rank & tenure review process - benedictine university€¦ · rank & tenure review process...
TRANSCRIPT
RANK & TENURE REVIEW PROCESS
Tenure, Promotion, Advancement within Rank
August 25, 2016
The Faculty Handbook 2
Specific sections from the current Faculty
Handbook, see S:\Academic Affairs\Academic
Affairs Policies - Procedures\Faculty Handbook
Fall 2015 final 8-24-2015.pdf
The Rank & Tenure Committee 3
What is the Rank & Tenure Committee?
University-wide, standing committee
One elected, tenured representative from each
college with regular faculty
Currently: Colleges of Business, Liberal Arts,
Education and Health Services, Science
One elected, non-tenured, at-large
representative
The Rank & Tenure Committee 4
What does the Rank & Tenure Committee
do?
The formal reviews
Third-Year Review
Awarding of Tenure, in cases where candidate
is already at associate professor rank
Promotion to Associate Professor and
Awarding of Tenure
Promotion to Full Professor
Advancement within Rank
The Electronic Application Portfolio 5
Candidate constructs own portfolio
Self-assessment of teaching excellence,
scholarly and professional involvement and
achievement, and University service
The Electronic Application Portfolio 6
Committee File is added
Includes previous recommendations and
letters by Deans, Department
Chairs/Program Directors, Rank & Tenure
Committee, current student evaluation data,
current load forms, and any previous formal
responses by the faculty member under
evaluation for the time period under review
The Rank & Tenure Review Process 7
Recommendations by…
Program Director/Department Chair
Available to candidate for emendation
Available to College Faculty Review Panel, Rank &
Tenure Committee, and Dean
College Faculty Review Panel
Available to candidate for emendation
Available to Rank & Tenure Committee and Dean
Dean
Available to Provost
Rank & Tenure Committee
Available to Provost
The Rank & Tenure Review Process 8
What is the College Faculty Review Panel?
Membership varies, based on College criteria.
See Appendix 1.5.2.10 [p.90 of .pdf] in Faculty
Handbook.
These panels make recommendations on third-
year review, promotion, tenure, and advancement
within rank in regard to those faculty members
who are eligible and make application within
their College.
Electronic Portfolios using D2L 9
Electronic Portfolios Choices: use D2L course
or your own website To create the
D2Lcourse—Hongqin Li, Ph.D., Academic Applications Administrator, [email protected], 630/829-6498
Other help—Cindy McCullagh, Ph.D., Learning Technologies Expert, [email protected]
Electronic Portfolio—D2L Course 10
Sample Template
Be sure link is active
Be sure links are active
Electronic Portfolio—D2L Course
11
How to work with this course? Just like any other course
View content Manage content Manage files
Except for Committee File materials supplied by office of
the Dean of the College
IDEA reports, prior and current Department Chair/Program Director and Dean recommendations, prior Rank & Tenure reviews
Recommendations for Candidate Portfolios
12
Candidate should…
Identify herself/himself, department/program, role
Include a current curriculum vitae or resume
Not assume that reviewers have familiarity with
your discipline; write for a University-wide
audience
Address all criteria under consideration for the
specific type of review
Make the best case possible
Be clear as to the time period under review
Provide evidence—artifacts, including dates as
appropriate, for the time period under review
Where to Find Criteria in the FH 13
Teaching, Scholarly and Professional
Involvement and Achievement, and Service
Third-Year Review, Associate Professor and Tenure,
Professor
2.6.1.1 Teaching Excellence
2.6.1.2 Scholarly and Professional Involvement and
Achievement
2.6.1.2.1 Third-Year Review
2.6.1.2.2 Tenure and Associate Professor
2.6.1.2.3 Professor
2.6.1.3 University Service
2.11 Advancement within Rank
Evaluation Criteria 14
2.6.1.1Teaching Excellence [see details in FH]
The paramount responsibility of each faculty
member is teaching. Since many characteristics
contribute to teaching excellence, documentation
should demonstrate, but not necessarily be limited
to, the following:
Instructional design skills
Instructional delivery skills
Content expertise
Course management skills
Departmental advising
Program development
Evaluation Criteria 15
2.6.1.1Teaching Excellence [continued]
Self-evaluation
Evaluations by Department Chair/Program Director
Peer evaluation
Student evaluations
Review of course syllabi and materials by peers inside or outside the University
Observation of classroom teaching by Department Chair/Program Director and/or peers, as designated by the department chair/program director
Evaluation Criteria 16
2.6.1.2 Scholarly and Professional Involvement
and Achievement [see details in FH]
2.6.1.2.1 Third-Year Review
Include research agenda
Describe progress towards scholarly productivity
2.6.1.2.2 Tenure and Associate Professor
Include research agenda
Describe scholarly productivity
Evaluation Criteria 17
2.6.1.2 Scholarly and Professional Involvement
and Achievement [continued] [see details in FH]
2.6.1.2.3 Professor
Include research agenda
Describe scholarly productivity
In cases where there is insufficient internal expertise,
check 2.12.1.3, External Review of Scholarly/
Professional Development
Evaluation Criteria 18
2.6.1.3 University Service [see details in FH]
Participation in the activities of the university, the student
body, and the wider community is a significant benefit to
the university and has an impact on the quality of the
university. A faculty member is expected to contribute
effective service at some level within the academic
community commensurate with his/her academic stage
at the university. As a faculty member advances through
the ranks, the expectations of their commitment to
service increases and their protracted, extensive service
should form the basis of reward when documented.
