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, hxli@ben.edu, 630/829-6498 Other help — Cindy McCullagh, Ph.D., Learning Technologies Expert, cmccullagh@ben.edu
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 m aterials 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
Recommend
More recommend
