The New Appendix J

Areas of PerformanceSection IXEffective 2008-2009Approved by General Faculty Vote May 2007

Fall 2008 RTP Workshop Presentation

Approved Resolutions

Senate Resolutions      Appendix J: Effective 2008-2009 (April, 2007)

Timeline Extension for Department Criteria and Standards Review (April, 2008)

The “Guidelines for Completing Template for RTP Criteria and Standards”

http://www.humboldt.edu/~acadsen/UFPC/ufpcindex.htm

Effective 2008-2009, except . . . . . . applicable to all RTP candidates,

Except . . .

. . . those faculty who will be evaluated for a positive promotion and/or tenure decision during AY 2008-2009 or AY 2009-2010 may use either the previous or new Appendix J.

Approved Changes

App J: IX.A.1 – Development of Department Criteria and Standards

App J: IX.B – Assessment of Areas of Performance for RTP (three areas)

• Expanded teaching effectiveness• Scholarly/Creative Activities – Ernst

Boyer’s Scholarship Reconsidered• Service – university, profession,

community

Department Approval

Department criteria and standards are subject to ratification by a majority of tenured and probationary department faculty members voting.

Once approved, the criteria and standards shall be used at all levels of

review.

Ad Hoc Review Committee

Departments submit criteria and standards to ad hoc university review committee beginning Fall 2007 through Spring 2009.

The Ad Hoc Review Committee: Two tenured/tenure track faculty from each

college Three college deans or designees.

Beginning in 2009/2010, departmental criteria and standards will be subject to approval by the College/Library Dean, the UFPC,

and the Provost.

If disagreement . . .

The department may request next higher level of review to investigate

If at UFPC/Provost level, the request to investigate is submitted to the General Faculty President and the President for consultation and disposition.

If the President’s recommendation differs from that of the General Faculty President, the President shall give reasons that are specific to the individual department and sufficient to persuade any reasonable, disinterested person that the General Faculty President’s recommendation should be overruled.

If no dept standards . . .

For departments without approved standards, the University’s policy on RTP (Appendix J) shall be the basis to evaluate faculty performance.

Evolutionary Process

Departments may revise criteria and standards

however Criteria, policies, and procedures shall

remain unchanged during any individual RTP cycle: Criteria and procedures shall be made

available to faculty no later than 14 days after the first day of instruction (15.3)

Application of Standards

A record of teaching excellence,

combined with an “Acceptable” level of performance in the two non-teaching

areas

shall be taken as a strong justification for RTP

Teaching Excellence (new)

It is expected that faculty demonstrate sound academic advising effective counseling of students on

course-related matters the ability to work with a diverse student

population availability of the faculty member on a

regular basis to assist the academic needs of students

Scholarship and Service Expectations

All faculty are expected to make contributions

in the area of scholarly/creative activities

and

in the area of service

in accordance with department standards.

Scholarship and Service:Each are Valued

Both scholarly/creative activities

and service shall be valued and/or weighted

equally in the RTP process

and shall be reflected in the department

standards.

Scholarship and Service Performance Level Expectations Levels of performance are defined/evaluated as:

Minimum Essential, Good, and Excellent

Minimum Essential shall include evidence of reasonable effort and contribution by the candidate in non-teaching categories

Candidates for promotion and/or tenure who do not meet at least Minimum Essential performance in non-teaching categories shall not receive a positive promotion and/or tenure recommendation.

Minimum essential performance in one non-teaching category must be balanced with Excellent performance in second non-teaching category.

What is “Acceptable”Performance ?*

Scholarly/creative activities

Service Outcome

Good (or Excellent) Good (or Excellent) Acceptable

Excellent Minimum Essential Acceptable

Minimum Essential Excellent Acceptable

Good Minimum Essential Unacceptable

Minimum Essential Good Unacceptable

*in ancillary areas as defined by department criteria/standards

Assessing Scholarship*

Scholarly/creative activity shall be characterized by clear goals adequate preparation appropriate methods significant results effective presentation

Collegial/peer review appropriate to the discipline is required and shall be defined in the department criteria

and standards

*Glassick, C.E., M.T. Huber, & G.I. Meaeroff. Scholarship Assessed.

Boyer: Scholarship Reconsidered

Scholarship of:Discovery IntegrationApplicationTeachingCommunity engagement

Boyer, E. Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professorate

All Scholarship Dimensions?

There is no expectation that faculty would have contributions in each of the five dimensions of scholarship.

DISCOVERY

The scholarship of discovery refers to the pursuit of inquiry and investigation in search of new knowledge. It is documented through critically evaluated and professionally recognized activities such as but not limited to:

Journal articles Monographs Proceedings Poems Stories Artistic creations Awarded grants and evidence of subsequent work Public performances Published books Professional presentations.

INTEGRATION

The scholarship of integration consists of making connections across disciplines and/or advancing knowledge through synthesis as demonstrated by activities such as but not limited to:

Writing textbooks Developing educational media Writing for non-specialists Sponsoring colloquia and forums Shaping a core curriculum Preparing computer software Integration of professional experiences in classrooms Critical review articles Editing books.

APPLICATION

The scholarship of application asks how knowledge can be applied to the social issues of the times in a dynamic process that generates and tests new theory and knowledge. It is documented by using knowledge to address demanding, substantive human problems. It is demonstrated in activities such as but not limited to:

Conducting applied research and evaluation Consultation with and/or providing technical assistance for

community/organizations Developing new products, practices, clinical procedures,

new artistic works, Performing clinical service Promoting experiential learning and professional

development.

TEACHING

The scholarship of teaching includes not only transmitting knowledge, but also transforming and extending it through activities such as but not limited to:

• Designing new courses• Writing textbooks• Published research in teaching and learning• Creation of course software• Creation of technology-mediated instruction• Shaping a core curriculum• Developing innovative pedagogy.

ENGAGEMENT

The scholarship of community engagement connects any of the above dimensions of scholarship to the understanding and solving of pressing societal, environmental, civic, and ethical problems. Community-engaged scholarship involves the faculty member in a mutually beneficial partnership with the community.

It can be trans-disciplinary and often integrates some combination of multiple forms of scholarship. For example, service learning can integrate the

scholarship of teaching, application, and engagement while community-based participatory research can integrate the scholarship of discovery integration, application and engagement.

For further information

Please contact either University Faculty Personnel

Committee• Or

Colleen Mullery, AVP Faculty Affairs