U sing I nte rfo lio fo r T PAC do ssie r pre paratio n & - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

U sing I nte rfo lio fo r T PAC do ssie r pre paratio n & annual re vie ws

August 28, 2019 Anne Windham

T able o f Co nte nts

T e nure and Pro mo tio n we bpage and c o nte nt, Slide s 3-4 Ne w Pro c e dure s and Po lic ie s, Slide s 5-10 T PAC Do ssie r Pre p Guide , Slide s 11-15 I nte rfo lio Ac c e ss and Wo rkflo w, Slide s 16-23 L

• gging into and Navigating I

nte rfo lio , Slide s 24-36 Co ntac t I nfo , Slide 37

Whe n yo u have que stio ns abo ut I nte rfo lio , start by lo o king o n this page . T he re ’ s lo ts o f info rmatio n he re and yo u may find an answe r! I f no t, c all Anne

• r E

va (c o ntac t info o n last slide )

T he lo we r po rtio n o f the T e nure & Pro mo tio n page has use ful do c ume nts, mo st o f whic h are no w update d fo r 2019-2020.

Ne w Pro c e dure s and Po lic ie s

• T

he Co ve r Me mo will no w be a PDF F illable F

• rm
• # 2 o n c he c klist is no w the writte n

e xplanatio n to the c andidate o f the de partme ntal re c o mme ndatio n

• De partme nts are re quire d to pro vide

writte n po st-re appo intme nt fe e dbac k to c andidate (in plac e o f annual re vie w)

TPAC cover memo

Date completed _______________ Candidate name: _________________________ Department: _______________________________ Recommendation Appointment as: Professor _____ Associate Professor _____ with tenure _____ without tenure _____ Senior Lecturer _____ Promotion to: Professor _____ Associate Professor _____ with tenure _____ without tenure _____ Senior Lecturer _____ Distinguished Senior Lecturer _____ Reappointment as: Assistant Professor _____ Distinguished Senior Lecturer _____ Senior Lecturer _____ Lecturer _____ Is this a Professor of the Practice _____ or (Research) _____ title? (leave blank if neither) Start date _________ End date (for term appointments only) __________ Department Meeting Date of meeting ______ Did the candidate attend the meeting? ______ Vote* on recommendation: # in favor _____ # opposed _____ #abstentions _____ (provide reason for abstentions, if known, in the Department Chair’s summary) Department quorum: ___________ *Be clear about the voting procedures and the relevant electorate:

• Retired faculty are not eligible to vote, and should participate in the discussion only in exceptional

circumstances.

• The quorum and official vote tally include those present and/or participating in the discussion of the case

via teleconference, Skype, etc.

• Votes received by proxy or e-mail should be reported separately (as an attachment to this document)
• Voting by secret ballot is preferred and taking “straw votes” in order to arrive at a consensus is not

recommended.

Department Meeting (continued) Names of attending eligible voting faculty: _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Names of eligible voting faculty not in attendance (please provide reason for absence in parenthesis): _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Department chair’s summary (attach separate document) Please provide a full and candid discussion of the issues raised in the meeting relative to this candidacy and of the strengths and weaknesses of the case. Summarize the reasons for any abstentions or minority opinions. Briefly describe the academic unit’s view of the importance of the candidate’s academic specialty within the larger field or discipline. A draft of this memo should be circulated to all participants for their comments; the chair should inform all members that if any of them has a serious objection which cannot be resolved, they may communicate their views to TPAC in a separate memo. Any such minority communications must be made available to all members who participated in the consideration

• f the case.

Additional space for any further information _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

No tific atio n o f De partme nt Re c o mme ndatio n

H andbo o k o f Ac ade mic Administratio n:

At the time o f the re c o mme ndatio n, the c andidate shall be no tifie d in writing what the re c o mme ndatio n is and, to who m it will be se nt; in the c ase o f a ne gative re c o mme ndatio n, the c andidate has a right to be info rme d o f the re aso ns fo r the de partme nt's de c isio n.

