Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Tenure and Promotion Workshop May 20 th, 2014. Agenda – 3 Parts PART ONE (1:00 – 2:00pm):  Review and Discussion of Criteria and Evidence for Professor.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Tenure and Promotion Workshop May 20 th, 2014. Agenda – 3 Parts PART ONE (1:00 – 2:00pm):  Review and Discussion of Criteria and Evidence for Professor."— Presentation transcript:

1 Tenure and Promotion Workshop May 20 th, 2014

2 Agenda – 3 Parts PART ONE (1:00 – 2:00pm):  Review and Discussion of Criteria and Evidence for Professor of Teaching Stream PART TWO (2:00 – 3:00pm):  Welcoming Message – Nancy Langton  Guide to Tenure & Promotion – Deena Rubuliak & Mark Trowell  Senior Appointments Committee – Judith Daniluk PART THREE (3:00 – 4:00pm):  Review and Discussion of Criteria and Evidence for Professoriate Stream 2

3 Professor of Teaching Stream 3 The Professor of Teaching Stream Instructor I Senior Instructor Professor of Teaching

4 The Criteria 4 The Professor of Teaching Stream Service Educational Leadership Teaching Three pillars: teaching, educational leadership and service

5 Professor of Teaching Stream Criteria  Collective Agreement:  Senior Instructor – A  Professor of Teaching – A  SAC Guide:  Appendix 1 5

6 Professor of Teaching Stream  A distinct career track with different expectations than professorial ranks  Requires evidence of excellence in teaching and educational leadership with impact beyond one’s own classroom  Research productivity is not required  Excellence in teaching is not enough 6

7 Professor of Teaching Stream  Discipline and context specific opportunities within each department should be noted re: teaching, educational leadership and service activities  Evidence of external visibility and impact should be framed based on opportunities within units (e.g. access to grant & travel funds; teaching loads; etc.) 7

8 Senior Instructor A  excellence in teaching  demonstrated educational leadership, involvement in curriculum development and innovation, and other teaching and learning initiatives  contributions to service 8

9 Senior Instructor, contd…  “It is expected that Senior Instructors will keep abreast of current developments in their respective disciplines and in the field of teaching and learning” (SAC Guide, p. 49) 9

10 Professor of Teaching A  outstanding achievement in teaching and educational leadership  distinction in the field of teaching and learning  sustained and innovative contributions to curriculum development, course design and other innovations and initiatives  service to academic profession, University and community 10

11 Professor of Teaching, contd…  Demonstrated “educational leadership and impact beyond one’s own classroom, within the University and, as appropriate, externally in the broader academic community”  Demonstrated “impact on student learning and the quality of education at UBC and beyond”  “…scholarly teaching (teaching informed by research/scholarship of teaching and learning) is expected” (SAC Guide p. 48) 11

12 Evidence of Educational Leadership (Appendix 1 of SAC Guide)

13 Examples of Evidence of Educational Leadership  Formal educational leadership responsibilities within the Department and/or Faculty (e.g., on teaching- and learning-related committees)  Contributions to substantive curriculum development/redesign (e.g. accreditation)  Funding obtained for improvement of teaching and learning – new initiatives  Development and/or coordination of courses and programs and/or new assessment models/methods 13

14 Evidence of Educational Leade rship  Application of innovative, research-based approaches to curriculum and pedagogy  Application of scholarship of teaching and learning, including resulting presentations and publications (e.g., articles, abstracts, conference proceedings, poster sessions)  Development and dissemination of instructional materials/pubs. (textbooks, training manuals, software)

15 Evidence of Educational Leadership  Organization and/or participation in conferences or educational events focused on teaching and learning within your program, department, faculty, University and/or outside of UBC  Contributions to university and faculty-based teaching and learning initiatives (e.g., CTLT-based programs and communities of practice; Peer Review of Teaching, etc.)  Contributions to professional training programs (e.g. TA/tutor training)  Mentorship of peers and students 15

