|
Proposed |
Comments |
S98-8 |
|||
|
2. Criteria 2.1
Effectiveness in Academic Assignment |
|
|
|||
|
2.1.1. Effectiveness in Teaching or Professional
Assignment 2.1.1.1. For teaching faculty, an evaluation of a faculty member's teaching effectiveness requires a thoughtful and non-biased approach. Specifically, an evaluation may be comprised of an assessment of a faculty member’s classroom and laboratory teaching, curricular development skills, supervision of graduate and undergraduate student research, coordination of multi-section courses, or training and supervision of teaching and graduate assistants. Contributions, such as the development or initiation of new courses, and carefully evaluated and properly supervised experimentation with pedagogical techniques or instructional technology, may also be considered in an evaluation. Evidence of involvement with and effectiveness in interdisciplinary courses and other activities related to general education may also be included. 2.1.1.2. For non-teaching Unit 3 employees, effectiveness in the professional assignment will be evaluated in compliance with guidelines developed by the unit of assignment, with appropriate components of peer evaluation and evaluation of impact on students. |
This change was made to accommodate
non-teaching units In this section, the changes were made to clarify language and not to change intent of the content. Also, to make it easier to review, certain sections in S98-8 were moved down to align that material with the proposed. The language from the last part of this section S98-8 was moved to 2.1.1.2 with no changes Evidence of teaching effectiveness from S98-8 has been moved to Section 2.1.3.1 |
2.1.1.
Effectiveness in Teaching or
Professional Assignment 2.1.1.1. For teaching
faculty, a 2.1.1.2. For non-teaching Unit 3 employees,
effectiveness in the professional assignment will be evaluated in compliance
with guidelines developed by the unit of assignment, with appropriate
components of peer evaluation and evaluation of impact on students. |
|||
|
2.1.2. Service to Students and the University Faculty members shall be evaluated for their contributions to their department's instructional program(s) and for significant service to the department, college, or university. Such service may include academic advising, committee service at all levels, career and personal counseling, and participation in the Academic Senate or the California Faculty Association. Further, service may include performing administrative roles (e.g., scheduler, program or area coordinator, Department Chair, Associate Dean if via faculty appointment) or making contributions to student welfare (e.g., participation in educational equity activities, membership on student-faculty committees, service as advisor to student organizations). 2.1.3 Contents of Dossier in Relation to Academic Assignment 2.1.3.1.Evaluation of Teaching or Professional Assignment 2.1.3.1.1. Evidence of teaching effectiveness shall include, for the period under review, a list of courses taught, peer evaluations and, in accordance with university policy on student opinions of teaching effectiveness[1], all official standardized student data. Evidence of teaching effectiveness may also include of selected course materials, statements of course objectives, student success in postgraduate activities (professional schools, research, graduate programs, job performance), and signed letters from colleagues and from present or former students. Faculty members under review may include an analysis of any of the materials in the dossier and a statement of their teaching methods and goals. Faculty who engage in team-teaching, interdisciplinary approaches to learning, and pedagogical experimentation are encouraged to submit documentation to support the implementation of these approaches. Faculty committees, Department Chairs and university administrators shall use a holistic approach when evaluating all available evidence. Although standardized student opinion surveys shall be employed as mandated by policy, they shall not be the sole basis for evaluating teaching effectiveness, professional competence, knowledge, appropriateness of course materials, or other factors. 2.1.3.1.2. For non-teaching Unit 3 faculty, evidence of effectiveness in their professional assignment should include evaluations by professionals who are on and off campus, and who are qualified to assess a faculty member's performance of his or her assigned service-related duties. 2.1.3.2. Evaluation of Service in the Academic Assignment 2.1.3.2.1. Significant service should be systematically evaluated and, when judged to be exceptional in its quality or scope, recognized as such and rewarded appropriately. To this end, departments and programs are encouraged to establish guidelines for the evaluation of service to students and the University. Ordinarily, time in rank per se shall not be a criterion for promotion; however, in cases where faculty members have made a significant contribution to the University over a number of years, the total contribution should be taken into consideration. 2.1.3.2.2. For non-teaching assignments, evidence of effectiveness should include evaluations by professional people, on- and off-campus, who are in a position to judge a faculty member's performance of his or her assigned duties. |
The S98-8 language for evaluation of service has been moved to 2.1.3.2 |
2.1.2.