No tific atio n o f De partme nt Re c o mme ndatio n

Windham, Anne <anne_windham@brown.edu>

Your reappointment review

1 message Windham, Anne <anne_windham@brown.edu> Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 12:07 PM To: Josiah Carberry <josiah@brown.edu> Dear Josiah, The department met yesterday to review your reappointment dossier. I am pleased to inform you that the department is recommending a four-year reappointment. The discussion covered your research, teaching and service over the three years since your initial appointment. Faculty members noted that you have been productive in your research and are publishing in high quality journals, your service to the department and university is quite strong, and although you struggled somewhat in your first year of teaching you have made excellent progress in that respect. Your dossier and the department's recommendation will now be forwarded to TPAC for review. Please note that a staff person in the Dean of the Faculty's Office will contact you regarding your right to appear at the TPAC meeting. All best, Anne Anne Windham Senior Associate Dean of the Faculty Brown University Providence, RI 02912 (401) 863-5410

I nte rfo lio ’ s wo rkflo w always mo ve s fo rward!

De partme nt admin re vie w (c hair and manage r) De partme nt vo ting fac ulty (o ptio nal) Do FOffic e (Anne / E va) Do FOffic e (Anne / E va T PAC Me mbe rs De partme nt Admin (c hair and manage r)

Workflow for TPAC Cases (including reappointment feedback)

Documents

Promotion from Assistant to Associate (with tenure) Promotion from Associate to Professor (tenure previously granted) Promotion to Senior Lecturer Promotion to Distinguished Senior Lecturer Promotion to Associate or Full Professor

• f the Practice or (Research)

Reappointment as Assistant Professor , Lecturer, or Senior Lecturer Reappointment (Asst, Assoc, or Full) Professor of the Practice or (Research) Appointment as Associate Professor (w/

• r w/0 tenure) or Professor w/ tenure

Appointment as Professor of the Practice, Professor (Research), or Senior Lecturer

• 1. Cover memo *NEW* form

X X X X x X X X X

• 2. Department recommendation, written explanation to candidate *NEW*

X X X X x X X NA NA

• 3. Waiver of candidate’s right to a personal appearance before the department

X X X X x X X NA NA

• 4. Department review of scholarship, teaching, and service

X X X X x X X X X

• 5. Information on teaching since last contract review

X X X X X X X NA NA

• 6. Candidate’s current CV

X X X X X X X X X

• 7. Candidate’s statement

X X X X X X X NA NA

• 8. Annual or mid-contract reviews since last reappointment

X NA X X NA X NA NA NA

• 9. Department correspondence with the selected evaluators

X X X X X NA NA X X

• 10. Letters of evaluation

8 81 52 53 5 NA NA 84 5

• 11. Brief biographies of external evaluators

X X X X X NA NA X X

• 12. Minutes of the official meeting in which the department voted on the

recommendation

X X X X X X X X X

• 13. Department Standards and Criteria

X X X X X X X X X

• 14. Publications

X X X X X X X X X

• 15. Course Evaluations

X X X X X X X X X

1 At least five must be from individuals who are not close collaborators, dissertation supervisors, or otherwise have a potential conflict of interest. A limited number of writers

from a previous action (such as the tenure case) may be included.

2 May be a combination of letters from outside evaluators and from individuals at Brown (but not in the candidate’s department). See Handbook of Academic Administration

10.5.1 for further details

3 From individuals external to Brown who serve in positions similar to the distinguished senior lecturer role or are tenured faculty engaged in pedagogical research or related

programs at other institutions. Additional letters may be solicited from individuals at Brown (but not in the candidate’s department). See Handbook of Academic Administration 10.5.2 for further details.

4 At least five must be from individuals who are not close collaborators, dissertation supervisors, or otherwise have a potential conflict of interest

TPAC Dossier Preparation Guide

Instructions: Number the documents in the dossier according to the checklist below. Do not re-number the documents— skip those not required.

T he T PAC Do ssie r Pre p Guide has re plac e d the o ld c he c klist fo r individual fac ulty ac tio ns. T he numbe ring syste m is the same !

Explanation of Requirements: The department review for a reappointment, promotion, or senior appointment culminates with the preparation of a dossier presenting the evidence on which the department’s recommendation is based. It should also include a description of the procedures by which the materials were obtained. The dossier is then shared with the Dean of Faculty’s Office and the Tenure, Promotions, and Appointments Committee (TPAC) for review. This guide provides details about what materials are required in the dossier and is intended to clarify the procedure.

