Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.
Preparing Promotion          and Tenure Files         A Workshop forDepartment Heads, Office Managers,      and Key Suppor...
Starting points    Most tenure and promotion cases at UO are     successful    Preparation for tenure and promotion begi...
P&T Process and TimetableSpring    Preliminary Work              •Candidate prepares file              •Identification and...
TimetableSEPTEMBER 15• Due date for all deans to submit to Academic Affairs, a list ofthose in the school/college being co...
Timetable (continued) NOVEMBER 30• Due date for all units (excluding CAS) to submit to AcademicAffairs, files and material...
6
Candidate’s Statement• Personal statement of scholarly, scientific, professional orartistic accomplishments, goals, and pl...
Candidate’s Curriculum Vitae• Education     • Include title of dissertation and name of supervisor if Ph.D.     was earned...
Statement of Waiver• Candidates may waive their right of access to confidential lettersof reference      • Names of review...
Departmental CommitteeRecommendation (outline)• Explanatory report providing analysis different from that obtainedfrom the...
Department Head’s Evaluation andResponsibilities (outline)• Requests and accumulates outside letters of evaluation andiden...
List of Materials Sent to Reviewers•   Published Articles (example)    2003. “The politics of Alienation: Nonvoting and Su...
Biographical Sketches of ExternalReviewers – Guidelines•Keep the bios short but complete: description of the person andhis...
Statement of Duties and Responsibilities• Objective statement• Purely factual• Summarizes the candidate’s duties and his/h...
School/CollegePersonnel Committee Report• First opportunity for independent evaluation     • “secondary reviewers” – do no...
Dean’s Evaluation & Recommendation (outline)• Dean’s evaluation is independent from department level review – analysisrela...
“External Letters” Section of FileGuidelines•Include both solicited and unsolicited letters (if any - rare butdo occasiona...
“Conditions of Appointment” Section• Must include the most recent “Notice of Appointment andContract” form    • documentin...
“Teaching Evaluations” Section• Shared responsibility to improve evaluation proceduresof teaching• Goal is to investigate ...
Evaluations of Teaching ShouldInclude: (outline) •   Statistical analysis of student evaluations •   Evaluative summary of...
College of Arts & SciencesChecklist for Teaching EvaluationsPlease include this checklist at the front of the teaching sec...
Peer EvaluationsGuidelines• Assistant Professors — At least one peer evaluation foreach of the last three years before pro...
Letters from StudentsGuidelines• Include both solicited and unsolicited student letters• Student letters are not required ...
Supplemental File• Supplemental teaching evaluation data     • One set of the printouts and signed statements should be in...
Q&A      25
AppendixMay 14, 2008   Promotion & Tenure 101   26
Department Head’s Evaluation and Responsibilities (detailed)• Requests and accumulates outside letters of evaluation and i...
Departmental CommitteeRecommendation (detailed)• Explanatory report providing analysis different from that obtained from t...
Dean’s Evaluation and Recommendation (detailed)• Independent from department level review- analysis relative to school/col...
Sample Partial Waiver Letter from the CandidateCandidate waives the right of access to external letters, but retainsfull a...
Sample Full Waiver Letter From theCandidateDear [whoever is assembling the file]:I have been informed of my rights of acce...
Sample Paragraph Waiving AccessAlthough Oregon law permits full access of a facultymember to his or her personnel files, D...
Sample Non-Waiver Letter from theCandidateDear [whoever is assembling the file]:    I have been informed of my rights of a...
Sample Paragraph Retaining FullAccessIn as much as Oregon law permits full access of a facultymember to his or her personn...
Sample Request for Evaluation Letterto External RefereesDear Professor _______________________:   Dr. John/June Jones of o...
Request for Letters of Evaluation•• Requested by department head from individuals both on and off campus viastandard form ...
Evaluations of Teaching ShouldInclude: (detailed)Statistical analysis of student evaluations:Faculty legislation of May 19...
