learning environments associated
with my classrooms. My response to peer feedback,
including specific course adjustments, is provided in the
Teaching Documentation section. Examples of changes I
made in response to feedback, as well as course aspects
that I did not change along with the rationale, are
included.
Teaching: pp. 6-8
Peer review of
teaching to document
a positive learning
environment (1 to 2
per year) (required)
Teaching: pp. 9- 18
The complete peer evaluations also are included.
Course syllabi reflect
sufficient depth and
breadth of content
(required)
All course syllabi are included in the Teaching
Documentation section. Sufficient depth is illustrated by
the number of readings/projects associated with each
topic. Sufficient depth is illustrated by the number of
different topics included in each course. Although not
required, an external evaluation of my current syllabi was
conducted by Dr. Big Wig at University of Awesomeness,
and she specifically addressed the depth and breadth of
my course content. Her evaluation is included.
Teaching pp. 19-32
Teaching: p. 33
Criteria
JJM Accomplishments
Materials
3 peerreviewed
articles, 2 of
which are first
authored by
Applicant
(required)
Powell, A. & Masterson, J. (June, 2009). The effects of structured writing intervention for elementary students
with special needs: A systematic review. Evidence-Based Practice Briefs, 3, 59-73.
Masterson, J. (2009). Curriculum-based measurement procedures for writing meet minimal reliability and
validity standards: More complex measures offer promise for secondary students. [Abstract]. Evidence-Based
Communication Assessment and Intervention, 3, 4-7. Abstract of McMaster, K., & Espin, C. (2007). Technical
features of curriculum-based measurement in writing. The Journal of Special Education, 41, 68-84.
Masterson, J., & Apel, K. (2006). Effects of modality on spelling words varying in linguistic demands.
Developmental Neuropsychology, 29(1), 261-277.
Research:
Reprints
pp. 2-60
3 peerreviewed
presentations
(required)
Masterson, J. (2009). Classroom implementation of the multilinguistic model for literacy instruction. Poster
presented at the annual meeting of the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, November, New
Orleans.
Masterson, J., Henbest, V., White, L., & Najim, F. (2009). Behavioral and non-behavioral measures of literacy
development. Poster presented at the annual meeting of the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association,
November, New Orleans.
Masterson, J., & Apel, K. (2009). The spelling sensitivity score: Representing increases in accuracy and
complexity. Poster presented at the annual meeting of the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association,
November, New Orleans.
Research:
Conferenc
e program
excerpts:
pp. 100120
At least 4
additional
articles or
presentations
(required)
Masterson, J. & Basye, S. (September, 2007). Proposed Missouri DESE developmental standards for sound
system disorder: Research base. Technical report for Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary
Research:
Reprints
pp. 61-99
Established
program of
research/Imp
act on Field
(encouraged)
The majority of my publications and presentations are related to literacy and phonology and represent sequential
steps completed as part of my research agenda. Impact on field is evidenced by the number of invited
workshops and national and international collaborative projects. Although not the primary focus on my research,
I co-authored a book on language development for parents. The book has sold over 25,000 copies and resulted
in several radio and newspaper interviews throughout the country.
Research:
Vita by
topic area:
pp. 120140
Grants
(encouraged)
National Institutes of Health. The Developmental Test of Reading Fluency and Spelling. $29,011. In review.
Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. Sound System Disorder Classification
Criteria. Funded $6,755.
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, submitted 2006. A Multiple Factor Model for
Word Level Reading and Spelling. $202,891, Not funded.
Research:
Grant IAF
and
Response
Forms: pp.
Education.
Kamhi, A., Masterson, J., & Apel, K. (Eds). (2007). Clinical decision making in developmental language
disorders. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Company.
Masterson, J., Apel, K., & Wasowicz, J. (2006). Spelling evaluation for language and literacy- 2 (SPELL-2)
[computer software]. Evanston, IL: Learning by Design
Apel, K., Wolter, J., & Masterson, J. (2006) Effects of phonotactic and orthotactic probabilities during fastmapping on five-year-olds’ learning to spell. Developmental Neuropsychology, 29(1), 21-42.
Masterson, J., Davies, L., & Masterson, G. (2006). Coach talk: Linguistic demands in youth sports.
Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 37, 39-49.
Masterson, J., Bernhardt, B., & Hofheinz, M. (2005). A comparison of single word and conversational
speech in phonological evaluation. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 14(3), 229-241.
Criteria
JJM Accomplishments
Materials
Departmental
(required)
Chair, Search Committee, Assistant Professor Line, 2009-2010
Coordinator, Speech-Language-Pathology Program, 2005-2008
CSD Graduate Coordinator, 1999-2005
Coordinated Development of New Courses to Meet 2005 CAA
Accreditation Requirements
Preparation of SLP Academic Portion of CAA Accreditation Report, 2002,
2009
Speech-Language Pathology Curriculum Committee, 1993-present
Service:
pp. 1-10
College/Univ
ersity
(required)
Faculty Handbook Revision Committee, 2007-2009; Chair, 2009-10
Co-Chair, T. Berry Brazelton Presentation, 2006-2007
Chair, Faculty Senate Rules Committee, 2006-2007
Provost Tenure and Promotion Committee, 2006-2008
CHHS College Compensation Committee, 2007-2008
Missouri State University Futures Committee, 2005-2006
Task Force on Research, 2004-2005
Service:
pp. 11-19
Community
State
National
International
(required)
Reviewer for Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in the Schools,
Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, American Journal of SpeechLanguage Pathology, Journal of Medical Speech-Language Pathology,
Topics in Language Disorders, Developmental Science (Great Britain),
2004-present
Item Developer/Reviewer, SLP Praxis Exam, Educational Testing Service,
2009-present
Review Committee, Language Disorders in School-Age Children and
Adolescents, Annual Convention of the American Speech-LanguageHearing Association, 2004-2010
Advisory Board, The Psychological Corporation/Harcourt, 2007-2008
Reviewer, Leadership Development Program, American SpeechLanguage-Hearing Association,
Service: pp.
20-40





