· Web viewJohn Doe’s research interests are in the reactor control area: optimal, robust, and...

DOSSIER TEMPLATE COVER PAGE

As a reminder, information required in the template below is taken from the Administrative Guidelines for HR-23 Promotion and Tenure Procedures and Regulations dated 2015-2016. If there are any questions on what a heading is referring to or if there is a need for additional examples, please review the Administrative Guidelines document first. Additionally, each Department has been provided a “FAQ” created by the Vice Provost’s office, which also serves as a ready source of information.

You will notice, as you read through the template below, that some text is colored orange. This text should be removed during the creation of each individual’s dossier as it only serves as a guide, an example, and/or provides an explanation of key information.

As a reminder, Narrative Statements from the candidate are required for every review (2nd Year through Promotion).

Updated information is in blue.

THE SCHOLARSHIP OF TEACHING AND LEARNING(List all items in this section in reverse chronological order with the most recent date listed first. Remove section headings if no information is present within them.)

LIST OF CREDIT COURSES TAUGHT IN-RESIDENT INSTRUCTION AT PENN STATE

Semester Course Number Course Title Credits

Enrollment

FA2014 Geog 20 Human Geography: An Introduction 3 100

LIST OF NON-CREDIT COURSES AND WORKSHOPS TAUGHT IN SUPPORT OF OUTREACH-BASED INSTRUCTION

Semester Year: Course or Workshop Title. Description of Instructional Activity.

CONCISE COMPILATION OF RESULTS OF STUDENT EVALUATIONS(Report weighted SRTE averages for courses with multiple sections (for example, one lecture and six labs) rather than section-by-section ratings. Weight the SRTE rating for each section by number of student respondents (n) in the section. With “X” sections, use the formula: ((SRTE rating for Section 1 * n1) + (SRTE rating for Section 2 * n2) + ... + (SRTE rating for Section X * nx)) / (n1+n2+…+nx) = Weighted SRTE Average for the course.

Student Rating of Teaching Effectiveness (SRTE)Semester Course

NumberCredits Enrollmen

tResponden

t %A3 - Overall Quality of

Course

A-4 - Overall Quality of Instructor

FA2014 Geog 20 3 100 75 6.00 6.87

LISTING OF ADVISING RESPONSIBLITIES(List the names of the students advised. Students accounted for here should not be listed in the Supervision of Graduate and Undergraduate Dissertation section. Potential examples of who could be listed here would be: students they advise, but not on their dissertation; students at other colleges who seek their guidance; etc.)

OTHER EVIDENCE OF RESIDENT AND/OR OUTREACH-BASED TEACHING AND ADVISING EFFECTIVENESS(For example, performance of students in subsequent courses, tangible results and benefits derived by clientele, recipient of teaching awards, etc...)

SUPERVISION OF, AND MEMBERSHIP ON, GRADUATE AND UNDERGRADUATE DISSERTATIONS, THESES, PROJECTS, ETC.

Supervision of students and postdoctoral scholars, completed:(If candidate is co-advisor, add a line that states “Co-Advisor:” and state co-advisor’s name)Undergraduate Degree:

Student’s Name, Major, Institution. Thesis/Project Title, Degree, Graduation Semester Year.

Master’s Degree:

Student’s Name, Program, Institution. Thesis Title, Degree, Graduation Semester Year.

Doctoral Degree:


Postdoctoral Scholars:

Postdoc’s Name, Period of Supervision, Name of Current Employer and Current position (if known).

Supervision of students and postdoctoral scholars, current:

Undergraduate Degree:

Student’s Name, Major, Institution. Thesis/Project Title, Degree, Expected Graduation Semester Year.

Master’s Degree:

Student’s Name, Program, Institution. Thesis Title, Degree, Expected Graduation Semester Year.

Doctoral Degree:


Postdoctoral Scholars:

Postdoc’s Name, Period of Supervision

Membership on Committees, completed:

Undergraduate Degree: (Thesis or Project)

Student’s Name, Program, Institution. Thesis/Project Title, Degree, Graduation Semester Year.