Evaluations of Teaching Should AlsoInclude: (detailed – continued)Detailed reports of classroom visitations, and peer eval...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Preparing tenure files_for_dept_heads_ofcmanagers_staff_jan 15_2013

1,240 views

Published on

Preparing tenure files at the University of Oregon: guidance for dept heads, office managers and staff

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Preparing tenure files_for_dept_heads_ofcmanagers_staff_jan 15_2013

  1. 1. Preparing Promotion and Tenure Files A Workshop forDepartment Heads, Office Managers, and Key Support Staff Office of Academic Affairs Barbara Altmann 15 January, 2013 Materials presented are for general informational purposes only and do not constitute official University rules, policies or practices, or interpretations or summaries of such rules, policies or practices. No warranties or representations are made as to the accuracy of any information presented. Any discrepancy between the information presented here and the official rules and policies of the University of Oregon and the Oregon University System is not intended to and does not alter or amend the official rules and policies. 1
  2. 2. Starting points Most tenure and promotion cases at UO are successful Preparation for tenure and promotion begins with hire Annual and third-year reviews for untenured faculty are crucial Good mentoring mattersMay 14, 2008 Promotion & Tenure 101 2
  3. 3. P&T Process and TimetableSpring Preliminary Work •Candidate prepares file •Identification and solicitation of external reviewersEarly Dept. ReviewFall •Personnel committee: (usually) report and (often) vote •Vote by voting faculty (signed, secret ballot) •Dept. head: report and recommendationLateFall/ School/College ReviewEarly •Personnel committee (elected) report and voteWinter •Dean: report and recommendation University ReviewWinter/Spring •Faculty Personnel Committee (elected) : report and vote •Provost: review and decision Anticipated decision: May 1 (legal date: June 15) Tenure cases: always Promotions only: almost always 3
  4. 4. TimetableSEPTEMBER 15• Due date for all deans to submit to Academic Affairs, a list ofthose in the school/college being considered for promotion and/ortenure.• Subsequent revisions may be made• Upon receipt of list, Academic Affairs delivers sets of binders toeach school/college to be filled with the required elements of thecase   • Each binder should contain identical information • Completed red, blue and green binders are delivered to Academic Affairs with supplemental materials for the case. Black binders are kept for the school/college   NOVEMBER 15• Due date for completed files and supporting materials fromdepartments in the College Arts and Sciences to be submitted to theDean.  4
  5. 5. Timetable (continued) NOVEMBER 30• Due date for all units (excluding CAS) to submit to AcademicAffairs, files and materials involving sixth-year cases and othercases where a negative decision would lead to giving a terminalnotice • Note that each unit may have its own earlier deadline for internal review    JANUARY 15• Deadline for all units (excluding CAS) to submit completed filesand supplemental materials to Academic Affairs • Note that each unit may have its own earlier deadline for internal review   MARCH 15• Deadline for the College of Arts and Sciences (CAS) to submitcompleted files and supplemental materials to Academic Affairs  • Note that CAS may have its own earlier deadlines for internal review  5
  6. 6. 6
  7. 7. Candidate’s Statement• Personal statement of scholarly, scientific, professional orartistic accomplishments, goals, and plans • Written for evaluation by faculty colleagues outside the candidate’s field • Describes how recent scholarly, professional, or artistic activities relate to long-term goals • Addresses how activities in the areas of research, teaching, and service are integrated • Five pages or so • Needs to be signed and dated 7
  8. 8. Candidate’s Curriculum Vitae• Education • Include title of dissertation and name of supervisor if Ph.D. was earned• Professional experience• Honors• Grants• Publications • List all coauthors in the same order as on the publication • Exact titles • Inclusive page numbers • Journal names • Separate refereed versus non-refereed contributions on publications list•Work under consideration•Work in progress•Teaching•Service•Must be signed and dated 8
  9. 9. Statement of Waiver• Candidates may waive their right of access to confidential lettersof reference • Names of reviewers cannot be revealed to the candidate• File must contain signed statement by candidate selecting oneof the following options: • Retaining full access • Waiving all rights of access • Partial waiver[See sample letters in Appendix.] 9
  10. 10. Departmental CommitteeRecommendation (outline)• Explanatory report providing analysis different from that obtainedfrom the vita• Evaluates strengths and weaknesses relative to department anddiscipline standards• Fully presents all aspects of the case - analysis, not advocacy• Explanatory comments on the journals or publishers used by thecandidate• Comment on research grants, fellowships, etc., if normal to thefield• Analysis of the candidate’s record of teaching• Must be signed by all members of the committee 10