Service to Students and the University
Faculty members shall 2.1.3 Contents of Dossier
in Relation to Academic Assignment 2.1.3.1 Evaluation of Teaching or Professional Assignment 2.1.3.1.1 Evidence of teaching effectiveness shall include, for the period under review, a list of courses taught, peer evaluations and, in accordance with university policy on student opinions of teaching effectiveness* all available standardized student data. Evidence of teaching
effectiveness may also include selected course materials, statements of course
objectives, student success in postgraduate activities (professional schools,
research, graduate programs, job performance), and signed letters from
colleagues and from present or former students. Faculty members under review
may include an analysis of any of the materials in the dossier and a
statement of their teaching methods and goals. Faculty who engage in
team-teaching, interdisciplinary approaches to learning, and pedagogical
experimentation are encouraged to submit documentation of the value of these
approaches. Faculty committees,
Department Chairs and university administrators shall use 2.1.3.1.2 For non-teaching Unit 3 faculty, evidence of effectiveness in their professional assignment should include evaluations by professionals who are on and off campus, and who are qualified to assess a faculty member's performance of his or her assigned service-related duties. 2.1.3.2 Evaluation of Service in the Academic Assignment Significant service should be systematically evaluated
and, when judged to be exceptional in its quality or extent, recognized as
such and rewarded appropriately. To this end, departments and programs are
encouraged to establish guidelines for the evaluation of service to students
and the University. Ordinarily, time in rank per se shall not be a
criterion for promotion; however, in cases where faculty members have made a
significant contribution to the university over a number of years, that total contribution should be taken into consideration 2.1.3.2.2 For non-teaching assignments, evidence of effectiveness should include evaluations by professional people, on- and off-campus, who are in a position to judge a faculty member's performance of his or her assigned duties. |
|||
|
2.2.
Scholarly
or Artistic or Professional Achievement The second criterion for appointment and advancement within the university is scholarly or artistic or professional achievement. Such contributions to a faculty member's discipline or professional community are normally expected for continuation and advancement in the university. The nature of the expected contributions will vary according to the nature of a faculty member's discipline and professional interests. Specifications for the types of scholarly, artistic or
professional achievements that are considered to be appropriate for members
of a department (or similar unit) are provided in guidelines developed by
that department or unit (see section 2.2.2). Scholarly or artistic or professional achievements must be
documented and evaluated if they are to be properly used in faculty personnel
decisions; departmental and/or college guidelines specify the scope and types
of documentation to be included in the dossier that is necessary to verify
the completion and quality of achievement. Specific information about the
development and evaluation of the guidelines is provided in 2.2.2. 2.2.1. Types
of Achievements 2.2.1.1.In general, scholarly achievement consists of work that is based on research and entails theory, analysis, interpretation, explanation, or demonstration relating to research, training, curriculum development, faculty development, and contracts. This type of achievement includes, but is not limited to, books, articles, reviews, technical reports, papers read to scholarly associations, computer software, the application for funding (given evaluations of the proposal) and awarding of funding. 2.2.1.2.Artistic achievement includes, but is not limited to, the creation of original work in poetry, fiction, drama, dance, the aural and visual arts; performances or direction in music, theatre and dance requiring interpretation and the mastery of a skill in addition to research. 2.2.1.3.Professional achievement
includes, but is not limited to, active participation or leadership in
professional associations and meetings; service to the K-14 educational
segments; professional involvement with other groups and institutions[smb1],
panels, activities, or workshops; patented inventions or discoveries;
consulting; service on editorial boards or as editor of a professional
journal or newsletter; adjudicator, translator, or reviewer for publishers or
other agencies and associations; public lectures; honors and awards.
