Transcript Promotion & Tenure Workshop
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.