• 1. Covering memorandum please refer to the new Cover Memo form on the Dean of the Faculty’s Tenure and Promotion page, we request that you use

this form when preparing the cover memo. In addition to standard information about the recommendation and the department meeting, the department chair is expected to provide a full and candid discussion of the issues raised in the meeting relative to this candidacy and of the strengths and weaknesses of the case. The cover memo should also include a brief description of the academic unit’s view of the importance and impact of the candidate’s academic specialty within the larger field or discipline. A draft of this memo should be circulated to all participants for their comments; the chair should inform all members that if any of them has a serious objection which cannot be resolved, they may communicate their views to TPAC in a separate memo. Any such minority communications must be made available to all members who participated in the consideration

• 2. Department recommendation written explanation to the candidate

All candidates should be informed of the recommendation, but not the specific vote, in a brief written statement. In cases that are positive but not unanimous, it may be fair and appropriate to convey something about the strength of the recommendation; please consult with DOF if such situations arise. For negative recommendations, the candidate should promptly receive a more detailed written explanation outlining the reasons.

• 3. Waiver of candidate’s right to a personal appearance before the department

This should be done in writing. If a candidate chooses to appear, please include a summary in the meeting minutes. DOF staff will contact candidates about TPAC appearances.

• 4. Department review of scholarship, teaching, and service
• Commentary on scholarship and professional development, the academic unit’s view of the importance and impact of the candidate’s

academic specialty within the larger field or discipline, and a detailed analysis of the letters of evaluation. Any criticisms expressed in the letters of evaluation should be thoroughly addressed.

• Teaching effectiveness in both undergraduate and graduate courses, including a discussion of students’ qualitative evaluations
• If the candidate supervised independent study and/or engaged in mentoring, an assessment of these activities should be included
• Multiple modes of assessment should be used to evaluate teaching, including thorough discussion of students’ qualitative

evaluations (using student quotations is encouraged), comparative data, and peer evaluation (see guidelines for peer observation here, and on the Tenure and Promotion page under the Standards, Criteria, and Reviews ).

• For external candidates, please provide evidence as available.

No te c hange s to re quire d do c ume nts: ne w c o ve r me mo te mplate (# 1), and writte n e xplanatio n to the c andidate o f the de pt re c o mme ndatio n (# 2).

For promotions to Senior Lecturer and Distinguished Senior Lecturer, the following should be considered:

• Sustained and documented teaching excellence as attested by student and peer evaluations
• Service to the department, University, profession, and community
• Recognition as a role model, advisor, and mentor for undergraduate and/or graduate students as well as colleagues
• Excellent professional reputation, as demonstrated by membership and active participation in local, regional, or national professional societies

(this may be demonstrated through positions of leadership in executive committees, key roles in collaborative projects, and the organization of professional and academic workshops, symposia, and invited lectures)

• A record of outstanding educational scholarship, which may take the form of instructional materials (including online materials), activities

associated with the development and implementation of new assessment models, curricular innovation and configurations, publications, performances, or other works), and;

• Research effort within their discipline (while not normally required, this may be taken into account as appropriate).
• 5. Information on teaching since contract review:
• Tabular summary of teaching (from Cognos)
• Class observations by peers, if available (see guidelines for peer observation here, and on the Tenure and Promotion page under the

Standards, Criteria, and Reviews )

• Other teaching material, such as syllabi, may be added here
• If possible, provide comparative information, i.e. how the ratings compare to those in other similar courses.

This information is not required for external candidates, but if material is available it should be provided.

• 6. Candidate’s current CV
• 7. Candidate statements

There is no required format; candidates may freely present their research plans and teaching philosophy. It is not required that external candidates provide statements, but such statement be included if provided.

• 8. Annual or mid-contract reviews

Annual or mid-contract reviews since last contract review should be provided. For example, a tenure case should include annual reviews since the candidate’s reappointment review, earlier annual reviews are not required unless the tenure review follows soon after a reappointment review, in which case it may be appropriate to include earlier annual reviews. Please consult with DoF staff if you are unsure what to include. If the candidate submitted a written response to her/his annual review, this should also be included.

• 9. Department correspondence with selected evaluators

Include a sample solicitation letter and relevant evaluator responses. Any deviations from the standard solicitation letter should be discussed with the appropriate divisional dean at the time the letter list is approved. Any correspondence between the department or committee chair at Brown and potential evaluators that discusses the candidate’s qualifications or work should be included, as should all declinations. Potential evaluators who were contacted and did not respond should be identified.