16 Evidence of Educational Leadership  Evidence of the ability to work individually and collaboratively to enhance teaching and learning  Evidence of relationships with other learning units or institutions that fosters the exchange and development of information and resources on teaching and learning  Evidence of reflective teaching and learning practices  Evidence of initiatives that advance UBC ability to excel in its teaching and learning mandates 16

17 Referees

18 Letters of Reference 18  All tenure and promotion cases require 4 letters of reference  The candidate provides 4 names, of which 2 must be solicited  The Head then consults with the departmental standing committee on choosing the final list of referees

19 Referees – Professor of Teaching Stream  Senior Instructor/Tenure:  Familiarity with your teaching contributions  Not someone with whom you have co-taught  Outstanding teachers outside your Department  Can be outside UBC, but not required  Professor of Teaching:  At least 2 external to UBC and 2 external to your Department  National vs. International - impact “beyond UBC” 19

20 Questions?

21 Tenure and Promotion Workshop May 20 th, 2014

22 Agenda – Parts 2 AND 3 PART TWO (2:00 to 3:00pm):  Welcoming Message – Nancy Langton  Guide to Tenure & Promotion – Deena Rubuliak & Mark Trowell  Senior Appointments Committee – Judith Daniluk PART THREE (3:00 to 4:00pm):  Review and Discussion of Criteria and Evidence for Professoriate Stream 22

23 Our Objective To provide faculty members with an understanding of the tenure and promotion processes. To support the success of faculty members going forward for tenure and promotion. 23

24 Tenure & Promotion Tenure & Tenure Clocks Promotion Reviews Procedures For Assistance… 24

25 The Tenure Clock The tenure clock begins on July 1 of the calendar year of hire Extensions are granted for maternity & parental leaves (automatic) and sick leaves (on a case by case basis) An individual may only be reviewed one time for tenure All ranks, except Assistant Professor, may be reviewed early for tenure A tenure track Assistant Professor may be reviewed early for promotion to Associate Professor and if granted, tenure will be automatic. 25

26 The Tenure Clock 26

27 The Procedures The reappointment, tenure & promotion procedures are set out in Articles 5 & 9 of Part 4:Conditions of Appointment for Faculty, and are supplemented by the Guide to Reappointment, Tenure and Promotion Procedures at UBC (the “SAC” Guide) 27

28 Periodic Review for Promotion 28

29 Head’s Meeting 29  By June 30, the Head must meet with all tenure track faculty annually.  For tenured faculty, we encourage annual meetings or, at minimum, at least in the 2 years prior to a promotion review.

30 Head’s Meeting 30  It’s an opportunity to clearly note the strengths, deficiencies and opportunities for improvement  It is also important to receive advice re the CV & other relevant material required for the next review.  The Head & candidate must agree in writing on matters discussed.

31 The Initial File 31  Unless otherwise agreed, the faculty member’s dossier and all relevant documentation necessary for review must be submitted by September 15.

32 Eligibility to be Consulted 32  The Head must consult with eligible members of the departmental standing committee on all reappointment, tenure and promotion cases.  Each Academic Unit is required to have documented procedures regarding consultation with the departmental standing committee for all reappointment, tenure and promotion cases.

33 Letters of Reference 33  All tenure and promotion cases require 4 letters of reference.  The candidate provides 4 names, of which 2 must be solicited.  The Head then consults with the departmental standing committee on choosing the final list of referees.

34 What Referees Receive 34  The letter of request is only accompanied by the candidate’s CV and selected materials relevant for the assessment of scholarly achievements.  Teaching dossiers are usually only included for cases involving Senior Instructor & Professor of Teaching.

35 Tenure & Promotion Reviews Department Standing Committee meets after obtaining letters of reference Department Standing Committee votes & recommends to Head Invited to respond in writing to serious concerns 35 Serious concerns? Yes No

36 Tenure & Promotion Reviews Head recommends to Dean Head notifies candidate in writing of decision Invited to respond in writing to Dean 36 Negative? Yes

37 Tenure & Promotion Reviews Dean recommends to President* Dean seeks Faculty Committee vote Dean notifies candidate of decision Invited to respond in writing to President 37 Negative? Yes

38 Supplementing the File 38 The University and the candidate have the right to supplement the file with new info at any stage prior to the President’s decision Use dated supplements to update your file!

