Promotion & Tenure Workshop

August 19, 2009

Agenda

• Tenure and Promotion Eligibility • Preparing for Tenure and Promotion • Tenure and Promotion Process –

Obtaining External Reviewers

–

Department T/P Committee

–

Preparing your Packet

–

Process Timetable

• Questions

Tenure Eligibility

• Review generally occurs during sixth year at MWSU.

• Year for tenure review is identified in your contract.

• If you feel there is an error on the year for your review, discuss this with Chair, Dean, and Provost.

Delaying Tenure Review:

• Faculty may request a delay in tenure review due to external demands, such as Serious Illnesses; Pregnancy, Adoption, Foster child care; Substantial Caregiver responsibilities; Military Service, Legal Issues, etc.

• Procedure: submit application, and appropriate documentation to Department Chair  Dean  Provost • Provost makes final decision.

• Delaying Tenure review moves Mid-Tenure and Tenure Review dates back by one year. Expectations for Tenure review do not change.

• Only one Delay is generally permitted.

• Delay cannot be used to postpone an expected difficult or negative tenure review.

Promotion Guidelines:

Instructor



Assistant

• Immediate upon completion of Terminal Degree (PG, p.78) • This promotion does not affect Tenure Track Status.

Promotion Guidelines:

Assistant



Associate

• Application is made at same time as Tenure –

Typically Six Years as Assistant Professor (apply during 6 th year)

–

If given credit toward tenure, you are still eligible for promotion at same time as tenure.

• Tenured faculty can apply for promotion to Associate at any time.

Performance Levels

• Strong teaching effectiveness when compared with other MWSU faculty.

• Continuous, significant growth in scholarship/creative activity • Active, constructive service to benefit students, the institution, the discipline/profession and/or community

Promotion Guidelines:

Associate



Professor

• Application made during Fifth year at the rank of Associate Professor.

• Terminal Degree or Exceptional Service required.

Performance Levels

• High quality teaching when compared with other MWSU faculty.

• Significant professional service to benefit students, the institution, the discipline/profession, and/or the community.

• A pattern of consistent, significant professional growth.

Preparing for Promotion and Tenure

Gather Artifacts: Box, File, or Folder • • Conferences (Program, nametag, etc) Papers (Published copy – not submitted) • • • Committee Work (minutes, outcomes) Lesson Plans / Exams / Projects Evaluations Enter information into Digital Measures.

Preparing for Promotion and Tenure

• Annual Reviews –

Self Evaluation: \ Set annual goals and analyze your progress toward those goals.

–

Chair Evaluation: Department Chair reviews your Self Evaluation and offers his/her assessment of your efforts.

–

Dean / Provost Evaluation: Dean and Provost review Self and Chair Evaluations and offer comments/suggestions.

Preparing for Promotion and Tenure

• Annual Reviews –

Take comments from Chair, Dean, and Provost seriously.

–

Example: If Chair comments that you need improvement in service, work with your chair to find places you can serve.

–

In your next Self Evaluation, discuss what you have done to improve in that area.

–

Do not ignore suggestions for improvement.

Preparing for Promotion and Tenure

• Mid-Tenure Reviews –

Completed in the year indicated in your contract.

–

Initiated by Department Chair. However, if you chair has not started, go see your chair ASAP.

–

Same process as for Tenure Review:

• Obtain External Review (highly recommended) • Submit Packet by October 15 th • Reviewed by Department Committee, Chair, and Dean.

Preparing for Promotion and Tenure

• Mid-Tenure Reviews –

Take comments from your committee, chair and dean seriously.

–

MT Review is to prepare you for the actual tenure review.

–

Tenure Reviewers will want to see evidence that you have addressed issues raised in MT Review.

Promotion and Tenure Review Process

• Obtain External Reviewers • Organize Department Review Committee • Prepare P/T Packet • Process Timetable

External Reviewers

• Chair and candidate confer on 2-3 possible reviewers • Candidate submits to chair a brief disclosure statement, giving any knowledge/relationships to reviewers • Candidate provides chair with packet of scholarly work to submit to reviewer.

• Chair contacts reviewers to solicit confidential review.

• Confidential reviews (at least one) are returned to chair (by Oct 17) and included in packet by Department Chair.

• Confidential reviews are removed from packet by Provost before packets are returned to candidate.

Department Review Committee

• Department Chair appoints committee (with consultation from candidate) • Committee Membership: –

From candidate’s discipline, or allied disciplines

– –

Tenured faculty Committee should be small

• Members review the candidate’s packet and submit their evaluation to candidate and to department chair.

• Where possible, same committee serves for Mid Tenure and Tenure Reviews.

Preparing Your P/T Packet

• One three-ring notebook, not to exceed

TWO INCHES

in thickness.

–

All material should be easily accessible without having to be removed to be read.

–

Tabbed index dividers are encouraged to help evaluators locate documentation

–

Plastic page protectors are not required.

• A second notebook containing ALL student evaluations received during the review period, or for the most recent five years.

Organization of the Packet

• Table of Contents • Introductory Narrative • Curriculum Vita • Annual Evaluations (Self, Chair, Dean) • Mid-Tenure Evaluation • Artifacts: 1. Teaching 2. Service 3. Scholarship

Narrative

– – – –

Explain to reviewers why you are qualified for tenure and/or promotion.

Include qualitative and quantitative comparisons which demonstrate your performance in relation to other departmental and institutional faculty.

Analyze, explain, and contextualize data presented in terms of teaching, scholarly/ creative activity, and service.

Reference specific documentation as evidence in your narrative.

Artifact Sections

• Sections for Teaching, Service, and Scholarship –

Narrative at the beginning of each section presenting your analysis of the included documentation. Why and how is the documentation significant?

