The Well Prepared Candidate

A Workshop on

Tenure and Promotion Case Preparation For

Candidates

www.usask.ca/vpacademic/collegial/promotion.php

The University Review Committee

Who is the University Review Committee? Nine tenured or continuing status employees nominated

by the Nominations Committee of Council and approved by Council with the length of their term specified to ensure a reasonable turnover of membership

The Provost and Vice–President Academic, or designate who is the Chair

Two Faculty Association representatives who serve strictly as an observer with voice, but do not vote

University Review Committee “Reviews College recommendations for the renewal of probation

from College renewal and tenure committee and all College recommendations for the award of tenure and

promotion to the ranks of Professor and Librarian IV, and approves them if they are not inconsistent with the standards of the department, college and University.” [Article 15.10.4 (v)]; [Article 16.4.4 (vi)]

Provides “second level review” of recommendations for tenure, renewal of probation and promotion to professor for non-departmentalized colleges

Receives and adjudicates on appeals from faculty denied, renewal of probation, tenure and promotion to professor.

“Submits to the President for transmission to the Board its recommendations for renewal, tenure and promotion” [Articles 15.10.4 (vii)/16.4.4. (viii)]

Some URC Statistics: 2010/11

Renewal of Probationary Period: 50 cases 50 positive recommendations

Tenure & Continuing Status: 38 cases 36 positive recommendations 2 appeals

Promotion to Full Professor: 18 cases 12 positive recommendations 2 negative recommendations 4 appeals

Total Cases: 106

Roles & Responsibilities Deans & Department Heads

Mentor and guide faculty for successful career progress; provide direction, and feedback to faculty as they prepare their case files

Manage case files to ensure sufficient and appropriate data is collected and cases thoroughly documented

Create awareness of, and adherence to, Department, College and University standards

Provide leadership in the interpretation and consistent application of the standards; focus on evidence and what it takes to be a tenured and promoted member of our academic community

Enforce deadlines and adhere to procedures

CommunicationColleges & Departments

In several of the case files last year, it was apparent that the Department Renewals and Tenure Committees’ overall support was not shared by the College Review Committees’

These differences, were typically apparent in the areas of interpretation of the Standards, and, evaluation of a candidate’s scholarly record

When such situations arise between a Department Renewals and Tenure Committee and the CRC, it is the Dean’s responsibility to communicate the concerns to the Department Heads

Subsequently, it is the Department Heads responsibility to communicate these concerns to the candidates

Shared ResponsibilitiesShared Responsibilities Selecting RefereesSelecting Referees: : The University Standards

state that “the Department Head or Dean, in consultation with committee members, should provide at least half of the names on the list”.

Teaching EvaluationsTeaching Evaluations: : Both student and peer evaluations are a mandatory part of the case file. The requirements are a “series of evaluations, over a period of time”.

Key Elements of A SuccessfulCase File

The Curriculum Vitae

Standardized c.v. using the form for faculty available at www.usask.ca/vpacademic/collegial/promotion.php

For promotion – only include information up to June 30th of the academic year. (Submissions in fall of 2011 should only include material up to June 30, 2011)

For tenure, include all information up to and including the date of submission

Teaching Include a statement of your philosophy of teaching;

A record of teaching roles should include both graduate and undergraduate courses, practical or other field work and information on your graduate students;

If your c.v. contains a complete record of your teaching roles (Item 9 in the Standard c.v.) it is not necessary to repeat that here; simply reference the appropriate sections of the c.v.;

You should have a summary statement of your understanding of the results of the student and peer evaluations;

You should have a statement outlining your response to the results of the teaching evaluations;

Q# Question/Faculty member A B C D E F G H 1UG AVG

OVERALL1 Course intellectually challenging and stimulating 4.01 4.47 4.65 5.13 4.71 4.93 5.42   4.762 Learned something valuable 3.98 4.63 5.06 5.00 4.94 5.21 5.58   4.913 Subject interest increased because of course 3.62 4.16 4.78 5.13 4.65 5.07 5.32   4.684 Learned and understood subject materials 3.71 4.53 4.89 5.38 4.88 5.50 5.26   4.885 Instructor enthusiastic about teaching course 4.40 4.88 5.00 6.00 5.18 5.50 5.73   5.246 Instructor dynamic and energetic in conducting course 3.92 4.65 4.89 5.75 5.06 5.57 5.74   5.087 Instructor enhanced presentations with use of humor 4.12 4.07 4.22 5.50 4.88 5.29 5.72   4.838 Instructor’s style of presentation held interest during class 3.20 4.15 4.17 5.25 4.35 5.29 5.61   4.579 Instructor’s explanations were clear 3.23 4.28 4.89 5.13 4.71 5.21 5.47   4.70

