Promotion & Tenure Workshop

1. Promotion & Tenure Workshop September 5 & 6, 2007

2. Agenda • Eligibility for Tenure Review • Eligibility for Promotion to Associate Professor • Eligibility for Promotion to Professor • Review Process • Creating your Review Packet • Areas Evaluated – Artifacts to include in packet • Timetable • Questions

3. Eligibility to Apply for Tenure • When can I apply for tenure? • Hires after July 1, 2005 – Review will occur during 6th year of Tenure-track status • Hires before July 1, 2005- Review will occur in the year designated in your contract. • Can I delay tenure review? • Serious Illness, Pregnancy, Caregiver, etc • Submit application: chair  dean  provost • Typically delays tenure one year. • Cannot delay a negative review. • “Degree status is not a tenure criterion unless contractually stipulated.” PG, p72.

4. Eligibility to Apply for Promotion to Associate Professor Must teach full time as Assistant Professor at MWSU for at least: • six years*, if you hold the appropriate terminal degree or “have made exceptional contributions to the university or the profession” • ten years, if you have MA+30 status • fourteen years, otherwise. PG, p.75 * 5 yrs, if hired before July 1, 2005 and have earned tenure or are applying for tenure at the same time.

5. Performance Levels for Promotion to Associate Professor • 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

6. Eligibility to Apply for Promotion to Professor • A minimum of 5 years full time experience as Associate Professor at MWSU (application made during 5th year). • Absence without pay does not count toward minimum time • Sabbatical Leave or reassigned time does count toward 5 years experience. • Must hold appropriate terminal degree in the discipline of faculty appointment • Under exceptional cases, a candidate may be considered without the terminal degree.

7. Performance Levels for Promotion to Professor • 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.

8. The Review Process • Annual Reviews • Self Evaluation • Chair Evaluation • Dean / Provost Evaluation • Mid Term Tenure Review • Tenure/Promotion • Packet Creation (self-review) • External Reviewer • Department Committee • Department Chair • Dean • Faculty Senate Promotion and Tenure Committee • Provost

9. Mid Term Review • Occurs in the 3rd year (or at midpoint) of probationary period. • Department Chair is responsible for initiating review • Same procedure as Tenure review • Packet Creation (self evaluation) • Department Committee • Department Chair • Dean • Review should document candidates strengths as well as areas in which additional work should be focused in subsequent years • Review documentation should appear on candidates annual evaluation form, or as attachment. • Opting Out of Mid Term Review

10. External Review • Chair and candidate confer on 2-3 peers to perform review • Candidate submits brief disclosure statement to chair, giving any knowledge/relationships to proposed 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 dept. chair. • Confidential reviews are removed from packet by Provost before packets are returned to candidate.

11. Department Committee Review • 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 Term Review and Tenure Review.

12. The Evaluation 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 rating period, or for the most recent five years.

13. Organization of the Packet • Table of Contents • Narrative • Explain to reviewers what you have done to qualify 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. • Documentation • Well organized, referenced artifacts supporting narrative.

14. Required Documentation • From Each Year of Evaluation Period: • Annual Faculty Self-evaluation Forms • Annual Faculty Evaluation Form • Chairperson Annual Evaluation Forms • Mid Term Evaluation • Statement authorizing release of materials from the candidate’s personnel faculty file in the office of the Provost/Vice-President for Academic and Student Affairs for use by appropriate committee members. • All Student Evaluation Forms from every year of evaluation period.

15. A narrative explaining the instructor’s development as a teacher and his or her application of pedagogical theory 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

16. 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. Evidence of Teaching Quality (continued)

17. Evidence 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

18. 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.

19. 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.

20. 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

21. 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.

22. Evaluation of Service • Service is typically from a variety of the following areas: • Service to Students • Service to Institution • Discipline/Profession • Community

23. 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.

24. 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 may 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.

25. 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

26. 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.

27. Review Process Time Table ASAP – Chair requests confidential external reviews Due: 10/17 Oct 15 – Candidate submit packet to Department Chair Oct 17 – Chair submits packet to Department Committee Dec 1 – Department Committee returns packet to Chair and delivers recommendation to candidate. Jan 7 – Department Chair submits packet to Dean and delivers recommendation to candidate. Feb 1 – Dean submits packet to Provost and delivers recommendation to candidate. Feb 3 – Provost submits packet to P & T Committee Apr 4 – P & T Committee returns packet to Provost and delivers recommendation to candidate. May 5 – Provost submits packet to President and delivers recommendation to candidate. May – President submits recommendation to Board of Governors.

28. Responses to Evaluations • Candidate can submit a written response to each of the evaluations. • Response must be submitted by 4:30 pm, on the 3rd working day after the candidate receives the evaluation, or the deadline (whichever is later). • Response is submitted to the person who receives the packet after the evaluator.

29. 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 will not have the option of appearing 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.

30. Questions?