Professional achievement generally includes active participation or
leadership in the |
Major changes here were to require guidelines and separate the definitions of the different types of achievements. Here, material has just been rearranged for clarity but no substantial changes. Here, Senator Stacks had recommended language to more clearly emphasize that application of funding could be considered as achievement. If application for funding is to be considered, evaluations of proposals must be included. Detailed specifications for types of achievements have been removed from this section because these will be specified in the guidelines. |
The second basic criterion for appointment and advancement
within the university is scholarly or artistic or professional achievement.
Such contributions to a faculty member's discipline or professional community
are normally expected for continuation and advancement in the university. The
nature of the expected contributions will vary according to the nature of a
faculty member's discipline and professional interests. Specifications for
the types of scholarly, artistic or professional achievements that are considered to be appropriate
for members of a department (or similar unit) are provided in guidelines
developed by that department or unit (see section 2.2.2. Scholarly or artistic or professional achievements must be
documented and evaluated if they are to be properly used in faculty personnel decisions; departmental
and/or college guidelines specify the scope and types of documentation to be included in the dossier that
is necessary to verify the completion and quality of achievement. Specific
information about the development and evaluation of the guidelines is
provided in 2.2.2. 2.2.1. Types
of Achievements 2.2.1.1 In general, 2.2.1.2 Artistic achievement includes, but is not limited to, the creation of original work in poetry, fiction, drama, dance, the aural and visual arts; or performances or direction in music, theatre and dance requiring interpretation and the mastery of a skill in addition to research. 2.2.1.3 Professional achievement |
|||
|
2.2.2. Guidelines for Scholarly, Artistic or
Professional Achievement 2.2.2.1.Departments,
schools or divisions will be responsible for developing guidelines for definition
and evaluation of scholarly, artistic or professional achievement 2.2.2.2.Guidelines
for scholarly, artistic and professional achievements are to be made
available to candidates and all review bodies involved with evaluation of
retention, tenure or promotion. These guidelines will provide information on the
type of achievements considered as scholarly, artistic or professional
activity, how the achievements are evaluated and provide direction on the
type and extent of documentation to be placed in the candidate’s
dossier for faculty personnel decisions. 2.2.2.3.These guidelines will be reviewed by the college (or General Unit) RTP committee and the Dean (or General Unit equivalent). If the departments within the college or General Unit so choose, the college or General Unit can produce a common set of guidelines. 2.2.2.4.The Dean of the college (or the General Unit equivalent) is responsible for insuring that the department/school/division/college guidelines are developed and completed in a timely fashion. 2.2.2.5.The set of approved departmental guidelines for a college will be reviewed and approved by the University RTP committee with final approval from the Office of Faculty Affairs. 2.2.2.6.Guidelines
should be reviewed at least every three years. If modified, they should be
resubmitted for approval. |
|
2.2.2.
Guidelines
for Scholarly, Artistic or Professional Achievement 2.2.2.1.