10 Course materials well prepared and carefully explained 3.27 4.89 5.17 5.25 4.53 5.29 5.55   4.8511 Proposed objectives agreed with those actually taught 3.60 4.84 5.22 5.38 4.59 5.29 5.47   4.9112 Instructor lectures facilitated taking notes 3.99 4.81 4.67 5.75 3.94 5.36 5.67   4.8813 Students encouraged to participate in class discussions 4.66 4.27 5.00 5.75 4.59 5.08 5.61   4.9914 Students invited to share their ideas and knowledge 4.61 4.28 5.11 5.38 4.94 5.38 5.58   5.0415 Students encouraged to ask questions and were given meaningful answers 4.49 4.51 5.17 5.63 4.94 5.46 5.61   5.1216 Students encouraged to express own ideas and/or questions to instructor 4.52 4.22 5.12 5.38 4.71 5.46 5.55   4.9917 Instructor friendly to individual students 4.98 5.13 5.33 5.88 5.35 5.71 5.65   5.4318 Instructor made students welcome by seeking help/advice in/outside class 4.58 5.03 5.29 5.63 4.94 5.85 5.70   5.2919 Instructor had genuine interest in individual students 4.51 4.89 4.89 5.63 4.71 5.50 5.48   5.0920 Instructor adequately accessible to students during office hours or after class 4.45 4.85 5.12 5.13 4.33 5.54 5.57   5.0021 Instructor contrasted implications of various theories 4.17 4.53 5.00 5.25 4.75 5.15 5.39   4.89

2Instructor presented background or origin of ideas/concepts developed in class 4.20 4.61 5.11 5.25 5.00 5.50 5.40   5.01

23 Instructor presented points of view other than his/her own 4.33 4.62 4.94 5.38 5.00 5.43 5.30   5.0024 Instructor adequately discussed current developments in field 4.40 4.79 5.39 5.63 5.41 5.36 5.42   5.2025 Feedback on examinations/graded materials was valuable 3.12 3.91 4.39 5.63 4.59 5.50 5.37   4.6426 Methods of evaluating student work were fair and appropriate 3.50 4.24 5.00 5.25 4.82 5.50 5.47   4.8327 Examinations/graded materials tested course content 3.14 4.12 5.06 5.50 4.53 5.07 5.40   4.6928 Required readings/texts were valuable 4.05 4.40 4.73 4.50 3.83 5.18 5.09   4.54

29

Readings, homework, laboratories contributed to appreciation and understanding of course 4.16 4.68 4.50 4.50 4.41 5.00 5.17     4.63

Total 1 - 29 116.92 131.44 142.76 155.95 137.27 155.18 159.30 0.00 0.00Avg first 29 questions 4.03 4.53 4.92 5.38 4.73 5.35 5.49 0.00 0.00 4.92

31 Compared with other instructors at U of S, rate this instructor 3.1 4.3 4.72 5.38 4.75 5.5 5.76   4.7932 Overall instructor rating 3.31 4.42 4.83 5.88 4.5 5.64 5.72     4.90

Total 31 - 32 6.41 8.72 9.55 11.26 9.25 11.14 11.48 0.00 0.00Avg questions 31 - 32 3.21 4.36 4.78 5.63 4.63 5.57 5.74 0.00 0.00 4.84

Undergraduate Course Evaluation Tool

Average overall = 4.92

Average overall = 4.84

Scholarly Work The primary and essential evidence in this category is

publication in reputable peer-reviewed outlets, or, in the case of performance or artistic work, presentation in reputable peer-reviewed venues

The statement should state the nature of the candidate’s research and future plans. It should address the quality and significance of the work

It should include an explanation of the candidate’s role in joint publications, presentations, research grants ……

Professional Practice A balance between the Professional Practice and Scholarly

Work suggests an assessable volume of work, or productivity, in each area

There should be compelling evidence that the candidate has a sustained high level of performance in the practice of the profession and established a reputation for expertise in the field, AND, the candidate has made a contribution to the creation and dissemination of knowledge through scholarly work”

The successful candidate will demonstrate and provide evidence of leadership in the establishment and execution of a clearly defined program of scholarship and a positive indication that the candidate will maintain activity in scholarly work and professional practice”

Administration & Public Service Not required for tenure; willingness to participate

required for promotion

Be specific; indicate role, contributions and degree of effort

Explanation should identify purpose and impact of contributions