Using Technology for Tenure

384 views

Published on

Published in: Education
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
384
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
23
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
4
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Panel Discussion Questions...
    Describe your personal reaction to this experience
    Benefits vs. limitations...Your thoughts?
    Did you learn/grow through the process of trying this new version of a portfolio? (Explain)
    Explain the reaction of others in the department
    Where do you see the future format of portfolios evolving?
    What are some things we can do to smooth out this road?
    Are there other formats that would work better...web based, SharePoint...
  • Using Technology for Tenure

    1. 1.  Ted Bay, Grant County Agriculture Agent  Bill Halfman, Monroe County Agriculture Agent  Steve Huntzicker, La Crosse County Agriculture Agent  Bob Cropp, Pepin County Agriculture Agent
    2. 2. 1. Review benefits and limitations of hardcopy vs. electronic portfolios 2. Demonstrate an electronic version of a document 3. Share faculty responses to a “test drive” in Ag/Agbusiness Department 4. Discuss “Where to from here?”
    3. 3.  The “Vita”(Who can remember?)  Switch to portfolio (for simplicity!)  Portfolios steadily became thicker!  More electronic exhibits appeared  Electronic versions of documents used in development of portfolios
    4. 4.  Faculty also using electronic transmission for:  Three year reviews and mini-portfolios  Tenured faculty reviews  Professorial documents  Other professional presentations  Two candidates presented electronic portfolios in Ag/Agbusiness department
    5. 5.  Academic department bylaws and regulations  Some reviewers need to “touch the document”  County electronic resources may be limited  Some exhibits are hard to display electronically  May still be need for some hard copies
    6. 6.  Department review committee may not totally agree with new format  Faculty Tenure Advisory Committee... What would they think?  Dean, Chancellor, Board of Regents...?
    7. 7. Savings of... Other advantages...  Time  Paper  Printing  Postage  Handling and transportation  Can be easier to make corrections and updates (page numbers adjustments)  Potentially a more professional presentation format (for SRP or FTAC committees)  Actual exhibits in document
    8. 8.  Discussed at JCEP with SRP Chair Ted Bay  Shared aspects of document on how it would work with committee ahead of time  Included a instruction sheet with CD  Did binders and CD for SRP Committee
    9. 9. Presented by Steve Huntzicker La Crosse County Agriculture Agent
    10. 10.  Ted Bay Past SRP Committee Chair  Bill Halfman Current SRP Committee Chair  Steve Huntzicker “The Guinea Pig”
    11. 11.  Not mandating any changes  Gathering more feedback  Considering this a process-not an event  Will encourage/support future candidates  Want to collaborate with other departments Tenure 2012 Department of Ag.
    12. 12.  Learn more about other platforms/formats?  Must be a standard and supported program  Easy for the candidate to use  Key evaluators must approve new format  Collaboration on future “test drives”  Departments  Faculty Tenure Advisory Committee  Administration

    ×