  11. 11. Department Head’s Evaluation andResponsibilities (outline)• Requests and accumulates outside letters of evaluation andidentifies the relationship of all referees to the candidate• Ensures internal and external written evaluations andrecommendations present a fair picture• Submits a report to the file • Administrative summary of the department’s position • Department head’s independent evaluation of the case • Analyses of teaching, research, scholarship, activities and service • Recommendation does not need not coincide with any others • Strengths and weaknesses – analysis more important than advocacy• Report from the Department Head must be signed. 11
  12. 12. List of Materials Sent to Reviewers• Published Articles (example) 2003. “The politics of Alienation: Nonvoting and Support for Third-Party Candidates Among 18-30 Year Olds,” Social Science Journal, Vol. 40, No.1: 23-45.• Book Manuscripts (example) In Press. The Myth of the Independent voter in US. Politics. New York: St. Martin’s. [This manuscript has been completed and is in production. The finished manuscript and the contract for the book can be found in the supplemental file.]• Candidate’s Statement• Candidate’s Vita 12
  13. 13. Biographical Sketches of ExternalReviewers – Guidelines•Keep the bios short but complete: description of the person andhis/her standing in the field, relationship to the candidate, andwhether suggested by the candidate or chosen by the Department.•Do not include vitas here; include in supplemental file.•Select an appropriate and strong panel. Remember that the UO isan AAU research university. 13
  14. 14. Statement of Duties and Responsibilities• Objective statement• Purely factual• Summarizes the candidate’s duties and his/herqualifications for the performance of those duties Evaluation Criteria • Written statement explaining criteria used within the department to evaluate faculty for promotion to associate professor with tenure and to full professor. 14
  15. 15. School/CollegePersonnel Committee Report• First opportunity for independent evaluation • “secondary reviewers” – do not have the expertise to review and evaluate the scholarship and instead focus on the candidate’s record, external reviews, and the reports generated at the department level• The criteria employed are those of the school /college• May request additional information from the departmentincluding additional outside letters• Each committee member’s vote is recorded andbecomes part of the file forwarded to Academic Affairs. 15
  16. 16. Dean’s Evaluation & Recommendation (outline)• Dean’s evaluation is independent from department level review – analysisrelative to school/college standards. Makes a recommendation on the case.• Dean (or associate dean) meets with candidate after dossier reviewed atschool/college level and before submission of file to Academic Affairs • If candidate has waived access to the dossier, the dean shall • Inform candidate how many of his/her nominated referees responded, how many other referees were contacted and how many responded • No referee identified by name unless the candidate has not waived access and wishes to examine the contents (which the dean will allow)• Dean will provide written version of the oral summary upon request• Redacted copies or summaries of materials in P&T files should not beprepared at the school/college level and given to faculty during or aftermeeting with the dean• Dean’s report indicates which outside referees (usually a maximum of 6-7)proposed by candidate and which chosen by the department/college –majority should be by department 16
  17. 17. “External Letters” Section of FileGuidelines•Include both solicited and unsolicited letters (if any - rare butdo occasionally appear)•Written refusal should be included at the end of the set• Be sure to reconcile the letters received with the list ofletters solicited on the Promotion and Tenure Checklist• Include unsolicited letters AFTER solicited letters• Note that letters from students on teaching and supervisionshould be included in the teaching section 17
  18. 18. “Conditions of Appointment” Section• Must include the most recent “Notice of Appointment andContract” form • documenting time frame for the tenure review • documenting the deadline for the tenure decision• May include official administrative letters of understanding • Range of activities on which promotion will be based • Credit granted for prior service at other institutions • Extended time for tenure for reasons such as pregnancy or childbirth 18
  19. 19. “Teaching Evaluations” Section• Shared responsibility to improve evaluation proceduresof teaching• Goal is to investigate and evaluate all aspects of anindividual’s teaching: large class, small group, graduateseminar; curriculum development; Ph.D., Masters, orprofessional student supervision; academic advising; etc.• Summaries of student evaluations should be included ineach folder • List of all courses taught • Sample of evaluation forms • Class size • Percentage responding • Data for comparison with the departmental staff • Departmental policies on administering surveysThese materials must not be prepared by thecandidate 19
  20. 20. Evaluations of Teaching ShouldInclude: (outline) • Statistical analysis of student evaluations • Evaluative summary of teaching prepared by department head, review committee chair, or senior faculty members, (never by candidate) • Detailed reports of classroom visitations, and peer evaluations of teaching • Evaluation of exams, syllabi, assignments and feedback provide • List of all post-doctoral Fellows, Ph.D., Masters, and undergraduate students who have carried out independent research/scholarship with the candidate 20
