Developed by the Ad Hoc Committee on Promotion of Lecturers, Clinical & Professionally Licensed Faculty April 2014
The Miami University Policy and Information Manual (7.11.F) states that Lecturers and Clinical/Professionally Licensed Faculty (LCPL) may apply for promotion to Senior Lecturer and Senior Clinical/Professionally Licensed Faculty during their fifth year in rank as LCPL faculty. Years of Miami service in any other position do not count as part of the five years.
Faculty who wish to be considered for promotion are responsible for assembling and submitting a dossier of accomplishments and relevant supporting materials to their department or program (when appropriate). The dossier should be in accordance with these dossier guidelines for LCPL faculty and demonstrate the criteria for promotion of LCPL faculty in MUPIM 7.11.F. Faculty who were hired prior to 2014 have the option of following these dossier guidelines or the previous guidelines for promotion of LCPL faculty which are available on the Provost’s website.
The dossier is to be evaluated by the department or program, the chair and/or program director (when appropriate), the academic dean, and the Provost.
This document provides guidelines for assisting candidates in making the case for promotion and aiding those who must evaluate the candidates and make promotion recommendations and decisions. The guidelines are aids to, rather than substitutes for, the professional judgment of the candidate’s colleagues.
A candidate initially prepares a dossier, not to exceed twenty (20) pages. The candidate’s dossier should present in narrative and summary fashion the information he or she wants those making promotion decisions to know about the record of performance. It should make the case for promotion.
The dossier & evaluation guidelines for LCPL faculty are reviewed and approved each year by University Senate.
LCPL faculty should carefully develop, in concert with their department chair a philosophy of teaching and service and emanating from that philosophy an agenda/ plan of activities. This plan should be tailored to the specific professional expertise of the faculty member and the needs of the curriculum, program/department, division, and students.
Plans will be flexible and open to revision, assuming faculty member, departmental, and divisional agreement. Department chairs or program directors will sign off on an LCPL faculty member’s plan and goals as part of the annual review.
The philosophy/agenda should articulate:
The construction of a successful teaching/service agenda may be a multi-year effort and typically involves:
LCPL faculty members should consider documentation as an ongoing process, rather than a summary of outcomes, making it a continuous process with regular feedback from colleagues. Throughout their career at Miami, they should focus on documenting their individual contributions while providing context to the teaching and service activity, balancing attention between process and impact, and clarifying the intellectual questions that guided their teaching and service responsibilities.
Below are some possible sources to maintain on a regular basis:
Examples of valued documentation include but are not limited to:
Examples of valued documentation include but are not limited to:
Examples of valued external documentation of service and teaching include but are not limited to:
Examples of unsatisfactory documentation
Note: You do not need to enter information for each item on the outline.
LCPL faculty should address the following questions in the dossier:
(See below for detailed information about the items in this outline.)
1. Undergraduate and graduate courses taught
List each course taught since your date of hire. Include: courses taught in chronological order by semester and year; course number, title, and number of credit hours; official course enrollment; percentage of course you taught based on proportion of total student contact hours in course; brief explanation of your role, if not solely responsible for course, including TA supervision, course management, team teaching, etc. Do not include in this list independent studies, credit workshops, continuing education, or other non-credit courses.
2. Evaluation of teaching
Describe carefully how the quality of your teaching has been evaluated (e.g., student evaluation of teaching, peer review, departmental surveys of former students) and how you have used these multiple measures of evaluation to improve the quality of instruction.
A summary of the completed evaluation forms for classes evaluated by students should be provided. Indicate how the evaluations were administered. If the completed evaluation forms contain written comments, a summary, in typed form, should include examples of the full range of those comments. The summary for each course evaluations should specify the course number, title, and date.
Reports of observations by peers should be included in the chair’s/program director’s statement and should describe the overall quality of teaching and the basis for that evaluation (in-class observation, review of syllabus, examinations, etc.). The course(s) observed and the point in the semester at which the observation(s) took place should be specified.
Other evaluations of teaching, such as exit interviews, critiques of syllabi, self-evaluations, or letters from former students solicited by the chair/program director, may be included.
3. Awards and formal recognition for teaching
Identify commendations you have received for recognized excellence in teaching. These awards may include citations from academic or professional units (department, division, university, professional association) which have formal procedures and stated criteria for outstanding teaching performance.
Summarize the major instructional activities (workshops, non-credit course, etc.) which you have conducted since your date of hire. Identify your role in the instruction and the number of participants. Provide participant evaluations if available.
Give specific examples of new teaching methods or materials you developed. A summary evaluation of these activities should be included in the chair’s/program director’s letter.
Give specific examples of your involvement in curriculum development and/or assessment (e.g., your role in the design and implementation of new or revised courses; creation of new programs; your role in assessment data collection or analysis and how it was used to document or improve student learning). A summary evaluation of these activities should be included in the chair’s/program director’s letter.
Describe your goals for engagement in any teaching and advising improvement activities. List Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL) publications as well as participation in workshops, symposia, professional conferences, CELTUA programs, one-on-one mentoring activities that were geared to developing expertise in teaching and advising. Identify certificates earned if any. Discuss how new ideas/insights gained were implemented into your pedagogical and advising practices.
Describe specific responsibilities in advising (if applicable). Identify number and level of advisees seen on a regular basis. Include quality indicators of advising effectiveness such as scores from annual online evaluations.
Documentation must effectively represent service activities and products in a way that enables evaluators to apply the quality indicators. Types of documentation differ based on the kinds of service, the constituencies served, the types of products created during the service, and other factors.
Indicate dates and degree of responsibility. Include brief description and the outcomes that resulted from your involvement/work.
Examples of “Service to the University” may include:
Include documentation of other types of service (e.g., service to the community or region) not included elsewhere.