• 10. Letters of evaluation

A core number of letters should be from individuals who are not close collaborators, dissertation supervisors, or have other potential conflicts of

• interest. Letters from collaborators beyond that core number are permitted. The list of potential evaluators should be reviewed by the appropriate

Dean before letters are solicited. Please refer to the checklist above for the required number of letters for each type of case. For more details, please see the Handbook of Academic Administration, Appendix C, No. 10.

• 11. Brief biographies

Provide a brief biography for each external evaluator to inform TPAC why the individual is qualified to evaluate the candidate’s work. Please indicate if individuals have had a working relationship with the candidate or wrote a previous assessment. It is helpful to provide a single-page table in this section that lists the names, institutions, and responses (accept/decline) of all persons solicited, and also indicate if they were recommended by the candidate or the department.

• 12. Minutes of the official meetings in which the department voted on the recommendation

If more than one candidate is discussed at the same meeting, please redact the minutes so each candidate’s dossier includes only a discussion of his/her case. Minutes should be a detailed transcript of remarks, giving a full accounting of the issues that arose in discussions. It is not necessary to attribute remarks to specific individuals.

• 13. Department Standards and Criteria

TPAC will use the Standards & Criteria to examine the arguments given by the department in support of the recommendation.

• 14. Publications

The candidate's principal publications and/or completed work should be submitted electronically, although hard copies of books may be provided and will be returned after the review.

• 15. Teaching Evaluations

A Cognos course evaluation report showing courses taught since the last review, or since appointment. In the case of new external appointments, attempts should be made to obtain evaluations from the candidate’s current institution.

T his spre adshe e t, available o n the T e nure and Pro mo tio ns page , is use ful to inc lude e ithe r at the be ginning o f # 9, De partme nt Co rre spo nde nc e with e valuato rs, o r # 11, Brie f Bio graphie s. I t he lps T PAC se e the list o f e valuato rs who we re c o ntac te d at a glanc e

name institution rank/title candidate or committee recommended accept/decline /no response letter received letter writer response (you may

want a separate document for these, if they are extensive) [Candidate's name here]

Using I nte rfo lio fo r T PAC do ssie r pre paratio n

Interfolio is used at Brown for ØSearches and hiring (since 2012) ØPromotion and tenure (since 2014) ØAnnual reviews (in DoF only, since 2016)

I nte rfo lio is an o nline do c ume nt trac king and manage me nt syste m.

• Secure

§ Different levels of access for users § Different roles for users § Candidates for review cannot see material

• (Relatively) intuitive to use
• Accessibility

§ Dossiers are online § Dossiers are archived and can be accessed in the system even after the case is complete

I nte rfo lio has a hie rarc hy and wo rkflo w that allo ws diffe re nt use rs diffe re nt le ve ls

• f ac c e ss and c o ntro l.
• Create cases/workflows and view them

throughout workflow

• Create and manage users and committees

Institutional administrators (Anne and Eva)

• See the cases throughout the workflow

(even after the case “leaves” the dept)

• Add and manage users and committees
• Add or remove documents

Administrators (some dept managers)

• See the cases when at department level
• Add/recuse users to case-specific comm.
• Upload documents and forward the case

to the next level

Committee Managers (most dept managers or staff )

• Read cases to which they are given access
• Download case documents as pdfs

Committee Members (faculty, TPAC members)

I nte rfo lio ’ s wo rkflo w always mo ve s fo rward!

For security and confidentiality, anything added to a dossier/case can only be seen in that committee and in any committees further up the hierarchy. If you add material in one committee and try to send it back to an earlier committee, the new material will not be visible to that committee.

I nte rfo lio ’ s wo rkflo w always mo ve s fo rward!

De partme nt admin re vie w (c hair and manage r) De partme nt vo ting fac ulty (o ptio nal) Do FOffic e (Anne / E va) T PAC Me mbe rs

Workflow for TPAC Cases

I nte rfo lio ’ s wo rkflo w always mo ve s fo rward!