Evaluation Criteria 19
2.6.1.3 University Service [continued] [see
details in FH]
Clear evidence of expected service…
Evidence of exemplary, consistent and sustained
service…
University service may be assessed by evidence
generated…
Evaluation Criteria 20
2.11 Advancement within Rank Policies
...Advancement should represent a culmination of
extraordinary efforts or projects that have not been
previously acknowledged by promotion or a prior
Advancement within Rank award. Extraordinary work must
be thoroughly documented and in at least one of the three
areas normally evaluated for promotion: teaching
excellence, scholarly and professional involvement and
achievement, and university service. It is expected that
extraordinary work in any single area is matched with
documented consistent and appropriate performance in the
other two areas. Section 2.6 of the Faculty Handbook states
guidelines for evaluation.
Recommendations for Candidate Portfolios
21
What to include in the application portfolio?
Recommendations for Candidate Portfolios
22
For Teaching Excellence, candidate should…
Include a separate statement of teaching
philosophy—required
Include a narrative, which addresses…
Evaluation(s) from direct classroom observation(s)
by colleagues
IDEA course evaluation scores and comments
Any other course evaluation comments
Mentoring of student research, if related to a
course
Recommendations for Candidate Portfolios
23
For Teaching Excellence, candidate should…
Include a narrative, which includes selected evidence
and appropriate artifacts
Syllabi
Tests/quizzes
Assignments
Grading Rubrics
Evaluations
Direct observations by peers of classroom teaching
Be sure to address the characteristics listed in Section
2.6.1.1, Teaching Excellence
Recommendations for Candidate Portfolios
24
For Scholarly and Professional Involvement and
Achievement, candidate should…
Include research agenda—required
Include a narrative, which describes progress
towards scholarly productivity for third-year review
or which describes scholarly productivity for all other
reviews
Recommendations for Candidate Portfolios
25
Candidate should…
Address any specific Program/Department and/or
College requirements for Scholarly and
Professional Involvement and Achievement
See Appendix 2.6.1.2, College Specific
Requirements for Evaluation of
Scholarly/Professional Development [p.96 of .pdf]
Recommendations for Candidate Portfolios
26
Remember that forthcoming publications
Are considered for third-year reviews and
promotion to associate professor and awarding
of tenure reviews
Are not considered for promotion to professor
or advancement within rank reviews
Recommendations for Candidate Portfolios
27
Candidate should…
Place presentations, publications, exhibitions,
performances, ... in context
Nature of the professional organization (local,
regional, national, international)
Nature of the publication (journal, proceedings,
encyclopedia, online,…) or conference (local,
regional, national, international)
Intended audience for the publication or conference
(practitioners, academics, researchers)
Recommendations for Candidate Portfolios
28
Candidate should…
Discuss the review process
Juried, peer-reviewed, invited?
Double-blind, review by editor?
Provide acceptance rate, if known
Include information from the editor, call for papers,
suggestions for authors, as appropriate [can be a link
to web site]
Discuss the importance of the work in the discipline
Include a copy of the paper(s) and/or
presentation(s) or link(s), if available online
Recommendations for Candidate Portfolios
29
Candidate should…
Include work with students, research not related to
a course
Research projects
Publications
Presentations
Recommendations for Candidate Portfolios
30
For University Service, candidate should include
a narrative, which…
Summarizes your accomplishment(s)
Discusses your service to the
program/department, College, and/or University
Discusses your service in professional
organizations
Recommendations for Candidate Portfolios
31
For University Service, candidate should include
a narrative, which describes… [continued]
Nature of the service
Committee
Taskforce
Special role
How selected—Elected? Appointed?
Time period(s) served
Your contribution
Recommendations for Candidate Portfolios
32
Artifacts to consider for inclusion…
External letters that address the importance of
your contribution to a discipline, journal,
conference, organization, etc.
Internal letters of support that address a specific
and/or valuable contribution to the
Program/Department, College, or University
It is preferable that these letters are from
colleagues not already serving on the candidate’s
College Faculty Review Panel
Recommendations for Candidate Portfolios
33
Artifacts to consider for inclusion…
Correspondence from a student, if it addresses a
specific interaction
If including student work, be sure that it contains
no personally-identifiable information or includes
a release form following FERPA rules
Recommendations for Candidate Portfolios
34
Additional considerations…
If there is work being considered that comes from
prior to joining the faculty at Benedictine University,
teaching, for example
Be sure to clarify this in the self-assessment
Program Director/Department Chair and/or Dean
should also address this
Address any concerns from Rank & Tenure
Committee, College Faculty Review Panel,
Department Chair/Program Director, Dean from
prior reviews
Reminders 35
Do not forget… Current CV
Statement of teaching philosophy
Good organization
Proofread your work
Narrative/self-assessment which addresses all criteria
under consideration for the review
Summary, if your narrative/self-assessment is fairly long
Specific evidence—authentic artifacts for what you say
you do
Appendices for selected syllabi, assignment samples,
manuscript copies, other artifacts, …
Ask a colleague to review your application
Additional Recommendations 36
Questions?
Mentor
Colleagues
Program Director/Department Chair
College Dean
Member of Rank & Tenure Committee [2015-2016]
RANK AND TENURE COMMITTEE
2-year terms, Tenured except for the Non-tenured At-Large, Alternates in parenthesis
Member Until Constituency Elected
L. LOUBRIEL (J. MONTERO) '16 College of Liberal Arts 2014.10.30
A. WILSON (J. NADOLSKI) '16 College of Science 2014.10.30
C. ARNOLD (J. PELECH) '16 College of Educ & Hlth Serv 2014.10.30
(C) B. OZOG (I. LOBO) '17 College of Business 2015.09.23
D. RUBUSH (G. MIRSKY) '17 Non-Tenured At-large 2015.10.09