Proposed Revisions to Appendix J - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

jaden
proposed revisions to appendix j n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Proposed Revisions to Appendix J PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Proposed Revisions to Appendix J

play fullscreen
1 / 20
Download Presentation
Proposed Revisions to Appendix J
280 Views
Download Presentation

Proposed Revisions to Appendix J

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. Proposed Revisions to Appendix J Areas of Performance Section IX April 26 and 27, 2007

  2. Faculty Affairs Committee • Sue MacConnie, Kinesiology & Recreation Administration • Diane Benson, Nursing • Sharon Chadwick, Library • Bernadette Cheyne, Theatre, Film, & Dance • Colleen Mullery, AVP Faculty Affairs

  3. Diane Benson Sharon Chadwick Bernadette Cheyne Simon Green Ken Fulgham Mary Kay TK Koesterer Robin Meiggs Colleen Mullery Scott Paynton John Travis Armeda Reitzel/Michael Bauer (proxy) Betsy Watson Thanks!

  4. Evolution of Appendix J Review • AY 02/03 • Beginning discussions of RTP revisions • AY 03/04 • RTP process revised and approved by general faculty • AY 04/05 • Review of CSU RTP policies, best practices • Forum to discuss criteria for evaluation • Criteria for early tenure and promotion approved by general faculty • AY 05/06 • Survey to faculty • Attend CSU workshop on RTP Best Practices • Forum to discuss survey results • AY 06/07 • Areas of Performance

  5. Key Forum Results (March ‘05) • Consider 3 areas of review • Define some broad criteria and expectations for each ancillary area…making it clear that some contribution is required in each area.. • Departments should expand on the criteria and expectations in a manner consistent with their discipline • Encourage departments to include external review, based upon defined criteria of how the candidate’s relevant activities contribute to the profession • Create standards of performance

  6. Key survey results (AY 05/06) • Reduce number of ancillary areas from 3 to 2 (66:17) • Require each department to develop its own definition (criteria) of scholarship and creative activities (58:19) • Define some broad criteria and expectations for each ancillary area making it clear that some contribution is required in each area (56:16) • Create standards of performance such as “excellent”, etc. and describe how these standards translate into the decision-making process (45:14)

  7. Key forum results (April 18, 2006) • Develop 2 categories • Combine service categories • Standards of performance • Develop proposal for Appendix J revisions

  8. Proposed Revisions to Areas of Performance • Key changes: • Number of ancillary areas reduced to two • Teaching effectiveness expanded (IX.B.1) • Advising emphasis increased (IX.B.1.a.6) • Scholarship definition expanded and clarified using Boyer’s model (IX.B.2) • Departmental criteria and evaluation standards be developed and approved (IX.A.1)

  9. Proposed Revision #1 • Area IX.A.1 – Development of department/unit criteria and standards • Area 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

  10. Boyer: Scholarship Reconsidered • Scholarship of: • Discovery (research) • Integration (synthesis) • Application (practice) • Teaching (learning) • Community engagement (connections) Boyer, E. Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professorate

  11. Assessing Scholarship* • Clear goals • Adequate preparation • Appropriate methods • Significant results • Effective presentation • Reflective critique *Glassick, C.E., M.T. Huber, & G.I. Meaeroff. Scholarship Assessed.

  12. Sample Ballot Revision #1 • REVISION TO APPENDIX J, “Faculty Personnel Policies and Procedures for Retention, Tenure and Promotion,” HSU Faculty Handbook – Section IX.A.1 and Section IX.B (Areas of Performance for RTP and Assessment of the Areas of Performance for RTP) Resolution #19-06/07-FA (Revised), passed by the Academic Senate at its meeting of March 27, 2007, recommends that the General Faculty vote on whether to accept or reject the attached proposed changes to Sections IX.A.1 and IX.B of Appendix J. (If this proposal were passed, Appendix J would require every department/unit to develop and submit criteria and standards, consistent with Appendix J language, by which faculty in their discipline should be evaluated. Furthermore, it would reduce the non-teaching areas of performance from three to two and expand the Scholarly/Creative Activities section to reflect what today's faculty do, using the model from Boyer's Scholarship Reconsidered.) • Yes, I Approve • No, I Do Not Approve

  13. Proposed Revision #2* • IX.A.2: Evaluation • Assessment of non-teaching areas • Recognizes equal importance of both scholarly/creative activity and service in evaluation • Recognizes diverse roles and responsibilities of faculty with expectations of some contribution in each area. • Acceptable level of performance defined in department/unit criteria and standards • Consistent evaluative terms: excellent, good, minimum essential • Sample combinations consistent with an acceptable outcome * Implementation contingent upon acceptance of Revision #1

  14. Sample Ballot Revision #2 • REVISION TO APPENDIX J, “Faculty Personnel Policies and Procedures for Retention, Tenure and Promotion,” HSU Faculty Handbook – Section IX.A.2 (Areas of Performance for RTP) – NOTE: If approved, implementation of this revision is contingent upon approval of Ballot Item I. • Resolution #19A-06/07-FA, passed by the Academic Senate at its meeting of April 10, 2007, recommends that the General Faculty vote on whether to accept or reject the attached proposed changes to Section IX.A.2 of Appendix J. (If this proposal were passed, it would change the current wording of “compensatory in combination” as a way of weighting Scholarship/creative activities and Service to a criterion-based chart of possible combinations of acceptable performance in those two areas.) • Yes, I Approve • No, I Do Not Approve

  15. Timeline for Implementation • Fall 2007 – Template Development • Fall 2007 – Faculty Training • Fall 2007 – Department/unit criteria & standards developed • Fall 2007 – Formation Ad Hoc Review Committee • Spring 2008 - Criteria & Standards review by Ad Hoc Review Committee • Fall 2008 – Implementation of Appendix J revisions

  16. Transition Period Exceptions • Those faculty who will be evaluated for promotion and/or tenure during AY 2008-09 or AY 2009-10 may use either the current Appendix J or the new Appendix J

  17. Questions?Vote on May 1-2, 2007 Discussion/feedback

  18. What is “Acceptable”Performance ?* *in ancillary areas as defined by department criteria/standards

  19. Future Issues to be Addressed • Standards for academic rank • Consistency of language reflecting past changes to Appendix J