De partme nt admin re vie w (c hair and manage r) De pt vo ting fac ulty (o ptio nal) Do FOffic e (Anne / E va)

Do FOffic e (Anne / E va)

T PAC Me mbe rs De pt Admin (c hair and manage r)

Workflow for TPAC Cases (including reappointment feedback)

I nte rfo lio ’ s wo rkflo w always mo ve s fo rward!

De partme nt 1st draft o f annual re vie w DOF Re vie w (Jo e l, Anne , Jane t) De partme nt final draft o f annual re vie w F inal Submissio n

• f Annual

Re vie w (Me lissa)

Workflow for Annual Reviews (in DoF departments)

Using T e a c hing E va lua tio n Re po rts . . . it’ s a sna p, o r se ve ra l c lic ks!

Clic k to lo g in

T ype in Bro wn U nive rsity (it will auto fill), and yo u will be dire c te d thro ugh Bro wn’ s SSO, Shibbo le th, into the I nte rfo lio syste m. So me pe o ple might pre fe r this ac c e ss to c re ating a unique passwo rd—but e ithe r me tho d will wo rk!

• All o f the c ase s to whic h yo u have

ac c e ss will be available o n this ho me page . Clic k o n the fac ulty me mbe r’ s name to go into the c ase

• Upload documents to and organize them
• Delete documents*
• Add users (faculty committee members) to case-

specific committees

• Recuse committee members from cases
• Send case forward to the next review level

* Note that you can only delete documents that you added

yourself

Co mmitte e Manage rs* c an . . .

* All de partme nt manage rs and so me staff are c o mmitte e manage rs in I nte rfo lio

Ho w to uplo ad do c ume nts

Clic k o n Add F ile

Ho w to uplo ad do c ume nts

A po p-up sc re e n appe ars and yo u c an bro wse to find yo ur file . Only

• ne file may be uplo ade d at a time !

Always re me mbe r to c lic k Re ad Case afte r uplo ading, to make sure that the do c ume nts lo o k OK !

Re ad Case sho ws that the numbe ring is

• ut o f o rde r and the CV has a lo t o f

unne c e ssary bo o kmarks. Re vie w the do c ume nt “Submitting a do ssie r thro ugh I nte rfo lio ,” lo c ate d o n the T e nure and Pro mo tio n page , fo r instruc tio ns o n ho w to re o rde r ite ms and add o r de le te bo o kmarks.

Ho w to e dit title s o r de le te do c ume nts

Clic k the penc il ic o n fo r the do c ument. Yo u c an c hange the title o f the do c ument o r delete it (No te: c o mmittee managers c an o nly delete do c uments that they have added themselves).

Ho w to fo rward a c ase

Go to the c ase ho me page , c lic k se nd c ase .

Ho w to fo rward a c ase

Yo u will ne xt ge t a po p-up sc re e n. T his sho ws yo u whe re and to whic h c o mmitte e the c ase is go ing. Yo u have the

• ptio n to se nd a me ssage

thro ugh I nte rfo lio to that ne xt c o mmitte e , o r c lic k o n the blue c he c k mark and yo u c an se nd witho ut a me ssage . So me pe o ple pre fe r to se nd the do ssie r witho ut a me ssage and to c o py the addre ss o f the c ase (fo r e xample , Jo siah’ s is https:/ / rpt.inte rfo lio .c o m/ 10128/ c ase s/ 42614) and e mail this to the vo ting fac ulty.

• Create a new user
• Create a new standing committee
• Delete a document in a dossier that was added by

someone else

• Get a dossier back once you’ve forwarded it beyond

your committee

Co mmitte e Manage rs c an ask the U nive rsity Administrato rs to . . .

• Always follow the TPAC Dossier Prep Guide for the

appropriate faculty action (tenure, reappointment, etc.)

• Maintain the numbering system from the TPAC

Dossier Prep Guide, do not re-number dossier items

• We recommend that you upload documents in a non-

modifiable format (pdf)

• After uploading documents, click the “Read” button

and see what they look like! This is how TPAC will view them.

U plo ading Do ssie r Mate rial

T hings to re me mbe r . . .

Anne Windham Interfolio access, dossier prep questions anne_windham@brown.edu

• ext. 3-5410

Que stio ns, pro ble ms?

Eva Neczypor TPAC scheduling, dossier prep questions eva_neczypor@brown.edu

• ext. 3-2791