Master’s Degree:


Doctoral Degree:

Student’s Name, Program, Institution. Thesis Title, Degree, Graduation Semester Year. (For EME, GEOSC, and GEOG only: Committee Type (e.g., Candidacy Examination Committee, Comprehensive Examination Committee, or Defense Examination Committee))

Membership on Committees, current:

Master’s Degree:


Doctoral Degree:

Student’s Name, Program, Institution. Thesis Title, Degree, Expected Graduation Semester Year. (For EME, GEOSC, and GEOG only include: Committee Type (e.g., Candidacy Examination Committee, Comprehensive Examination Committee, or Defense Examination Committee))

FACULTY INPUT CONCERNING TEACHING EFFECTIVENESS(Each candidate should receive two peer evaluations per review period. Please reference the page numbers of the evaluations here [for example A-7].)

Letter assessing Dr. Jane Candidate’s teaching in Geography 20 from Professor Moriarty. (Fall 2014).

STATEMENTS FROM ADMINISTRATORS ATTESTING TO CANDIDATE’S TEACHING AND ADVISING EFFECTIVENESS(Each candidate should receive at least one administrative evaluation per review period. Please reference the page number(s) of the evaluation here [for example A-7]. The letter should not be a form letter, but instead speak to each candidate’s performance individually.) Letters from past review periods are included for 4th year and tenure evaluations.

Letter assessing Dr. Jane Candidate’s teaching in Geography 20 from Department Head or Associate Head (Fall 2014).

SUMMARY STATEMENT OF STUDENT COMMENTS(The statement should be written by a higher ranking faculty member than the candidate and should convey the students’ sense of strengths and weaknesses. It is a summary and not simply a list of the written student comments. The letter should not be a form letter, but instead speak to each candidate’s performance individually and should be in memorandum format which highlights the pattern of the comments received. Additionally, it should provide example comments that support the pattern.) Letters from past review periods are included for 4th year and tenure evaluations. The letter MUST include the name and signature of the faculty member who is compiling/summarizing the comments.

Summary of student written SRTE comments for Dr. Jane Candidate from Professor Moriarty. (Please reference the page number(s) of the summary here [for example A-8].)

THE SCHOLARSHIP OF RESEARCH AND CREATIVE ACCOMPLISHMENTS

(List items in this section following the format below, listing the candidate’s name and the publication year in bold, with the most recent date listed first. Please number items in each section in reverse chronological order beginning with the most recent item labeled as number 1 and so on. Remove section headings if no information is present within them. Do not include material here contained in other sections of the dossier.)

RESEARCH AND/OR SCHOLARLY PUBLICATIONS

Publication key:

Indicate candidate’s authorship role at the end of each citation: Sole Author Principal Author / Supervising Author Co-Author (add a brief statement of the role played in the article – see examples) Editor

Optional Notations on Authors to assist P&T Committees/Reviewers: Author is candidate’s graduate advisee, 1

Author is mentored by candidate (for example, other grad student authors or undergrad authors), 2

Candidate is listed as last author and supervised author group (supervising author role), 3

Author supervised candidate’s PhD, 4

Articles published in refereed journals(Articles listed here must have been published.)

1. Author, F.J., Candidate, J.. (2014). Article Title. Refereed Journal Name, Volume: Page Number(s). DOI: online number. (Co-Author – conducted research)

2. Student, M.I.2, Candidate, J.. (2013). Article Title. Refereed Journal Name, Volume: Page Number(s). (Co-Author – wrote 2 pages on X topic)

3. Candidate, J. (2012). Article Title. Refereed Journal Name, Volume (Section): Page Number(s). (Sole Author)

4. Graduate, P.H.1, Author, F.J., Professor, I. M., Candidate, J. . (2013). Article Title. Refereed Journal Name, Volume: Page Number(s). (Co-Author – reviewed and provided critical insight on 6 pages)

5. Graduate, Q.Z.1, Author, E.R., Professor, I. M., Candidate, J. . (2013). Article Title. Refereed Journal Name, Volume: Page Number(s). (Principal Author)