Departments,
schools or divisions will be responsible for developing guidelines for
definition and evaluation of scholarly, artistic or professional achievement 2.2.2.2
Guidelines
for scholarly, artistic and professional achievements are to be made
available to candidates and all review bodies involved with evaluation of
retention, tenure or promotion. These guidelines will provide information on
the type of achievements considered as scholarly, artistic or professional
activity, how the achievements are evaluated and provide direction on the
type and extent of documentation to be placed in the candidate’s
dossier for faculty personnel decisions. 2.2.2.3
These
guidelines will be reviewed by the college (or General Unit) RTP committee
and the Dean (or General Unit equivalent). If the departments within the
college or General Unit so choose, the college or General Unit can produce a
common set of guidelines. 2.2.2.4
The Dean
of the college (or the General Unit equivalent) is responsible for insuring
that the department/school/division/college guidelines are developed and
completed in a timely fashion. 2.2.2.5
The set of
approved departmental guidelines for a college will be reviewed and approved
by the University RTP committee with final approval from the Office of
Faculty Affairs. 2.2.2.6
Guidelines
should be reviewed at least every three years. If modified, they should be
resubmitted for approval. |
|||
|
The development of the guidelines is as follows: 2.2.2.7 Departmental/School/Division
Guidelines 2.2.2.7.1
Each department, school, or division shall develop
guidelines that: o Specify
achievements considered to be scholarly, artistic or professional. The
guidelines shall list appropriate achievements including, for example,
refereed papers, curriculum development, contributions
to technologically mediated instruction, other pedagogical innovations,
funded activities via grants or contracts, and efforts to obtain funding for
activities (proposal submission). o For
each type of achievement, §
Specify the type and extent of documentation
to be included in the candidate’s dossier required to verify the
achievement. §
Specify by what measure (e.g., whether
peer-reviewed or otherwise) the achievement is to be evaluated. Describe how
the significance of the achievement is typically evaluated (e.g. refereeing
or selection processes). This is particularly important for non-traditional
types of achievements. §
Specify the type and extent of documentation
required for an evaluation of the level of achievement. When developing
guidelines it is important that scholarly or artistic or professional
achievement be thoroughly evaluated by one's disciplinary peers, within
and/or outside one's department, not merely enumerated. Ordinarily the number
or length of publications per se shall not be a criterion for tenure or
promotion. In cases where a faculty member has made significant contributions
to his/her discipline or professional community over a number of years, that
total contribution should be taken into account. For example, guidelines could
stipulate that a proposal review from a granting agency should be included as
documentation. A department might also stipulate that an editorial or review
board (or jury) decision constitutes an evaluation of an artistic work. Departments
should require that professional contributions be evaluated by appropriate
individuals in a position to assess the quality and significance of the
contributions. If a unit makes only holistic assessments of an achievement as
part of its review, specify how the candidates are to be rated and criteria
associated with each rating. §
If possible, comment on the investment of
time, skill and energy that typically is required for the various types of
achievements. o Provide a statement of how the unit views the relative worth of individual efforts versus collaborative efforts. 2.2.2.7.2
Approval of the guidelines would be the purview of
the tenure and tenure-track faculty. 2.2.2.7.3
Each
department, school, or division will
receive training in how to develop and maintain guidelines. 2.2.2.7.4
The college or
General Unit RTP committee in consultation with the Dean of that college (or
General Unit equivalent) must review the guidelines with respect to consistency
in rigor among departments. Both the College or General Unit RTP committee
and the Dean of that college (or General Unit equivalent) must approve the
guidelines before they can be adopted. |
Note that the guidelines are modified from Guidelines for Guidelines. |
The development of the guidelines is as follows: 2.2.2.7. Departmental/School/Division
Guidelines 2.2.2.7.1. Each department, school, or division
shall develop guidelines that: o Specify achievements considered to be
scholarly, artistic or professional. The guidelines shall list
appropriate achievements including, for example, refereed papers, curriculum
development, contributions to technologically
mediated instruction, other pedagogical innovations, funded activities via
grants or contracts, and efforts to obtain funding for activities (proposal
submission). o For each type of achievement, §
Specify
the type and extent of documentation to be included in the candidate’s
dossier required to verify the achievement.
