Presentation on theme: "Promotion & Tenure Workshop August 19, 2009. Agenda Tenure and Promotion Eligibility Preparing for Tenure and Promotion Tenure and Promotion Process –Obtaining."— Presentation transcript:
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 everything you have done. Analyze the artifacts that you have collected and determine which make a compelling argument for your tenure and/or promotion.
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 (i.e., This PowerPoint will appear in my Promotion Packet) 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 th Chair adds external reviews and gives packet to Department Committee by Oct 17 th 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.