Books

1. Candidate, J.. (2015). Title (edition, pp.) Publisher (Sole Author)

Parts of books

1. Candidate, J.. (2015). Chapter Title. Book Title (pp.) Publisher (Sole Author)

Book reviews

1. Candidate, J.. (2010). [Review of the book Book Title, by Author’s Name]. (pp.) Journal Name, pp. (Sole Author)

Refereed conference proceedings

1. Super, V.D.1, Candidate, J. . (2012). Article Title. Conference Name, Location, Date. (Editor)

Articles published in nonrefereed journals

1. Graduate, P.H.1., Candidate, J.. (2013). Article Title. Nonrefereed Journal Name, Volume: Page Number(s). (Co-Author – reviewed research and provided 2 paragraphs of detailed analysis)

2. Professor, M.I.4, White, E.B., Cummings, E. E., Pastoral, R. J., Candidate, J.. (2013). Article Title. Refereed Journal Name, Volume: Page Number(s). (Supervising Author)

Articles in in-house publications

1. Author, F.J., Candidate, J. (2014). Article Title. In-House Journal Name, Volume: Page Number(s). (Principal Author)

Research reports to sponsor

1. Candidate, J. (2014). Report Title (and type of report if applicable (e.g. annual report). Sponsor Name, pp. (Sole Author)

Manuscripts accepted for publication (substantiated by letter of acceptance)- Denote Peer Reviewed with (Peer Reviewed) [In Bold] at the end of the citation

1. Author, F.J., Candidate, J.. Article Title. Refereed Journal Name, pp. [Accepted May 1, 2015] (provide page number(s) for document that substantiates acceptance and is included at the end of section B here (e.g., B-24 through B-25)). (Co-Author – provided expert opinion to author’s assertions) (Peer Reviewed)

2. Author, F.J., White, E.B., Stringer, R.X., Baseball, Q.R., Stevenson, R.L., Candidate, J.3. Article Title. Refereed Journal Name, pp. [Accepted May 1, 2015] (provide page number(s) for document that substantiates acceptance and is included at the end of section B here (e.g., B-24 through B-25)). (Supervising Author)

Manuscripts submitted for publication- Denote Peer Reviewed with (Peer Reviewed) [In Bold] at the end of the citation

(As a reminder, listings of work in progress should be eliminated from all sixth-year and early tenure reviews and all promotion reviews beyond the assistant professor level. Work accepted, submitted, or under contract should continue to be listed in all dossiers.)

1. Student, M.I.2, Candidate, J.. Article Title. Journal Name Where Submitted (indicate whether refereed or nonrefereed), number of pages. [Submitted April 2015] (Supervising Author – and wrote introduction)

2. Student, M.I.2, Candidate, J.. Article Title. Journal Name Where Submitted (indicate whether refereed or nonrefereed), number of pages. [In review; submitted April 2015] (Co-Author – edited 5 pages and wrote conclusion paragraph) (Peer Reviewed)

Manuscripts in progress(For second-, third-, fourth-, and fifth-year reviews only.)

1. Author, F.J., Candidate, J.. Article Title. [In Progress with expected submission date July 2015. Intended target journal if known.] (Co-Author – provided details based upon unique research)

Cooperative extension bulletins and circulars

1. Author, F.J., Candidate, J.. Article Title. [In Progress with expected submission date July 2015. Intended target bulletin or circular if known.] (Co-Author – wrote 1 paragraph)

CREATIVE ACCOMPLISHMENTS

PAPERS, PRESENTATIONS, SEMINARS AND WORKSHOPS

Papers presented at technical and professional meetings(Presenter’s name is italicized.)

1. Candidate, J. “Title of paper.” Name of Seminar/Workshop, City, State/Country (June 2013).

2. Candidate, J., F.J. Author, “Title of paper,” Name of Seminar/Workshop, City, State/Country (July 2012).

Record of participation in and description of, seminars and workshops

1. Candidate, J. (description of role, e.g., seminar/workshop presenter, workshop panel participant, invited speaker, etc.), “Title.” Name of Seminar/Workshop, City, State/Country (June 2013).

DESCRIPTION OF OUTREACH OR OTHER ACTIVITIES

FUNDED PROJECTS AND GRANTS

In Progress:

Project Title:PI/Co-PI:Sponsor:Period of Performance:Total Budget:Candidate’s Role:

Completed:


Pending:


Not Funded:(For second-, third-, fourth- and fifth-year reviews only. Not included in early tenure reviews or promotion reviews above the assistant professor level.)

