1 / 39

The Promotion Evaluation Process: What, When, How, By Who.. Joel G Burken and Dee Montgomery

The Promotion Evaluation Process: What, When, How, By Who.. Joel G Burken and Dee Montgomery 8 May 2013. Basic University Policies and Insights/Advice for Success Joel Burken, Associate Chair of Civil, Architectural, and Environment Engineering and

moke
Download Presentation

The Promotion Evaluation Process: What, When, How, By Who.. Joel G Burken and Dee Montgomery

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The Promotion Evaluation Process: What, When, How, By Who.. Joel G Burken and Dee Montgomery 8 May 2013

  2. Basic University Policies and Insights/Advice for Success Joel Burken, Associate Chair of Civil, Architectural, and Environment Engineering and Director of the Center for Environmental Engineering

  3. CRR Policy Excerpts • 310.020 – Tenure: The probationary period is to allow reasonable time for faculty members to establish their academic performance … to evaluate performance and future performance… • 320.035 – Promotion and Tenure: • The University seeks faculty members who are genuinely creative scholars and inspired teachers and who are dedicated to the pursuit of knowledge and its transmission to others. • Outstanding intellectual qualities as reflected in teaching and scholarship are the primary criteria… • Additional criteria include professionally-oriented service contributions, and service to a faculty member’s department, school, college and univ. • In unusual circumstances, tenure may be recommended for demonstrated excellence in teaching, even in the absence of significant published research. • … service shall not substitute for teaching and scholarship • Sustained contributions essential

  4. CRR 320.025 – Promotion and Tenure • The University will continue to strengthen its standards in all disciplines. While specific criteria for judging the merits of individual faculty may vary among units, there must be no variation in standards. • Candidates for promotion and tenure should demonstrate sustained merit and contributions over an extended period of time. • The University expects faculty members to be engaged in scholarly or creative activities appropriate to their disciplines. • Metrics: • Publications in journals, favorable reviews of books, appointments or awards that require evaluation of professional competence, receipt of fellowships • Frequent citation by other scholars, service in editorial positions and other evaluative functions (panels) • Research grants awarded, programs initiated

  5. S&T II-10 Policy Excerpts • General guidelines and not rigid rules • For promotion to Associate Professor (TT to T) • Possess the enthusiasm and capacity to motivate students • Have demonstrated the capacity for independent creative thinking • Be recognized by colleagues and peers as making significant contributions to departmental and institutional goals • Participate as a respected colleague in deliberations concerning the department and the University • Recognized in the field through external evaluation by peers

  6. Expectations: Where They Come From* • UM System • CRR 310.020: Regulations Governing Application of Tenure • CRR 320.035: Policy and Procedures for Promotion and Tenure • Campus • II-10: Qualifications for Professorial Ranks • Self-Imposed • Standard for effort as well as level of success and contributions expected of yourself • Career goals (Associate Professor, Professor, endowed professor, named chair, administrative position…) • Fellow status and awards (sought) • Others * This information used in Freshman Faculty Forum presentation.

  7. Those are the most important benchmarks in career… • Notice the standards and benchmarks ... Me Neither. • What are the expectations?

  8. Main Components Evaluated • Teaching (NTT assistant teaching prof and TT) • Scholarship (NTT assist research prof and TT) • Service

  9. Balance Scholarship Research Service Teaching

  10. Balance: Reality for TT • Maximize synergyand effort to be productive in demonstratingscholarly output and preparingfor a productive and sustained career Research Service Teaching

  11. P&T Process • ONE decision… rest are recommendations • Dossier preparation • External Reviewers’ Letters • Department Committee • Chair’s Recommendation • Area Subcommittee • Campus Committee • Provost • Chancellor... Decision.

  12. Campus P/T Process: Comments • All members on area and campus committees: • Reminded of governing policies and criteria at beginning of each year’s process. • Have historically referred to policies in making their recommendations. • Have some bias toward expectations of their department/field; but respect and understand differences.

  13. Mentoring (during and after FFF): Setting Benchmarks and expectations • Most departments mentor new faculty • Talk to your chair • Develop relationships with senior colleagues • Look for folks you can go to for advice, in and out of department • If not “assigned” a mentor(s), contact me.. others • Other mentoring opportunities • Annual review meeting with chair and provided written summary • VPAA sessions with small groups of faculty • Meet with department P/T committee or member(s) of committee (formalized in several departments)

  14. Data Sources/Benchmarks for Progress • Annual review (T/TT and NTT) • Thorough discussion with chair regarding contributions during previous year, opportunities for improvement, areas of concern • Feedback from senior colleagues • Department P/T committee involvement (best practice) • Third year review (tenure track) • Focused feedback from counseling team (chair, VPAA, three P/T representatives) regarding progress and any areas of concern

