Each member of the faculty is expected to contribute to the achievement of the University’s mission through his or her teaching and academic advising; research, scholarly and/or creative achievement; and service. It is the candidate’s responsibility, with assistance from the department and, in the case of the regional campus faculty, the coordinator and the Dean of the Regional Campuses, to document the quality of his or her contributions by maintaining and presenting clear and complete records. It is the responsibility of the faculty member’s peers to evaluate his or her teaching, scholarship, and service contributions and to determine if the faculty member should receive a positive recommendation for promotion and/or tenure. Each candidate for promotion and/or tenure should compile a dossier specifying his or her achievements other deliberating bodies for consideration.
A candidate initially prepares a dossier, not to exceed twenty (20) pages, for review by the chair/program director, department promotion and tenure committee, divisional dean, and subsequent reviewers, if any. The candidate’s dossier should present in narrative and summary fashion the information he or she wants those making promotion and/or tenure decisions to know about the record of performance. It should make the case for tenure and/or promotion. The dossier should include the following items:
This part enumerates activities and measures of quality acceptable for presentation under each criterion. However, it does not intend to limit acceptability to these stated activities. In applying these guidelines, both candidates and evaluators should recognize two important points:
Teaching and academic advising are multifaceted activities that include but are not limited to the components shown below. The difficulties associated with determining quality in teaching and advising have long been recognized. Several measures, many of them suggested below, are currently used. Candidates for promotion or tenure and department chairs/program directors may feel free to provide additional ways to evaluate quality in teaching and advising.
Perhaps ideally, high quality teaching could most appropriately be recognized in terms that measure the learning that occurred, the success of students, and the long-term impact of a faculty member on the subsequent behavior of his or her students. In any case, evaluators of candidates for promotion or tenure at all levels are obliged to give first consideration to an assessment of quality in teaching and advising, both at the undergraduate and graduate levels.
To be evaluated favorably, an individual should contribute to the accomplishment of the mission of the University in several components of teaching, with contributions in the area of classroom teaching given greatest weight. Multiple measures of teaching quality should be provided as well as a statement indicating how these multiple measures of evaluation are used to improve the quality of instruction.
Academic advising encompasses a variety of activities including service as chief departmental adviser, adviser to an assigned group of students, and career counseling.
Evidence and measures of quality of teaching and academic advising may include, but are not limited to:
A. Classroom teaching. Examples of student work; formal student evaluations of teaching; peer evaluations; nominations for teaching awards; receipt of teaching awards.
B. One-on-one or small group teaching (includes independent studies). List of students’ names and titles of their projects, theses, dissertations; examples of student work; indication of quality of projects.
C. Teaching in continuing education programs. (Some departments or divisions may describe these activities as professional service; regular courses taught using a workshop format [such as during the summer] will be considered as teaching). Examples of course materials (e.g., syllabi; handouts; examples of student work; participant evaluations; letters from coordinators; letters from participants).
D. Development of teaching materials and making presentations related to the teaching process. Publications related to the teaching process will usually be listed in Part 2, Section II. Examples of innovative materials; evidence of acceptance of materials beyond the candidate's own classes (e.g., inclusions of materials in books, adoptions of texts, requests for use by other faculty); descriptions of presentations; letters from participants and/or reviewers.
E. Development of courses and curricula. Syllabi, proposals, outlines, with evidence of effectiveness including letters from chairs/program directors, peer evaluation, etc.
F. Embedding service-learning activities, interdisciplinary work, inquiry-based activities, or study abroad activities into a course of study. Syllabi, student projects, student outcomes and reflections, community partners' evaluations, etc.
G. Academic advising. The number of advisees served per semester; hours per week spent in advising; evaluative statements by colleagues, the department chair/program director, advisees, and the regional campus coordinator as appropriate.
While both the quality and the quantity of the candidate’s research, scholarship, and creative achievement are evaluated, quality is of premier importance.
For purposes of this analysis, quality is defined in terms of the importance of the work toward progress of the discipline or for the improvement of practitioner performance, and of the creativity of the thought processes and methods behind it. Original breakthroughs in conceptual frameworks, conclusions, and methods are considered to be of higher quality than works making minor variations in or repeating familiar themes in the literature of the candidate’s previous work.
The determination of quality is obviously difficult and involves substantial judgment. Those charged with this evaluation must synthesize information from: (a) their own reading or observation of the key works of the candidate; (b) evaluations obtained from widely known and respected scholars and/or critics; (c) knowledge of the quality of the outlet (e.g., books, chapters in books, journals, monographs, sponsored research reports, exhibitions, performances) in which the work appears; and (d) extramural funding (e.g., NSF, NEH) achieved through a peer review process.
The most difficult phase of the evaluation of research, scholarship, and creative achievement is the weighting of quality in terms of quantity. How, for example, does one equate two first-rate and one mediocre journal articles on the one hand, and a monograph and a proceedings piece on the other? Clearly, this activity requires the highest level of professional judgment on the part of evaluators, not only because of the difficulty of the judgments involved, but because (especially when tenure is under consideration) the judgment being made concerns not only the contribution per se, but the candidate’s future research, scholarship, or creative achievements while working at Miami. For candidates who come with one or more years credited to the six-year probationary period, the accomplishments they bring relevant to Miami’s tenure criteria are fully credited. Nonetheless, research, scholarly, or creative activity during the remaining years of the probationary period must provide persuasive evidence of its “prospective continuation” at Miami.