39 For Assistance… The Collective Agreement, in particular Articles & 9 of Part 4: Conditions of Appointment for Faculty Guide to Reappointment, Tenure and Promotion Procedures at UBC for 2013/14 Faculty Relations website: Faculty Association website: re.php Call us! 39

40 Senior Appointments Committee Current SAC Chair: Professor Judith Daniluk Incoming Chair: Professor Melanie Jones 40

41 Senior Appointments Committee  20 person committee of professors  Representation from all Faculties (includes 2 UBC-O; 1 Faculty Association)  Two Subcommittees: Associate and Professor (members meet weekly September through June)  SAC reviews all tenure, promotion and new appointment files ( /year) and makes recommendations to the President

42 SAC Terms of Reference Advise the President on the merits of individual cases according to:  Concepts of procedural fairness  Appropriate standards of excellence across and within faculties and disciplines  The Collective Agreement and SAC guidelines  All relevant contextual matters (A 5.14; Section 10 SAC Guide)

43 Examples of Contextual Factors  Maternity or parental leaves  Delays due to set-up requirements for research or any other relevant information which may provide insight into timing issues  Candidate’s personal circumstances, if relevant  Discipline- and context-specific opportunities within each department and faculty Article 5.14e; SAC Guide Section

44 SAC Review Process  Files are reviewed in detail for merits & fairness by the Associate or Professor sub-committee members  Cases may be deferred pending receipt of additional information or procedural clarification  Cases are ranked: ‘A’ – no substantive issues or procedural concerns ‘B’ – negative recommendation by Dean or Head – SAC members have questions for the Dean (approximately ¼ of all cases)

45 SAC Full Committee Review  ‘A’ cases generally approved without substantive discussion by full SAC  ‘B’ cases require full SAC discussion:  Dean joins SAC for discussion of the case  Vote is taken in Dean’s absence  Dean is immediately informed of the result which is considered “confidential” 45

46 Recommendations & Decisions  SAC Chair informs the President of SAC recommendations and votes on each case  Chair provides the President with notes on SAC discussion with the Dean regarding all ‘B’ cases (notes added to candidate’s file)  President makes his recommendation to Board of Governors

47 Important Considerations In Preparing Your Dossier  Documentation of teaching excellence  UBC curriculum vitae  Familiarity with the criteria specific to your rank and promotion  Examples of evidence  External referee selection 47

48 Teaching Excellence

49 Teaching Effectiveness A. 4.02; SAC 4.3  Effectiveness primary criterion, not popularity  Command over subject matter  Familiarity with recent developments  Preparedness & presentation  Accessibility to, and mentorship of, students  Influence on intellectual & scholarly development of students (mentorship)  Willingness to teach range of subject matter and levels

50 Evidence of Teaching Excellence  Teaching awards and nominations beneficial but not essential (one form of evidence)  Student evaluations – quantitative and qualitative  Peer teaching reviews  Student supervision – professional, research, internships, residency, etc.  Multi-section course coordination SAC 3.2 & Appendix 2 50

51 Curricula Vitae Professoriate – Appendix 3 (SAC Guide) Professor of Teaching Stream – Appendix 4 (SAC Guide)

52 Common Problems with CVs  Information (e.g., a paper presentation) is duplicated or repeated in different sections of the CV and publication record  CV is not up to date, is not dated, or is not in UBC format  Lack of clarity regarding the candidate’s role and contributions (pubs, grants, collaborative research and projects)  Full information is not provided on grants (competitive vs. non; status of applications) or publications (year, page numbers, authors, etc.) 52

53 Common Problems with CV’s contd.  Candidate’s role in supervising graduate students, residents or post docs is not clear (primary supervisor; co-supervisor; committee member)  Failure to properly distinguish between peer- reviewed publications and those not peer- reviewed  Failure to include the dollar value of grants or to indicate the proportion allocated to you in case of multiple recipients  Teaching record is incomplete 53