  15. Data Sources/Benchmarks for Progress • Office of Sponsored Programs • Data available on research productivity as measured through proposals and grants. • Publications record • Scopus, Scholar citations index - H Index = x paper cited x times • Impact factor of journals • http://www.scopus.com/home.url; http://scholar.google.com/ • Teaching effectiveness • CET (Committee for Effective Teaching), student comments, peer evaluations, chair evaluation • Mid-semester teaching evaluations (seek feedback, honest feedback)

  16. Be findable

  17. Some Advice • Discuss expectations with chair and colleagues: • Scholarship and publications • Teaching – load, course development, effectiveness • Grantsmanship • Look for consistency in comments regarding expectations • Be a good department citizen • Be active in your professional societies (targeted) • Serve as proposal reviewer when invited (know what happens… and let them know You.) • Write a UMRB proposal – seed $. Campus Centers • Submitting one good proposal is better than sending out two average ones

  18. Still More Advice • Balance in collaborative opportunities (e.g., working with centers or as Co-PI) and making a name for yourself (TT); e.g., becoming an “independent scholar” not just ‘Coat Tails’ • Continually document your contributions (TT and NTT) • Use (Faculty Accomplishments System) FAS or Departmental system as you complete things to document your contributions • Update your CV • Create your P or P/T binder from day one • Read (and know) the CRR and campus policy documents regarding criteria for P or P/T (TT and NTT) • Get out of your office sometimes!

  19. Comments From P&T andThird Year Review Committees • Scholarship • Publications with advisor are not valued as are ‘new’ papers • Such papers are expected but do not help make the case of “independent scholarship” that is expected in the CRR. • In engineering and science, competitive funding is expected. (scholarly reputation & $$) • Plus-up (earmark) and non-competitive grants are viewed less favorably than competitively awarded grants. • Research Board and LWI grants are not viewed as favorably as external competitively won grants.

  20. Comments FromPromotion Review Committees • Sustained contributions essential (as related to concern expressed regarding progress of certain candidates) • Closing the loop: use of research funding in the education of graduate students and dissemination of research results (publications).. New ideas and proposals • External letters critical: How are letters solicited?

  21. Third Year Review – TT • Occurs in April of your third year • Committee includes VPAA, chair, department, area, and campus P/T committee members • Review process based on dossier binder similar to P/T dossiers • A formal review and counseling session to • Assess your progress toward P/T • Identify any areas that require attention • Provide formal feedback to faculty member

  22. Third Year Review Committee Membership • Department chair • Department P/T committee representative • Area P/T committee representative • Campus P/T committee representative • Vice Provost for Academic Affairs • Area and campus committee members should know where “the bar is set” and how the criteria are applied.

  23. Purpose of Third Year Review • Promoting a common level of expectation in the department, area, and campus committee reviews. • Providing timely counsel to a faculty member relative to progress toward tenure. • SEEK for thorough, critical feedback. • Ask Questions! Follow up!

  24. Biggest Challenges (?) – TT • Balance in: • Teaching, research and service (as expected in your department/academic field) • Professional vs. personal life • Consistently finding time to write (proposals and scholarship) • Time management and using time wisely • Pedagogical and teaching philosophy development (identifying what works best for you)

  25. Other Resources • Your academic support system: • Chair • Senior colleagues, new Associate Professors • Peers • FFF Director, VPAA, other VP’s • Mentor in a Manual by Clay Schoenfeld and Robert Magnan • Mentornet (www.mentornet.org) • Policy documents

  26. Biggest Challenges (?) – NTT • Teaching effectiveness (T-NTT) • Grantsmanship (R-NTT) • Balance in professional and personal lives to achieve long term career and family goals • Time management and using time wisely

  27. P&T for TT Faculty and P for NTT Faculty at S&T: Processes and Thoughts Frances (Dee) Haemmerlie Montgomery, Ph.D. Curator’s Teaching Professor (note: only S&T female CP-anything, ever) Hired, 1978; Promoted to Associate Professor, 1984, Full Professor 1991, & Curator’s Professor 1995 Freshman Faculty Forum May 8, 2013

  28. I. BIG PICTURE FACTORS • Organizational Structureof the Campus 1. No College/Schools or Deans 2. College/Schools and Deans • Personnel in Structure: Chancellor, Provost, VPAA/Deans, Department Chairs • Guidelines: UM System Collected Rules, Campus Rules, & Department Guidelines • Individual Faculty Member: prepares dossier/portfolio = can change unexpectedly

  29. II. CURRENT ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE Chancellor • Campus Review Committee: 4 Area Subcommittees • Arts &Humanities • Engineering • Sciences • Social Sciences PROVOST Dept. Chair Department Review Committee Dossier

  30. III. IMPORTANT INFORMATIONProvost Webpage: For Faculty Promotion and Tenure • Campus Policy • System-wide Perspectives on Promotion and Tenure • Documentation for Promotion and/or Tenure Recommendations • Campus-Based Third-Year Review • UM CRR 320.035 • UM CRR 310.020 • Qualifications for Academic Ranks Non-Tenure Track Promotion • NTT Promotion Procedures • NTT Policy Memorandum II-13 Awards • Campus Faculty Awards • System Awards • Selection Criteria for Outstanding Teaching Award