Year 5 (2009; Evals completed Sp10)
◦
◦
◦
◦
Department Committee
Department Head
Dean
Your responses (if applicable)
◦
◦
◦
◦
Department Committee
Department Head
Dean
Your responses (if applicable)
◦
◦
◦
◦
Department Committee
Department Head
Dean
Your responses (if applicable)
◦
◦
◦
◦
Department Committee
Department Head
Dean
Your responses (if applicable)
◦
◦
◦
◦
Department Committee
Department Head
Dean
Your responses (if applicable)
Year 4 (2008; Evals completed Sp09)
Year 3 (2007; Evals completed Sp08)
Year 2 (2006; Evals completed F06, Sp07)
Year 1 (2005; Evals completed Sp06)

Selection

Applicant provides

DH provides
◦ Solicit 4; 3 Required
◦ From peer or higher-level
institutions
◦ Must hold rank for which
you are applying or higher
◦ Not personal friend,
research collaborator, etc.
◦ Asked to evaluation
scholarship
◦ Personal statement
◦ Vita
◦ Examples of scholarship from
each year in evaluation period
◦ Department criteria
◦ Info re Applicant’s teaching
assignment/workload









Begin with a Table of Contents
Place materials in order specified in matrix
Student & Peer Evaluations
Syllabi and Description of Depth/Breadth (or whatever
dept. criteria are)
Professional Development Certificates
Description of how teaching evolved as a result of
feedback or professional development activities
Artifacts such as screen shots, project descriptions,
service learning assignments, etc.
Data regarding teaching effectiveness (outcomes,
pre-post graphs, etc.)
Description of reassigned time for administrative
activities related to teaching (e.g., program
coordinator) and evaluations of effectiveness in that
role
This table contains my student
evals over the past 5 years.
The undergraduate evals
started within expected levels;
however, they were relatively
low. Student feedback
indicated a lack of clarity in
lectures, excessive
assignments that were not
apparently related to lecture
material, and unreasonable
demands on exams. Despite
the student comments about
excessive assignments and
demanding exams, I did not
want to decrease the course
requirements or my
expectations because I felt the
content was appropriate for a
200 or 300 level course, and
future graduate courses would
be based on assumptions that
the content had been covered
in undergrad courses.
Consequently, during the next
few years, I posted PPT slides
in order to facilitate lecture
clarity, I reorganized my
syllabi so that each assignment
was specifically tied to the
lecture topics, and I scheduled
outside exam prep sections.







Begin with a Table of Contents
Place materials in order specified in matrix
Reprints of all publications
Documentation of presentations (scans of
programs, acceptance letters, etc.)
Documentation of invitations for invited
lectures, workshops, collaborations
Pubs/presentations grouped by topic,
illustrating sequential agenda
Covers from grant applications and agency
responses



Begin with a Table of Contents
Place materials in order specified in matrix
Artifacts from Departmental Service
◦ Minutes, Event Announcements/Brochures

Artifacts from College/University Service
◦
◦
◦
◦

College Council Roster
University Committee Rosters
Event Announcement/Brochures
Thank you notes
Artifacts from Community/National/International Service
◦ Journal covers (editor/reviewer rosters)
◦ Committee rosters
◦ Thank you notes

If applicable, extra information regarding relationship
between service and teaching/research expertise (in
addition to what is in Personal Statement)







Proof, proof, have someone else proof
Make sure documentation is consistent
(chart=vita = personal statement =
documentation)
Follow organizational framework
Self-evaluate
Provide only pertinent documentation, organized
in a cohesive manner
Minimize “exploration” by evaluators
Dossier with errors may be returned by Dept.
Committee, Dept. Head, or Dean’s Office… try to
prevent that!
June, 2010
Details forthcoming