File Construction Workshop

Updated by Bill Reynolds, December, 2013 for pre-tenure faculty workshops (December 12, 2013 and January 6, 2014

General Tips and Advice for Navigating Policies and Procedures

Workshop Outline

General approach to thinking about file construction Faculty Plan Executive summary Required background materials

Workshop Objectives

After attending today’s session, participants will:– Understand each of the components required of a complete

review file– Understand the relationship between the faculty plan and the

“self-evaluation” portion of the review file– Develop a beginning strategy for writing an Executive Summary– Make a preliminary plan for conceptualizing their teaching,

research, and service as an integrated, cohesive whole.

Overall mindset/approach toward file construction

Treat process as an opportunity for serious self-reflection about your professional responsibilities.– Beware “checklist” approach.– Demonstrate that you are more than the sum of your

professional parts. Consider your audience (but not too much).

– Disparate backgrounds, roles.– Make their job as easy as possible.

Clarity Brevity (where possible) Precision

Role of Faculty Plan in review file

Probationary faculty should include as part of their Self-Evaluations, reflections on their success in achieving the goals and objectives set forth in their Faculty Plans.

For each of the three sections of the Faculty Plan it is suggested that you follow this format:– Objective 1:

Methods of accomplishing objective: Methods for measuring accomplishment of objective: General date by which objective will be accomplished:

– Objective 2: Methods of accomplishing objective: Methods for measuring accomplishment of objective: General date by which objective will be accomplished:

Constructing Files (II in Procedures)Part I: Required Background Information, provided by candidate (II)

– Most current CV– Faculty Plan– 1st year, one page reflection;

2nd year, 5 page narrative; subsequent years, narrative

– First year, all syllabi; subsequent years, representative syllabi

– Peer observations

Common mistakes and advice

Not updating CV Not including dates in CV Not including CV subsections

aligned with teaching, scholarly, and service portfolios.

Failing to differentiate between conference, article, chapter, peer-reviewed scholarly vehicles

Failing to indicate order of authorship or provide full reference for scholarly works

Failing to differentiate between college, local community, national, and international service.

Constructing Files (II in Procedures)Part IIa: Self-evaluation (II)

– Organization is key. Teaching, scholarship, and service should be discussed as separate sub-sections. Also, discuss any integration of teaching, scholarship, and service.

– Reflect upon the quality and quantity of teaching, scholarly, and service achievements, in the context of the Faculty Plan and include every additional achievement

– Reference the location of supporting documentation in the file

– Attention should be paid to any pattern of concern in the previous evaluation(s).

– Carefully craft Exec Summary– Be clear and concise

Common mistakes

Listing achievements without explaining them

Being too wordy, disorganized, difficult to follow.

Failing to reference documentation in support of claims or forgetting to include the documentation that is referenced.

Failing to directly address concerns from previous PRC, Dean, FRC, Provost letters

• Reference the program/college standards when explaining how you meet the standards for tenure and promotion.

Role of Executive Summary

Persuasive argument for your excellence Link directly to:

– Your Program standards aligned with College Procedures– Your faculty plan

Possible structure– Intro (purpose of exec summary—highlight key achievements)– Teaching

Primary accomplishments with links– Scholarship

Primary accomplishments with links– Service

Primary accomplishments with links– Conclusion (e.g., based on these accomplishments…)

Constructing Files (II in Procedures)

Part IIb: Teaching

– A self-evaluation of teaching– As an appendix:

Student evaluations of teaching and preceptorial teaching

Peer evaluations of teaching Other evidence of effectiveness in teaching

Advice for Part IIb: Teaching

Include philosophy of teaching, and explain the type of teacher you are.

Show that you are introspective, conscientious, serious about learning, and dedicated to teaching excellence.– What makes you an excellent and effective teacher? How do you strive for

high quality learning? Do you do anything different? Noteworthy? – What matters most to you? – What are the goals in your courses and how do you meet those goals? – What are your shining moments?

Demonstrate your progress/evolution as a teacher– How has your teaching grown or changed? – What have you learned about teaching? – How have you incorporated feedback about teaching?

IDEA Peer observer

Advice for Part IIb: Teaching (continued)

Include representative syllabi, handouts, assignments, samples of graded work, peer reviews, assessments that show student learning.

Provide evidence of the quality of independent study work.

• Reference the program/college standards & faculty plan when explaining how you meet the standards for tenure and promotion.

• Differentiate between independent studies, tutorials and small classes versus fully capped classes and modes of instruction.

Advice for Part IIb: Teaching (continued)

IDEA Create tables that includes the most essential IDEA

scores. Explain:– How the IDEA scores indicate teaching excellence for you.– How they fail to capture your teaching excellence.– Anomalies?

Create graphs to show improvements or stability. Use pages 2 & 3 of IDEA report to give depth and

nuance to your self-evaluation of teaching.

Common Mistakes for Part IIb: Teaching

Relying too much on IDEA scores Failing to include other evidence of effective teaching Blaming course or students for sub-par IDEA scores Arbitrary choice of peer observers Ignoring precepting.

Constructing Files (II in Procedures)

Part IIc: Scholarship Portfolio

– A short statement of your overall program of scholarship and/or creative activity, a self-assessment of your progress, and evidence to support your assessment.

– Include all scholarly works (re-prints, pre-prints, grant applications, conference submissions).

– Indicate whether the work was juried, adjudicated, invited, competitive, refuted or otherwise professionally reviewed and acknowledged.

– Also include: copies of reviews by others, copies of articles where work was cited, reviewer feedback.

Common Mistakes

Waiting for criticism from PRC or Dean before including missing documentation or evidence

Failing to indicate/explain the importance/impact/difficulty of one’s work.