  21. 21. College of Arts & SciencesChecklist for Teaching EvaluationsPlease include this checklist at the front of the teaching section in the primary file. Files with anincomplete checklist will be returned to the department for cornp1etion._____ List of all courses taught, including term and enrollment, instructor and department meanscores for the two required questions from the course evaluation report, and any departmental orother teaching awards (included in the primary file)._____ List of all supervised dissertations, theses, and undergraduate honors papers (included in theprimary file).____ Quantitative student evaluations, including both a summary page with relevant comparativedata (in the primary file) and the full course evaluations (normally included in an auxiliary file).Include all evaluated courses since first appointment or last promotion, with a minimum of tenrepresentative courses required (unless fewer have been taught at the University). Beginning in1996-97, faculty legislation requires that all courses with more than 10 students be evaluated, usingthe standard form. Written comments from all courses with fewer than 10 students._____ Signed student course evaluations (included in the auxiliary file), and where possible lettersfrom supervised students (included in the primary file).____ Peer evaluations, based on classroom visitations (included in the primary file). From 1996-97on, assistant professors must receive at least one peer evaluation in each of the three years beforethe tenure review. Associate professors must have a peer evaluation for at least one course everyother year.____ At least one summative evaluation based upon all available materials should be included in theprimary file. Please indicate below where the primary summative evaluation is included(e.g., committee report, department head report, teaching section):_____ Sample course materials (e.g., syllabi, tests, homework assignments, and the like, which arenormally included in the auxiliary file). 21
  22. 22. Peer EvaluationsGuidelines• Assistant Professors — At least one peer evaluation foreach of the last three years before promotion and tenurereview• Associate Professors — At least one peer evaluation forat least one course every other year 22
  23. 23. Letters from StudentsGuidelines• Include both solicited and unsolicited student letters• Student letters are not required 23
  24. 24. Supplemental File• Supplemental teaching evaluation data • One set of the printouts and signed statements should be included in a separate folder identified with name of candidate and college/school, or department. • Unsigned narrative student evaluations are unacceptable and should not be included in the file. Illegal to quote from unsigned evaluations in summary statements prepared for the file. • Letters evaluating teaching from postdoctoral fellows, graduate students, or others with first-hand information about teaching• Evidence of professional activities • Supporting documents relating to professional growth, scholarly activities, and creative and artistic achievement • Publications • Reprints • Papers • Programs of recitals • Design portfolios • Other relevant materials, including work in progress • Brief statements summarizing the relative standings of professional journals and whether or not papers in them are reviewed 24
  25. 25. Q&A 25
  26. 26. AppendixMay 14, 2008 Promotion & Tenure 101 26
  27. 27. Department Head’s Evaluation and Responsibilities (detailed)• Requests and accumulates outside letters of evaluation and identifies the relationship of allreferees to the candidate• Ensures internal and external written evaluations and recommendations present a fairpicture• Submits a report to the file • An administrative summary of the department’s position on the case • Brief explanation of department’s review process • Clarification of special conditions, duties or obligations of the faculty member • Explanation of who in the department is eligible to vote on the candidate • Summary of the faculty discussion preceding the official vote • Votes at department level on tenure cases must be secret with only the tally revealed to faculty and recorded on the voting summary sheet • Explanation for abstentions and/why some faculty may not have participated in the process (e.g., spouse, sabbatical, etc.) • Department head’s independent evaluation of the case • Analyses of teaching, research, scholarship, activities and service • Recommendation does not need not coincide with any others • Strengths and weaknesses – analysis more important than advocacy • Avoid duplicating material, especially quotes from external letters • Independently analyze discrepancies in the external letters • Reason behind department head’s conclusions as to the merits of the case • If scholarship rooted in dissertation, discuss the relationship of published work with the dissertation - it is especially helpful to know the degree to which new research has been incorporated with previous work.• Report from the Department Head must be signed. 27