Project Title:PI/Co-PI:Sponsor:Period of Performance:

Total Budget:Candidate’s Role:

OTHER EVIDENCE OF RESEARCH OR CREATIVE ACCOMPLISHMENTS(Patents, new product development, citation index analysis, etc.)

RECORD OF PURSUIT OF ADVANCED DEGREES AND/OR FURTHER STUDIES

RECORD OF MEMBERSHIP IN PROFESSIONAL AND LEARNED SOCIETIES

DESCRIPTION OF NEW COURSES AND/OR PROGRAMS DEVELOPED

DESCRIPTION OF NEW COMPUTER SOFTWARE PROGRAMS DEVELOPED

DESCRIPTION OF NEW METHODS OF TEACHING ESTABLISHED COURSES AND/OR PROGRAMS

LIST OF HONORS OR AWARDS FOR SCHOLARSHIP OR PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITY

LIST OF GRANTS AND CONTRACTS FOR IMPROVEMENT OF INSTRUCTION

APPLICATIONS OF RESEARCH SCHOLARSHIP IN THE FIELD

TECHNOLOGY TRANSFERRED OR ADAPTED IN THE FIELD

TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROVIDED

OTHER EVIDENCE OF IMPACT

THE SERVICE AND THE SCHOLARSHIP OF SERVICE TO THE UNIVERSITY, SOCIETY, AND THE PROFESSION

(Remove section headings if no information is present within them. Information in this section should also be in reverse chronological order with the most recent date listed first.)

SERVICE TO THE UNIVERSITY

Record of committee work

Department-level:

Role, Committee Name, Year(s) of service

College-level:


University-level:


Participation in University-wide governance bodies


Record of administrative support work

Role, Unit Name, Year(s) of service

Record of contributions to University’s programs to enhance equal opportunity and cultural diversity

Description of activity and role, year(s) of service.

Assistance to student organizations

Description of activity and role, year(s) of service.

SERVICE TO SOCIETY AS A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE UNIVERSITY

Participation in community affairs

Service to governmental agencies(Include level: international, local, state, or federal.)

Service to business and industry

Service to public and private organizations

Service to citizen/client groups

Testifying as an expert witness

SERVICE TO THE DISCIPLINES AND TO THE PROFESSION

Organizing conferences, service on conference committees

Year, Role, Conference Name, Sponsor if applicable, [other participants if applicable]

Active participation in professional and learned societies

Offices held, committee work, etc.

CANDIDATE’S NARRATIVE STATEMENT

Focus of StatementIn the College of Earth and Mineral Sciences, a single narrative statement written by the candidate is required. This statement should focus on clarifying and highlighting the primary area(s) of concentration and contribution by the candidate to aid the College and University Committees in their review of the dossier.

Placement of Statement in DossierThis statement is placed immediately after the College and Department Criteria Statements in the dossier.

Process for Statement Review Prior to FinalizationThe Department Head has responsibility to review the candidate’s narrative statement and ensure that it is not subjective or evaluative. The candidate may be asked to make revisions as part of this review.

Guidelines for Statement PreparationThe format of the Narrative Statement should: Be a brief statement (one to three pages) explaining areas of emphasis and major

contributions. Be written in the third person Include sections on research, teaching, and service. It is also helpful to explain links between

these areas. Have margins of at least 1” and a font size of at least 12 to ensure readability.

The content of the Narrative Statement should: Explain how the candidate’s work and activities fit in the context of their overall goals and

agendas (not call attention to achievements already listed in the dossier). Be factual and objective, not subjective or evaluative. Avoid use of: -- Unnecessary technical jargon, technical acronyms or other phrases that reviewers outside the discipline would not understand. -- Qualitative phrases, adjectives, and adverbs to describe a candidate's work and contributions