Evidence of Research and Scholarship: Completed and published or in-press works which have undergone peer review represent the primary evidence of the candidate’s research and scholarly contributions. Presentations at professional meetings are another outlet for dissemination of research results. In the case of work disseminated through channels where evaluators are unlikely to know the quality of the outlets, the candidate and chair/program director should provide evidence of the stature of the outlet and the nature and importance of the contribution. It is the responsibility of the candidate to provide a description of his or her contribution to the research or scholarly work cited in the dossier. In the case of work with multiple authors, it is the candidate’s responsibility to explain the ordering of authors listed on a publication or research grant and the nature of the contribution by the candidate.
Evidence of Creative Achievement: Candidate’s works which have been exhibited or performed and juried or reviewed, candidate performances, competitions entered and/or won, and commissioned works completed represent the primary evidence of the candidate’s creative achievement. As above, in the case of works or outlets with which the evaluators might not be familiar or which might be outside the area of the evaluators’ expertise, the candidate and chair/program director should provide evidence of the stature of the outlet and the nature and importance of the contribution.
Faculty members are expected by the University and the public-at-large to make their professional knowledge and skills available in ways beyond those discussed in the previous sections. In addition, as professionals committed to governance by peers, there are many internal activities that must be performed to maintain the operations of the institution. Thus, service to the University and the community at large, as well as to academic and professional organizations, is an important component of the faculty member’s obligation. Service includes, but shall not be limited to, activities which contribute to the University’s and/or the campus’s mission. The dossier should document such contributions. Service includes, but is not limited to, the following activities:
Selection of the external reviewers is the responsibility of the chair/program director and divisional dean. A list of eight (8) to ten (10) potential reviewers should be developed in consultation with the candidate. The candidate shall describe, in writing, the nature of the relationship the candidate has with each of the potential reviewers.
A minimum of four (4) letters from appropriate external reviewers should be included in the candidate’s dossier. These letters are to be considered by relevant bodies at all levels of the decision-making process. They should evaluate the research, scholarly and/or creative achievements of the candidate. The letters are to be accompanied by a summary statement, limited to two (2) pages, prepared by the department identifying the professional/academic stature of the individuals from whom the letters were sought, why they were selected as reviewers, and describing their relationship with the candidate. In addition, the summary statement should:
Letters from external reviewers are intended to be unbiased evaluations from recognized scholars, artists, other professionals in the field, and (when relevant) community partners. External reviewers for candidates for promotion to full professor should hold the rank of full professor or professional equivalent; external reviewers for candidates for tenure should hold the rank of associate or full professor, or professional equivalent. These letters should not be solicited from individuals with whom a close personal or professional relationship exists, such as the candidate’s former teachers, dissertation director, co-author(s), co-worker(s), or former co-worker(s). All letters received are part of the file and must be forwarded with the dossier. All letters are subject to the Ohio Public Records Act.
External reviewers should be sent the candidate’s curriculum vitae. External reviewers for candidates being considered for tenure should receive published materials or documentation of scholarly and creative works. External reviewers may also receive materials that are documented as in press or in review. External reviewers for candidates being considered for promotion to professor should receive copies of those scholarly and/or creative works along with any other materials or information that the candidate and his or her department chair/program director have agreed upon sending. If additional letters are requested from external reviewers to evaluate service-related achievements, these same criteria should apply.
(See below for detailed information about the items in this outline.)
1. Undergraduate and graduate courses taught
List each course taught since your last promotion or 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; reports or evaluations by service-learning, interdisciplinary, study abroad, or assessment partners, 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 last promotion or 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.
Give specific examples of the incorporation of service-learning activities, interdisciplinary activities, inquiry-based activities, or study abroad activities into your courses. List courses developed or taught that have any special designation in one or more of these categories.
Describe specific responsibilities in advising. Identify number and level of advisees seen on a regular basis. Include an estimate of the approximate time spent per week.
Provide a chronological listing of publications, papers, exhibitions, performances, and other creative or scholarly works. Be sure citations are complete and that authorship and the ordering of authors is as listed on the publication. Indicate whether refereed or reviewed. Indicate the quality of the publication by noting the impact rating and/or acceptance rate. Describe your contribution to the research or scholarly work cited in the dossier including, but not limited to, how authors are listed on the publication and the nature of your contribution. Include as separate categories:
Identify research in which you are or have been involved and specify the period. Indicate proposals written, source and amount of funding received, and whether funding is in the form of a contract, research grant, training grant, or commission. List internal and external proposals separately. Include cooperative or interdisciplinary research projects, educational or curriculum development projects, service-learning/community-based projects. For each project, list your degree of involvement. Cite prizes and awards where appropriate.
For significant service activities, please describe the service, its impact, your involvement or contribution, and indicate how the quality of the service can be assessed.
Indicate dates and degree of responsibility. Include brief description.