1. October 10, 2007 The New Appendix J Areas of Performance Section IX Effective 2008-2009 Approved by General Faculty Vote May 2007

2. October 10, 2007 Approved Resolutions Senate Resolutions Appendix J: Effective 2008-2009 The “Guidelines for Completing Template for RTP Criteria and Standards” http://www.humboldt.edu/~acadsen/UFPC/ufpcindex.htm

3. October 10, 2007 Effective 2008-2009, except...... applicable to all RTP candidates, Except...... those faculty who will be evaluated for a positive promotion and/or tenure decision during AY 2008-2009 or AY 2009-2010 may use either the current or the new Appendix J.

4. October 10, 2007 Approved Changes App J: IX.A.1 – Development of Department Criteria and Standards App J: IX.B – Assessment of Areas of Performance for RTP (three areas) Expanded teaching effectiveness Scholarly/Creative Activities – Ernst Boyer’s Scholarship Reconsidered Service – university, profession, community

5. October 10, 2007 Department Approval Department criteria and standards are subject to ratification by a majority of tenured and probationary department faculty members voting. Once approved, the criteria and standards shall be used at all levels of review.

6. October 10, 2007 Ad Hoc Review Committee Departments submit criteria and standards to ad hoc university review committee by December 7, 2007. The Ad Hoc Review Committee: Two tenured/tenure track faculty from each college Three college deans or designees. Beginning in 2008/2009, departmental criteria and standards will be subject to approval by the College/Library Dean, the UFPC, and the Provost.

7. October 10, 2007 If disagreement... The department may request next higher level of review to investigate If at UFPC/Provost level, the request to investigate is submitted to the General Faculty President and the President for consultation and disposition. If the President’s recommendation differs from that of the General Faculty President, the President shall give reasons that are specific to the individual department and sufficient to persuade any reasonable, disinterested person that the General Faculty President’s recommendation should be overruled.

8. October 10, 2007 If no dept standards... For departments without approved standards, the University’s policy on RTP (Appendix J) shall be the basis to evaluate faculty performance.

9. October 10, 2007 Application of Standards A record of teaching excellence, combined with an “Acceptable” level of performance in the two non-teaching areas shall be taken as a strong justification for RTP

10. October 10, 2007 Teaching Excellence (new) It is expected that faculty demonstrate  sound academic advising  effective counseling of students on course- related matters  the ability to work with a diverse student population  availability of the faculty member on a regular basis to assist the academic needs of students

11. October 10, 2007 Scholarship and Service Expectations All faculty are expected to make contributions in the area of scholarly/creative activities and in the area of service in accordance with department standards.

12. October 10, 2007 Scholarship and Service: Each are Valued Both scholarly/creative activities and service shall be valued and/or weighted equally in the RTP process and shall be reflected in the department standards.

13. October 10, 2007 Scholarship and Service Performance Level Expectations Levels of performance are defined/evaluated as: Minimum Essential, Good, and Excellent Minimum Essential shall include evidence of reasonable effort and contribution by the candidate in non-teaching categories Candidates for promotion and/or tenure who do not meet at least Minimum Essential performance in non-teaching categories shall not receive a positive promotion and/or tenure recommendation. Minimum essential performance in one non-teaching category must be balanced with Excellent performance in second non- teaching category.

14. October 10, 2007 What is “Acceptable” Performance ?* Scholarly/creative activities ServiceOutcome Good (or Excellent) Acceptable ExcellentMinimum EssentialAcceptable Minimum EssentialExcellentAcceptable GoodMinimum EssentialUnacceptable Minimum EssentialGoodUnacceptable *in ancillary areas as defined by department criteria/standards

15. October 10, 2007 Assessing Scholarship* Scholarly/creative activity shall be characterized by clear goals adequate preparation appropriate methods significant results effective presentation Collegial/peer review appropriate to the discipline is required and shall be defined in the department criteria and standards *Glassick, C.E., M.T. Huber, & G.I. Meaeroff. Scholarship Assessed.

16. October 10, 2007 Boyer: Scholarship Reconsidered Scholarship of: Discovery Integration Application Teaching Community engagement Boyer, E. Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professorate

17. October 10, 2007 All Scholarship Dimensions? There is no expectation that faculty would have contributions in each of the five dimensions of scholarship.

18. October 10, 2007 DISCOVERY The scholarship of discovery refers to the pursuit of inquiry and investigation in search of new knowledge. It is documented through critically evaluated and professionally recognized activities such as but not limited to: 1. Journal articles 2. Monographs 3. Proceedings 4. Poems 5. Stories 6. Artistic creations 7. Awarded grants and evidence of subsequent work 8. Public performances 9. Published books 10. Professional presentations.

19. October 10, 2007 INTEGRATION The scholarship of integration consists of making connections across disciplines and/or advancing knowledge through synthesis as demonstrated by activities such as but not limited to: 1. Writing textbooks 2. Developing educational media 3. Writing for non-specialists 4. Sponsoring colloquia and forums 5. Shaping a core curriculum 6. Preparing computer software 7. Integration of professional experiences in classrooms 8. Critical review articles 9. Editing books.

20. October 10, 2007 APPLICATION The scholarship of application asks how knowledge can be applied to the social issues of the times in a dynamic process that generates and tests new theory and knowledge. It is documented by using knowledge to address demanding, substantive human problems. It is demonstrated in activities such as but not limited to: 1. Conducting applied research and evaluation 2. Consultation with and/or providing technical assistance for community/organizations 3. Developing new products, practices, clinical procedures, new artistic works, 4. Performing clinical service 5. Promoting experiential learning and professional development.

21. October 10, 2007 TEACHING The scholarship of teaching includes not only transmitting knowledge, but also transforming and extending it through activities such as but not limited to: 1. Designing new courses 2. Writing textbooks 3. Published research in teaching and learning 4. Creation of course software 5. Creation of technology-mediated instruction 6. Shaping a core curriculum 7. Developing innovative pedagogy.

22. October 10, 2007 ENGAGEMENT The scholarship of community engagement connects any of the above dimensions of scholarship to the understanding and solving of pressing societal, environmental, civic, and ethical problems. Community-engaged scholarship involves the faculty member in a mutually beneficial partnership with the community. It can be trans-disciplinary and often integrates some combination of multiple forms of scholarship. For example, service learning can integrate the scholarship of teaching, application, and engagement while community- based participatory research can integrate the scholarship of discovery integration, application and engagement.

23. October 10, 2007 Evolutionary Process Departments may revise criteria and standards however Criteria, policies, and procedures shall remain unchanged during any individual RTP cycle: Criteria and procedures shall be made available to faculty no later than 14 days after the first day of instruction (15.3)

24. October 10, 2007 Discussion Reflect on your department’s progress in formulating its RTP Criteria and Standards... What strategies have worked well? What do you see as most challenging? What is your greatest concern? What questions remain unanswered?

25. October 10, 2007 Feedback/Questions Phyllis Chinn, Chair, University Faculty Personnel Committee Colleen Mullery, AVP Faculty Affairs Tasha J. Souza, Faculty Development Coordinator