Examples to Avoid: “strong record,” “particularly effective,” “well-funded,” “has strengths in...,” “was successful in ...,” “tremendous effort,” “developed an excellent reputation,” “teaching evaluations have improved,” “received favorable recognition,” “is one of the pioneers in the area,” “performed original and voluminous work,” “work was well-received,” “... greatly enjoys interacting with students,” “he has established visibility in ...,” “she has strengthened the curriculum by ...,” “has demonstrated abilities in ...,” "constantly strives to show the students ...,” “students find (the faculty member) knowledgeable and interesting,” “has passed on an enthusiasm for ...,” “has developed expertise in ...,” “his long-term goal is to ...,” “his approach supports the ideal of a research university where the faculty member ...,” “... believes that ...,” “internationally recognized,” “…made important contributions…”

Examples of Narrative StatementsThese example illustrate the content and format of an appropriate narrative statement to use as a guide or template to follow. Narrative Statement - Example 1 (borrowed from the College of Engineering)Jane Doe joined the faculty of Penn State University in the Fall of 2010 following five years in industry with the Acme All-Purpose Systems Company. While at Acme, she performed research in computational analysis of power systems. As part of an Acme-funded research program, the candidate initiated the Acme High-Speed Computing Effort, which grew to include 20 researchers in electric power and control systems analysis using massively parallel computers with an emphasis on computer graphics.Doe’s research interests are in the related areas of power system dynamics, energy conversion, and power electronics. Her work in each of these areas has primarily involved analysis and computer modeling along with some experimental investigations. At Penn State, she initiated NSF-supported research in the first of these areas, focusing on system-level, model-order reduction, and development of a state-space method for determining harmonics in power systems which contain power electronic converters. In addition to this power systems research, she is collaborating with faculty members in Mechanical and Nuclear Engineering on a three-year Department of Energy grant pertaining to intelligent distributed control of nuclear and fossil-fuel power plants. The goal of this research is to apply new intelligent control methodologies to the subsystem and supervisory controls in a target nuclear power plant operated by Argonne National Laboratory and to a fossil fuel plant to be identified. This work is of potential interest to both electric utilities and government agencies involved in power system design and analysis.Since coming to Penn State, Doe has taught all of the courses in the control systems and power areas at both the undergraduate and graduate level. She has developed and taught a new graduate course in Power System Networks and is currently developing a new undergraduate course in Computer Control of Power Systems. From the high-technology classrooms in the new classroom and office building, Doe uses an advanced Unix color workstation at the podium (with high-resolution projection capability) to teach numerical methods for analysis and design of power and control systems. She collaborated with the CBEL group at the CAC to develop a multi-media computer program for classroom instruction. This program is used to demonstrate the interactive nature of design and the importance of trade-offs in the design process.The candidate has led the development of computer facilities for both undergraduate and graduate students in the department. These facilities include the latest X-terminals, Unix workstations, and microcomputers for the department. In particular the candidate received a Department of Defense equipment grant that supported the acquisition of the only massively parallel computer of its kind on campus. The peak speed of this machine is faster than any other computer on campus. This computer is housed in the department for both instruction and research.

Narrative Statement - Example 2 (borrowed from the College of Engineering)John Doe’s research interests are in the reactor control area: optimal, robust, and intelligent control including fuzzy logic, neural network, and reconfigurable control techniques. His work includes interdisciplinary collaboration with faculty members in Electrical and Mechanical Engineering. Doe established an intelligent distributed controls research laboratory that is used to conduct real-world experimental control research at the TRIGA reactor facility. This work

includes both diagnostics and advanced automatic control for power plants. Doe's research has led to the development of a new diagnostic model approved by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for use in the electric power generation industry. Doe’s research interests also include nuclear safety analysis and the use of computational methods in reactor physics. He uses various reactor simulation computer programs to evaluate the relative safety characteristics of pressurized and boiling water reactors during past related failures and accidents. This analysis adds to the industry's understanding of time-dependent phenomena during events. Since large-scale experimental testing of events in actual plants is very costly, code simulations become the best-estimate approach to investigate plant response and the impact of design changes.Doe teaches the graduate reactor control course, the capstone nuclear reactor design course, and the multiple section undergraduate reactor physics laboratory course. He also teaches the summer "ramp" course, which compresses two semesters of reactor physics into an 8-week course for undergraduate co-op and incoming graduate students. Doe has incorporated modern simulation and computer-based control systems analysis software into the reactor control course. Similarly, in the senior laboratory course, Doe has incorporated simulation of reactor experiments to demonstrate the theoretical basis of the experiments. In order to have better visualization of nuclear engineering concepts, he developed (with support from the Leonhard Center) a Nuclear Plant Simulation Intelligent Tutoring System for use in the capstone design course.Doe has been selected as a Presidential Young Investigator. He serves as chair of the Reactor Design Committee for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and as a member of the Executive Board of the American Nuclear Society.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR CRAFTING YOUR NARRATIVE STATEMENT