54 Curricula Vitae - Recommendations  Use UBC format; adapt as needed (see annotated versions in SAC Guide – Appendices 3 & 4)  Explain contributions to collaborative grants and initiatives, and co-authored publications  Consider numbering pubs and presentations  Use narrative opportunities to provide context for teaching (8a), educational leadership (9a), scholarly and professional activities (9a), and “additional information (13/14) – be concise “less is more”  Pipeline is important – indicate works/projects in progress

55 Final “Words of Wisdom”  Start early – “hit the ground running” – know what you need to do and be sure to do it (publishing, conference presentations, etc.)  Find a senior mentor  Don’t listen to rumors – go to the source for information (CA & SAC Guide)  Choose your service contributions very carefully  Keep your vitae up to date  Keep track of, & document your successes 55

56 Toot Your Own Horn 56

57 Questions?

58 Part Three: Criteria and Evidence for Professoriate Stream

59 Professoriate Stream 59 The Professoriate Stream Assistant Professor Associate Professor Professor

60 The Criteria 60 The Professoriate Stream Service TeachingResearch

61 Professoriate Stream Criteria  Collective Agreement:  Tenure – A  Assistant Professor – A  Associate Professor – A  Professor (research stream) – A (SAC Guide – Section 3) 61

62 Tenure A  granted to individuals who have maintained a high standard of performance and show promise of continuing to do so  judged principally on performance in both teaching and in scholarly activity  service is important, but cannot compensate for deficiencies in teaching and in scholarly activity 62

63 Assistant Professor A  evidence of ability in teaching and scholarly activity  involved in scholarly activity  is a successful teacher  is capable of providing instruction at the various levels  service to the academic profession, University & community 63

64 Associate Professor A evidence of successful teaching and scholarly activity beyond that expected of an Assistant Professor teaching effectiveness (A. 4.02) sustained and productive scholarly activity ability to direct graduate students willingness to participate, and participation in, the affairs of the Department, University, profession and community 64

65 ProfessorA NOTE: reserved for those whose “contributions are considered outstanding”  meet appropriate standards of excellence in teaching and scholarly activity  high quality in teaching  sustained and productive scholarly activity  have attained distinction in their discipline  have participated significantly in academic and professional affairs 65

66 Sustained Scholarly Contributions – the Professoriate Stream  "Scholarly activity" means:  research of quality and significance  in appropriate fields – distinguished, creative or professional work of a scholarly nature  the dissemination of the results of that scholarly activity (Article 4.03; Section 3 – SAC Guide)

67 Types of Scholarship  “Traditional” Scholarship – A 4.03 & 3.1(i) SAC Guide  Scholarship of Teaching – A. 4.03(a) & 3.1(ii) SAC Guide  Professional Contributions – A.4.03(b) & 3.1(iii) SAC Guide 67

68 Important Considerations In Framing A Professoriate Case  Cases may be framed as “blended”  Professional Contributions or Scholarship of Teaching may constitute all or a portion of the case for scholarly contributions & significance  Must be explicitly stated and considered from the outset, at all levels of the review process  Must be capable of assessment – referee assessment of significance & impact is critical 68

69 Evidence

70 Some Sources of Evidence – Professoriate Stream  Invited presentations/performances (national & international)  Article & grant reviews; editorial board work  Publications in high-impact venues in your field (provide descriptions, impact factors, rejection rates)  Competitive grant funding as PI and co-I  Citations of your work; adoption of your work 70

71 Sources of Evidence, contd.  Referees’ verification of impact  Awards and other forms of Recognition  Discipline-specific norms – venues, grants, publications, authorship, conference participation  Mentoring and publishing with grad students; grad students’ career accomplishments  Service is important, but can’t substitute for excellence in scholarship and teaching 71

72 Referees

73 Referees – Professoriate Stream  Choose well-qualified, arm’s length referees, preferably from universities/programs with stature comparable to UBC  Choose referees who are known leaders/experts in your field  Provide Head with detailed information on referees  National vs. International?? (rank and specialization/expertise)

74 Questions?


Download ppt "Tenure and Promotion Workshop May 20 th, 2014. Agenda – 3 Parts PART ONE (1:00 – 2:00pm):  Review and Discussion of Criteria and Evidence for Professor."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google