SLIDE 1
The Faculty Handbook
2
Specific sections from the current Faculty
RANK & TENURE REVIEW PROCESS Tenure, Promotion, Advancement - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
RANK & TENURE REVIEW PROCESS Tenure, Promotion, Advancement - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
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
SLIDE 2
SLIDE 3
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
SLIDE 4
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
SLIDE 5
The Electronic Application Portfolio
5
Candidate constructs own portfolio
Self-assessment of teaching excellence,
scholarly and professional involvement and achievement, and University service
SLIDE 6
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
SLIDE 7
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
SLIDE 8
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.
SLIDE 9
Electronic Portfolios using D2L
9
Electronic Portfolios
Choices: use D2L course
- r 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
SLIDE 10
Electronic Portfolio—D2L Course
10
Sample Template
Be sure link is active
Be sure links are active
SLIDE 11
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
SLIDE 12
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
SLIDE 13
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
SLIDE 14
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
SLIDE 15
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
SLIDE 16
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
SLIDE 17
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
SLIDE 18
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.
SLIDE 19
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…
SLIDE 20
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
- ther two areas. Section 2.6 of the Faculty Handbook states
guidelines for evaluation.
SLIDE 21
Recommendations for Candidate Portfolios
21
What to include in the application
portfolio?
SLIDE 22
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
SLIDE 23
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
SLIDE 24
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
- r which describes scholarly productivity for all other
reviews
SLIDE 25
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]
SLIDE 26
Recommendations for Candidate Portfolios
26
Remember that forthcoming publications
Are considered for third-year reviews and
promotion to associate professor and awarding
- f tenure reviews
Are not considered for promotion to professor
- r advancement within rank reviews
SLIDE 27
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)
SLIDE 28
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
SLIDE 29
Recommendations for Candidate Portfolios
29
Candidate should…
Include work with students, research not related to
a course
Research projects Publications Presentations
SLIDE 30
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
- rganizations
SLIDE 31
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
SLIDE 32
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
SLIDE 33
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
SLIDE 34
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
SLIDE 35
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
SLIDE 36
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