1. Audience: you are not writing for your colleagues in your Department, but for people on the College and University P&T Committees. They may be lawyers, musicians, biologists—all possible specialties may be on the University committee.

2. What Do They Want to Know? Quite simply, who you are as a scholar at Penn State. Committee members are confronted with about 150 dossiers at the University level. They need to be able to make sense of these dossiers without first having to read it through, line by line. At the department level, people do that close reading and some even read papers or chapters cited in the dossier! Many committees assign two people to read the dossier in great detail and to present a case statement to the rest of the committee who have, at least, skimmed through the dossier.

3. What Is Your Challenge? To give the educated, scientifically-informed reader a context into which to put the details of your work. Committee members welcome the help. Your statement is often the first thing that people read, and they often quote from it in their own letters of evaluation.

Therefore, some suggestions:

4. Think Big Picture: assume that the details are present in the body of the dossier. People want to get a sense of context. They want to understand your career aspirations and how you are meeting them in your work at Penn State.

5. Don’t Repeat the Details: by all means make reference to and develop connections among the details in the three major sections: teaching, research, and search. However, for example, you should not refer to specific grants or courses unless it is to illustrate a bigger point.6. Think Philosophy, Overarching Themes, and Goals: people want to know who you are, what you are doing, why you do it, how you do it, and where you are going. I know that these things make people feel uncomfortable, but….

7. Begin Each Section with a Statement of Beliefs and Goals: this is easiest to do in the teaching section because you do have a teaching philosophy. Show how that underpins all of your instructional program, but also show how, for example, you realize this philosophy in different ways in introductory versus advanced level work, general education courses versus graduate seminars, etc. So you might talk about any of the following things: the role of active or collaborative learning; the use of e-Education approaches; the goal of developing critical thinkers; the fostering of life-long learners; the use of undergraduate TIs; the development of essentials skills such as…. Use these section beginning statements to organize what follows. If you have themes, then refer to them in the more detailed discussion.

8. Begin the Narrative Statement with an Overarching Philosophy and Goal: this might mix the following things:

• a short (10-20 words) description of your research area; you want the reader to remember that you are an X who is working on Y in order to…..

• a statement as to how you see the links among teaching, learning, and service;

• and if you can do it, a statement about what you want to be when you grow up! Seriously, we do have long-terms goals for ourselves and readers do want to see that you are not just focusing on the immediate present (e.g., getting tenure at Penn State). This can either appear at the end of the first paragraph, before you address the three areas in sequence, or it could appear as a conclusion. I think that the latter is preferable.

9. You Should Write in Ways that are Memorable and Searchable: by this I mean that you want the reader to remember some things about you and your work, but you also want them to be able to refer back and find things quickly. Therefore:

• use headers and perhaps even sub-heads; alternatively consider using bold or italics to highlight key ideas;• use short paragraphs with clear topic sentences• write in the active voice (they want to know what you think and what you do)• keep it tight and focused

I’m sorry to say it, but this short (2-3 page) statement is as important as any article that you will write. It is your chance to make the reader (judge) see that you are thoughtful, articulate, and driven. Readers like to see a vision and a commitment: you are not just doing this as a job, but you care about X, Y, and Z. Your academic life is a passion and a vocation. That does not mean

you should indulge in multiple adverbs and exclamation marks. It does mean that you should not just report on who you are, but try to share a sense as to why you do what you do, why you care. If you do that, then they too will care and react positively to the detailed information in the rest of the dossier.

· Web viewJohn Doe’s research interests are in the reactor control area: optimal, robust, and...

Documents

Transcript of · Web viewJohn Doe’s research interests are in the reactor control area: optimal, robust, and...