  31. IV. SO…OVERALL SUGGESTIONS • Department Criteria for P&T or P -foundation on which to build a career at S&T -should be considered a floor/minimum B. Dossier -work on preparing it from day 1 -include all evidence of success C. Mentors -formal and informal mentors, in and outside of department and campus -can help you build your dossier -under current structure, important = area subcommittee departments D. Campus Awards: impressive evidence of comparative success at S&T

  32. Provost Webpage: Missouri S&T Faculty Awards • Faculty Excellence - The Faculty Excellence Award recognizes faculty members who have demonstrated sustained excellence in all three missions of the institution: teaching, research and service. • Faculty Teaching - The Faculty Teaching Award recognizes faculty members who have demonstrated excellence in teaching-related activities.  Nomination packages include student and peer evaluations of teaching effectiveness and other supporting documentation of pedagogical innovation and effectiveness. • Faculty Research - The Faculty Research Award recognizes faculty members who have demonstrated excellence in research and scholarship.  Awards are given based on the significance of the contributions of the individual in the preceding two years, as well as the long term impact of the individual’s research. • Faculty Service - The Faculty Service Award recognizes faculty members who display exemplary, sustained service to the university and their profession.  The intent of the award is to honor outstanding citizens of the university for their commitment and service.  The nomination and selection of individuals for the award is based on any combination of service to the university and the individual’s profession. • Faculty Achievement - The Faculty Achievement Award recognizes non-regular faculty who have demonstrated sustained excellence in the categories of teaching or research or service. The nomination and selection of individuals for the award shall be based on teaching or research or service to the university and to the individual’s profession. • Outstanding Teaching Award - The Outstanding Teaching Award Committee recognizes those faculty members who have demonstrated a high level of instructional effectiveness as measured by student evaluations of teaching effectiveness.  The Outstanding Teaching Award Committee typically recognizes approximately 30 faculty members per year for their excellence in instruction. • Award Announcements & Solicitation

  33. V. PROMOTION FOR NTT FACULTY A. Recent titles and still developing procedures • Policy Memorandum No. II-13: defines titles and criteria; revised 1/1/2011 • Procedures for Promotion: draft approved by faculty senate on 2/17/11; must be consistent with UM’s Collected Rule and Regulation # 310.035, Non-Tenure-Track Faculty • Memorandum & Procedures: Provost Website • Main differences from TT Faculty -appointments are for 9- or 12-months or 3 years -require re-appointment -no tenure or 3rd year review -tasks are more narrowly defined (Teaching &/or Research &/or Service) -campus review committee must include NTT & TT faculty members

  34. B. NTT Overall Procedures (2/17/11 Draft NTT Promotion Procedures Document) Chancelloror Designee (p. 5 of Policy Memo No. II-13) Campus Review Committee: 2/3 = Members of Campus TT Committee & 1/3 = elected NTT Faculty* *4 chairs of TT Area Subcommittees + TT representatives from departments with NTT candidates under consideration + NTT representatives elected by NTT faculty PROVOST Dept. Chair Department Review Committee Dossier

  35. C. Promotion: Policy Memorandum II-13 1. General Attributes for Associate Teaching Professor: candidate should demonstrate most or all of the following • Effectiveness over several years in teaching as assessed by students & peers • Production of effective learning support materials • Creative & significant teaching contributions to the profession • Record of sustained advisement of undergraduates • Record of service relevant to a teaching career in a university Portfoliomustinclude formal peer evaluations by individuals in the candidate’s home department More specific attributes = spelled out by department & approved by Provost in advance

  36. 2. General Attributes for Associate Research Professor: candidate should demonstrate • Excellence in research & capability of continued contributions • Excellence in research based on assessment of peers • National recognition as a leader in the profession • Ability to produce published works • History of external funding with promise of ability to maintain funding • Leadership role in professional societies • Expertise in advising or co-advising graduate students More specific attributes = spelled out by department & approved by Provost in advance

  37. D. Summary for NTT Faculty • Department Chair: NTT faculty need to work closely with chair from date of hire and at all dates of reappointment • Contributions: need specific information regarding what specific Research, Teaching, & Serviceactivities the NTT faculty member is expected to do…and any changes in these expectations • Quality research, teaching, and service: activities need to be consistent with one’s departmental expectations and accepted standards

  38. VI. CONCLUSIONS • No formulas or guarantees • Marathon and not a sprint • If at first you don’t succeed: re-do, re-work, re-apply, re-submit, or revise • Connect with others—especially with mentors in and outside of department, on and off campus • Department criteria: meet…or better yet… exceed! • Develop evidence for YOUR Dossier

More Related