Failing to indicate type of work (i.e. - refereed pubs, non-refereed pubs, international/national conference presentations, state/local conference presentations, print material versus online, radio, TV, film, etc.).

Stating “glowing reviews,” but not including them.

Omitting rejected articles, conference submissions, and grant applications.

Failure to reference the program/college standards & faculty plan when explaining how you meet the standards for tenure and promotion.

Constructing Files (II in Procedures)Part IId: Service Portfolio

– Self-evaluation includes goals and achievements.

– Evidence of effectiveness of service should demonstrate the significance of the contribution and the impact of such service on the College, and its students, or on the communities, the professions or the disciplines for which such service was provided. Testimony from internal or external sources should focus on the impact and results of the service.

Part III: Other items– The faculty member may include other

items, at her or his discretion, which demonstrate achievement in activities related to the evaluation criteria. This may include items that become available after the closing of files.

Common Mistakes and Advice

Failing to indicate how service is related to one’s expertise or interest or goals.

Failing to indicate contribution to service and providing evidence (reports, letters, thank you notes).

Failing to indicate the specific tasks, time involved, difficulty, impact.

• Reference the program/college standards & faculty plan when explaining how you meet the standards for tenure and promotion.

College Standards for Teaching Faculty(6.0 in Policies)

Teaching, 6.1 (6.1.1-6.1.3.3)– Teaching carries the greatest weight (6.1.1)– All aspects of teaching are evaluated (6.1.1)– Broad terms of teaching excellence (6.1.2) includes:

command of the subject matter sound course design and delivery course organization (syllabus that includes expectations, grading,

and attendance) effective response to student questions and timely feedback.

College Standards for Teaching Faculty (6.0 in Policies)

Scholarly and Creative Activity (6.2.1-6.2.4.6.11)– Serious and continued commitment to scholarship– Publications and creative works during probationary period or

since last promotion/range adjustment– Scholarly activity may take many forms– Time and effort vary markedly– It is the burden of the candidate to document excellence. See

6.2.4.1-6.2.4.5 on how to document– See 6.2.4.6.1-6.2.4.6.11 for college definitions of scholarly

excellence.

College Standards for Teaching Faculty (6.0 in Policies)

College and Community Service (6.3.1-6.3.5.3)– Capacity to work collaboratively with other members of the

college community– Contribute to college’s mission through service in community,

region, state, nation.– Tenured and senior faculty are expected to have more substantial

records than probationary/junior faculty.– Evaluation focuses on significance and effectiveness of

participation, impact of service, scope of responsibilities.– Documentation and reflection of contributions.

Conferring Tenure (in Policies, 9.3)

Clear evidence of ability and willingness to make significant and continuing contributions to the college

Presentation of evidence of excellence in achievement of college, program, school standards.

Demonstrated ability to fulfill professional responsibilities as member of faculty and employee of college

No tenure quota. Existing minimum qualifications for appointment or promotion are

necessary but not sufficient for tenure Assistant Professors normally receive promotion to Assoc Prof with

tenure, unless there are unusual circumstances. Expectations for Rank can be found in 10.0 of Policies. Expectations

for the next higher rank are used to judge readiness for promotion to that rank.

Responsibilities in Review Process (Part II in Procedures)

It is the responsibility of faculty member under review to demonstrate extent and quality of performance relative to ALL applicable standards.

External Reviewers are required for promotion to Professor or Distinguished Professor. It is recommended for those seeking promotion to Associate Professor.

PRC letter becomes part of evaluation file. Members who disagree with majority vote can write letter of explanation to be included in file.

Candidate may provide letter of rebuttal to program or any dissenting letters to PRC within 3 days after PRC letter due date, and/or Dean within 3 days after Dean’s letter due date.

Points that came up during past workshops (1)

What if I did not do everything on my faculty plan, but did other things? Should that be mentioned?– Faculty plans are not set in stone, and sometimes planned

opportunities fail to materialize while better, unforeseen opportunities materialize. This should be explained in the self-evaluation (IIa) AND evidence for achievements that are different than what appeared in the Faculty Plan should appear in the appropriate teaching (IIb) , scholarship (IIc), or service (IId) “Documentation” section of the file.

Points that came up during past workshops (2)

What if I haven’t precisely met the written program standards for scholarship, and recent people in my program were tenured without having met the same standards?– Scholarship is not all equal. Some scholarship is more intense, effortful,

and has a longer expected timeline than others. While this fact is recognized by people evaluating the file, it is the burden of the candidate to clearly make the case that their scholarship necessitates a timeline that is longer than what was allotted for probationary faculty and to explain where they are in the process, how much work has gone into the project thus far, and the expected completion date. All evidence documenting such claims should also be included (e.g., book contracts, papers in press, papers being revised plus reviewer comments). Further, the program and Dean’s letter should directly address this issue and make a clear determination of whether the scholarship is on par with the expectations of the program and school. To ensure this, the candidate should discuss this with her/his program (members of PRC) and Dean.

Points that came up during past workshops (3)

How much evidence for teaching, scholarship, and service should I include?– The responses were mixed. One FRC member said that it is ok

to provide a sample of course material, especially when the handouts or booklets can amount to hundreds of pages. Another FRC member said to include everything you can, even if people won’t read every word. For scholarship, include everything (all reprints, pre-prints, grant applications, book chapters, manuscripts under review, contracts, paper acceptances, anything that documents the impact of one’s scholarship). For service, those with whom you’ve interacted during service should write a letter clarifying your role, any reports, and anything that can back up the claims you’ve made about your service.