–

Artifacts. well organized, referenced artifacts

• It is not necessary to include and/or promotion.

everything

you have done. Analyze the artifacts that you have collected and determine which make a compelling argument for your tenure

Evidence of Teaching Quality

• Narrative explaining and synthesizing the artifacts supporting the candidates teaching effectiveness.

–

Syllabi, teaching resource guides, web materials, posted notes, and other teaching materials

–

Creative, challenging, and competent student learning evaluation measures such as examinations, quizzes, writing assignments, and other assignments appropriate for the subject matter

–

Copies of graded material that shows appropriate rigor and engagement in the assessment of student work

–

New course preparation or course component, special pedagogical practices, and/or special tutorial/ individualized work

–

Curriculum development

Evidence of Teaching Quality

(continued)

– – – –

Records of advising, and/or counseling Peer evaluations from colleagues Letters of support from students Evidence of student learning opportunities beyond the classroom that are relevant to the discipline such as a film program, a class trip, a campus event, or some similar co-curricular opportunity

–

Documentation showing participation in campus initiatives related to teaching such as learning communities, honors programs, and applied learning

–

Documentation showing respect for students.

Evaluation of Service

• Narrative describing and synthesizing the artifacts supporting the candidates service.

• Service is typically from a variety of the following areas: – – – –

Service to Students Service to Institution Discipline/Profession Community

Evidence of Service to Students

• Examples of student projects not associated with the faculty member’s assigned workload • Notes, slides, and or programs for out-of class seminars to students on academic and student affairs topics • Documentation of academic advising (including number of advisees) and mentoring activities such as sponsorship of independent student work.

Evidence of Service to Institution

• Documentation showing leadership provided for a committee or an academic unit, such as reports, memos, and so forth

Packet

) (

i.e., This PowerPoint will appear in my Promotion

• Documentation showing membership on Faculty Senate or active membership on a Faculty Senate, institutional, or departmental committee, such as bills proposed, assignments completed and so forth • Documentation of representation of the institution on a community project or in a partnership project.

Evidence of Service to Discipline

• Documentation of accreditation activities • Documentation of professional journal editorship or serving as a peer reviewer or juror • Documentation of professional conference, panel, or event organization • Documentation showing elected office in a professional society • Documentation showing other work in a professional association

Evidence of Service to Community

• Program from presentations or performances open to the public • Documentation from economic or community development activities • Documentation showing service as a board member for a community non-profit organization • Documentation showing program consultation • Documentation showing work with area literacy groups • Written or video work in non-academic media outlets.

Evidence of Scholarship/Creative Activity

• Narrative that explains and synthesizes the artifacts included in support of scholarship/creative activity • All evidence of scholarship or creative activity must be accompanied by, or show evidence of, peer review.

• Types of Scholarship Activity: –

Scholarship of Discovery

– – –

Scholarship of Integration Scholarship of Application Scholarship of Teaching

Evidence of Scholarship of Discovery

• A published article, monograph, or book that advances understanding (Such artifacts have been reviewed by peers in the publication process) • Original research presented in an academic paper or other academic venue (Such artifacts have been judged by peers in the review process as worthy of public discussion) • Artifacts such as poems, paintings, theatrical productions (or other works of original expression) that have been reviewed in a jury process • A successful grant application for basic research/ scholarly/ creative activity.

Evidence of Scholarship of Integration

• Published article or textbook or a juried presentation that summarizes or synthesizes earlier scholarly work and/or crosses disciplinary boundaries.

• A published book or software review or a review article. • Presentations selected for a scholarly/professional meeting which present a critique or frame a position (paper) in a scholarly/professional debate • Published bibliographies • Artifacts that are published or presented that provide critical analysis of scholarly projects, artistic exhibits or performances, or museum exhibits • Successful grant applications for projects that integrate already existing scholarly resources.

Evidence of Scholarship of Application

• Artistic exhibits or performances, or museum exhibits • Publications or juried presentations that focus on applications or practical problems in the field • Activities to acquire or maintain certification for disciplinary specialties (process should be described) • Consulting (peer reviewed) • Successful grant applications for projects that focus on application problems

Evidence of Scholarship of Teaching

• Publications or juried presentations that focus on issues of pedagogy or any aspect of the instructional mission of the institution • Written studies or reviews (that include a peer review element), which focus on assessment • Successful grant applications for projects that focus on practical problems linked to any dimension of instruction.

What happens to your packet after it is submitted?

• Due to Department Chair by October 15 Committee by Oct 17 th th • Chair adds external reviews and gives packet to Department • Department Committee reviews packet and submits their review to Chair and Candidate by Dec 1 st . • Department Chair reviews packet and submits review to Dean and Candidate by Jan 7 th .

• Dean reviews packet and submits review to Provost and Candidate by Feb 1 st .

• P/T Committee reviews packets and submits review to Provost and Candidate by Apr 4 th • Provost reviews packet and submits review to Candidate by May 5 th • Provost submits recommendation to President and President submits recommendation to Board of Governors for Approval at May meeting.

Responses to Evaluations

• Candidate can submit a written response to each of the evaluations.

• Response must be submitted by 4:30 pm, on the day specified in the evaluation time table.

• Response is submitted to the person who receives the packet after the evaluator.

• Responses are then included in the packet.

Appearance before Promotion & Tenure Subcommittee

• The candidate has the option of appearing before the subcommittee reviewing his or her evaluation package to briefly discuss materials documented in the evaluation package. • Applicants cannot appear before the entire Promotion/Tenure Committee. • No new materials may be introduced. • To exercise this option, the candidate must notify the Promotion/Tenure Committee Chairperson in writing by February 3.

Questions