  28. 28. Departmental CommitteeRecommendation (detailed)• Explanatory report providing analysis different from that obtained from the vita• Evaluates strengths and weaknesses relative to department and discipline standards• Fully presents all aspects of the case - analysis, not advocacy• Explanatory comments on the journals or publishers used by the candidate • Indicate the ranking of the journals • Which articles are refereed and which not • Other information relevant to appraising the candidate’s published works - analogous evaluations of artistic or creative efforts not in published form • Where appropriate, comments on the stature of the external referees are helpful• Comment on research grants, fellowships, etc., if normal to the field • Not size or number of awards but recognition by rigorous competitive review • Explain any discrepancies in this area and the publishing record• Analysis of the candidate’s record of teaching • Discuss effective ways to analyze and present statistical data resulting from student evaluations • make meaningful comparisons of the candidate with the rest of the department and/or to faculty teaching courses of similar size, character or content • Read all signed written comments submitted by students and provide an evaluative summary of these written statements • Review and comment on all materials submitted by the candidate (i.e. teaching portfolio) documenting his or her teaching activities • Discuss any discrepancies between student and peer evaluations• The report of the Departmental Committee must be signed by all members of thecommittee 28
  29. 29. Dean’s Evaluation and Recommendation (detailed)• Independent from department level review- analysis relative to school/college standards• Dean (or associate dean) meets with candidate after dossier reviewed atschool/college level and before submission of file to Academic Affairs • Ensures candidate is aware of dossier’s contents prior to university- level review • Information presented in the department report • General content of outside letters • Summary of recommendations made to date, including that of the dean• If candidate has waived access to the dossier, the dean shall • Inform candidate how many of his/her nominated referees responded, how many other referees were contacted and how many responded • No referee identified by name unless the candidate has not waived access and wishes to examine the contents (which the dean will allow)•Dean will provide written version of the oral summary upon request • Typically no more than 1-2 pages in length • Must be an accurate reflection of the oral summary • Must not be a detailed summary of any report, evaluation or letter in the dossier• Redacted copies or summaries of materials in P&T files should not beprepared at the school/college level and given to faculty during or aftermeeting with the dean • Requests from faculty member for such materials (to prepare a formal appeal of a negative decision from the Provost) will be handled by Academic Affairs 29
  30. 30. Sample Partial Waiver Letter from the CandidateCandidate waives the right of access to external letters, but retainsfull access to letters from individuals affiliated with the UO.Dear [whoever is assembling the file]: I have been informed of my rights of access, pursuant to Oregon RevisedStatute (ORS) 351065 (Sect. 3,4,5,6) effective 1995, to the full evaluative tilebeing prepared for consideration of my case for promotion [and/or indefinitetenure, as appropriate]. However, it is my view that external referees’ evaluationsshould he kept confidential.Consequently, I hereby waive in advance my legal right of access to see theevaluative materials submitted by all referees external to the University ofOregon in conjunction with my promotion [and or tenure] review. I make thiswaver with full knowledge of my legal rights under Oregon Law and withoutduress.I wish, however, to retain my legal right of access to all letters submitted byindividuals affiliated with the University of Oregon.You should feel free to inform prospective external referees that I havesubmitted this partial wavier and have agreed voluntarily to forego any legalrights of’ access to these materials which I possess under Oregon Law. Sincerely,[Candidate] 30
  31. 31. Sample Full Waiver Letter From theCandidateDear [whoever is assembling the file]:I have been informed of my rights of access, pursuant to OregonRevised Statute (ORS) 351065 (Sect. 3,4,5,6) effective 1995, to thefull evaluative file being prepared for consideration of my case forpromotion [and/or indefinite tenure, as appropriate]. However, it is myview that referees’ evaluations should be kept confidential.Consequently, I hereby waive in advance my legal right of access tosee the evaluative materials submitted by all referees in conjunctionwith my promotion [and or tenure] review. I make this waiver with fullknowledge of my legal rights under Oregon Law and without duress.You should feel free to inform prospective referees that I havesubmitted this waiver and agreed voluntarily to forego any legalrights of access to these materials which I possess under OregonLaw.Sincerely,[Candidate] 31
  32. 32. Sample Paragraph Waiving AccessAlthough Oregon law permits full access of a facultymember to his or her personnel files, Dr. Jones hasvoluntarily waived in advance [his/her] legal right of accessto [the appropriate items a defined by the candidate’s specific waiver],with the expectation that this waiver will enable referees toprepare thorough and candid letters. Since this waiver hasbeen reviewed for its legality, I can assure you that theUniversity will not disclose your letter to the candidate,although we cannot predict whether challenge in a courtmight result in such disclosure. With the waiver, however,Dr. Jones retains [his her] right to request a substantivesummary of all evaluative remarks, carefully edited to avoiddisclosure of the identity of the referee. 32
  33. 33. Sample Non-Waiver Letter from theCandidateDear [whoever is assembling the file]: I have been informed of my rights of access, pursuant toOregon RevisedStatute (ORS) 351065 (Sect. 3,4,5,6) effective 1995, to thefull evaluative file being prepared for consideration of mycase for promotion [and/or indefinite tenure, as appropriate], andof the possibility of waiving this right for certain categories ofmaterial. I wish to retain my legal right of access to all materials inmy file.Sincerely,[Candidate] 33
  34. 34. Sample Paragraph Retaining FullAccessIn as much as Oregon law permits full access of a facultymember to his or her personnel files, I must tell you thatyour letter will be seen by Dr. Jones should [he she] requestaccess to [his/her] file. 34
  35. 35. Sample Request for Evaluation Letterto External RefereesDear Professor _______________________: Dr. John/June Jones of our Department of Phrenology is being consideredfor promotion from Assistant Professor to Associate Professor with indefinitetenure. Such promotions are made only after consulting specialists in theappropriate discipline, both at the University of Oregon and elsewhere. Your name has been submitted as one who could provide a usefulevaluation of Dr. Jones’ professional achievements and reputation. I shall begrateful if you could write a letter to me, outlining what you know of [his/her]scholarship, research, accomplishments, publications, and general staturewithin the profession. A comparison of Dr. Jones with the best associateprofessors in the same field would be appreciated. If possible, please indicateif Dr. Jones would meet requirements for promotion (or tenure) at yourcurrent institution. We recognize that the granting of tenure involvesprediction and assessment of potential; if you have any special observationsabout Dr. Jones in that area, we would be pleased to receive them. [Requestsfor information on specific points can be included here.] I enclose a bibliography andcurriculum vitae for your convenience and copies of publications for yourspecific evaluation.INSERT EITHER RETAIN ACCESS or WAIVER PARAGRAPHHERE Your reply to this letter within the next two weeks will be most helpful,since we are now preparing all the necessary documents for Dr. Jones’promotion dossier. 35
  36. 36. Request for Letters of Evaluation•• Requested by department head from individuals both on and off campus viastandard form letter - preferably from comparable institutions / reviewers at orabove rank being considered. (Variations permissible - non-standard lettersreviewed by Academic Affairs prior to being sent.)• Sample of standard and all non-standard letters must be included in file• Avoid leading statements, e.g. “We want to get Professor X promoted”• Indicate which materials will be sent to each referee• Referees must be notified in request whether candidate chooses open orclosed file• Ask reviewers to compare candidate with others at comparable stage• Ask reviewers to indicate whether, in their opinion, assuming satisfactoryteaching and service, the candidate would achieve tenure and/or promotion attheir institutions• Referees must indicate special relationships to the candidate, e.g.,dissertation supervisor, research collaborator, co-author, etc.• All letters received must he included in the file, including those which arenegative, neutral or simply indicate unwillingness (inability) to offer a judgment 36
  37. 37. Evaluations of Teaching ShouldInclude: (detailed)Statistical analysis of student evaluations:Faculty legislation of May 1996, requires that “the statistical analysis ofcourse evaluations shall include the mean rate scores for all questions relevant toteaching and learning. The reports shall include raw mean scores for the facultymember and the department. It shall also include other valid mechanisms whichcompare each course and/or instructor to composite scores of the entire department.Where feasible, departments are strongly encouraged to include raw scores andcomparators to course offerings of a similar size and level, and/or to the same orsimilar courses in the recent years.” The legislation does not define orprescribe the “valid mechanisms” used to compare the faculty memberwith the mean for the department. Such comparators should, wherefeasible, provide an indication of the statistical uncertainty (e.g.standard deviation) of the mean raw scores. Submission of z-scores isnot prohibited by this legislation.The May 1996 legislation requires that quantitative studentquestionnaires be used to evaluate all courses taught by tenure-trackfaculty with enrollments greater than 10 students, and writtencomments shall be solicited from students in ALL courses. All availableteaching data and summaries should be part of the file, not just aselection of the materialAn evaluative summary of teaching prepared by the department head,the review committee chairperson, or senior faculty members, andnever by the candidate. 37
  38. 38. Evaluations of Teaching Should AlsoInclude: (detailed – continued)Detailed reports of classroom visitations, and peer evaluations of teaching,are especially informative. Faculty legislation of May 1996 requires at leastone peer evaluation for each assistant professor during each of the threeyears preceding the promotion tenure review. Associate professors are tohave peer evaluations conducted for at least one course every other year.Reports of all available peer observations and evaluations should heincluded in the file.A thorough evaluation of course materials (examinations and assessmentof course syllabi, comments on expectations of students and the nature offeedback provided)A list of all students who have carried out independent research/scholarshipwith the candidate: post-doctoral Fellows, Ph.D.. Master’s, andundergraduates. Indicate the years in which degrees were received andcurrent place status of employment if available. Add commentary that givesperspective on the candidate in guiding these types of Fellows or studentsand compare with typical pattern of such education in the field. 38

×