§
Specify
by what measure (e.g., whether peer-reviewed or otherwise) the achievement is
to be evaluated. Describe how the significance of the achievement is
typically evaluated (e.g. refereeing or selection processes). This is
particularly important for non-traditional types of achievements. §
Specify
the type and extent of documentation required for an evaluation of the level
of achievement. When developing guidelines it is important that scholarly or
artistic or professional achievement be thoroughly evaluated by one's
disciplinary peers, within and/or outside one's department, not merely
enumerated. Ordinarily the number or length of publications per se shall not
be a criterion for tenure or promotion. In cases where a faculty member has
made significant contributions to his/her discipline or professional
community over a number of years, that total contribution should be taken
into account. For example, guidelines could stipulate that a proposal review from a
granting agency should be included as documentation. A department might also
stipulate that an editorial or review board (or jury) decision constitutes an
evaluation of an artistic work. Departments should require that professional
contributions be evaluated by appropriate individuals in a position to assess
the quality and significance of the contributions. If a unit makes only
holistic assessments of an achievement as part of its review, specify how the
candidates are to be rated and criteria associated with each rating. §
If
possible, comment on the investment of time, skill and energy that typically
is quired for the various types of achievements. o
Provide
a statement of how the unit views the relative worth of individual efforts
versus collaborative efforts. 2.2.2.7.2.
Approval
of the guidelines would be the purview of the tenure and tenure-track
faculty. 2.2.2.7.3.
Each department, school, or division will
receive training in how to develop and maintain guidelines. 2.2.2.7.4.
The college or General Unit RTP committee in
consultation with the Dean of that college (or General Unit equivalent) must
review the guidelines with respect to conistency in rigor among departments.
Both the College or General Unit RTP committee and the Dean of that college
(or General Unit equivalent) must approve the guidelines before they can be
adopted. |
|||
|
2.2.2.8
College or
General Unit Standards 2.2.2.8.1
Each College or General Unit is required to: o
Assemble the approved department, school or
division guidelines to produce a document, “Scholarly, Artistic or
Professional Achievement, Periods of Review and Evaluation Periodicity for
Retention, Tenure and Promotion for specify College or Unit.” o
The document specified in 1) above must also
include the university specified periods of review for each level and the
timing of the evaluations. o
Upon approval, the guidelines will be sent to
the University RTP Committee for evaluation and approval. The University RTP committee will review the
guidelines with respect to conistency in rigor among the colleges (including
the General Unit). o
The document must be reviewed and approved by the
Office of Faculty Affairs with respect to compliance with the Agreement and
existing policy before it can be used in performance reviews of candidates. 2.2.2.9
The
approved compilation of departmental guidelines, “Scholarly, Artistic
or Professional Achievement, Periods of Review and Evaluation Periodicity for
Retention, Tenure and Promotion for specify College or Unit”” must be
made available to all candidates when they become members of that unit. |
|
2.2.2.8. College or General Unit Standards 2.2.2.8.1.
Each
College or General Unit is required to: o
Assemble
the approved department, school or division guidelines to produce a document,
“Scholarly, Artistic or Professional Achievement, Periods of Review and
Evaluation Periodicity for Retention, Tenure and Promotion for specify
College or Unit.” o
The
document specified in 1) above must also include the university specified
periods of review for each level and the timing of the evaluations. o
Upon
approval, the guidelines will be sent to the University RTP Committee for
evaluation and approval. The
University RTP committee will review the guidelines with respect to consistency
in rigor among the colleges (including the General Unit). o
The
document must be reviewed and approved by the Office of Faculty Affairs with
respect to compliance with the Agreement and existing policy before it can be
used in performance reviews of candidates. 2.2.2.9. The approved compilation of departmental
guidelines, “Scholarly, Artistic or Professional Achievement, Periods
of Review and Evaluation Periodicity for Retention, Tenure and Promotion for specify
College or Unit”” must
be made available to all candidates when they become members of that unit |
|||
|
2.2.3.
Evaluation of Achievements 2.2.3.1.
Scholarly or artistic or professional achievement
should be thoroughly evaluated by one's disciplinary peers, within and/or
outside one's department, not merely enumerated. Acceptance of scholarly or
artistic work by an editorial or review board (or jury) constitutes an
evaluation of that work. 2.2.3.2.
Although faculty members should be encouraged and
rewarded for successfully obtaining research grants and other external
financial support, they cannot be required to obtain such support as a
condition for retention, tenure, or promotion, with one exception: when
external funding is explicitly designated as part of a particular academic
assignment (such as director of a research center, or gallery), for which
appropriate assigned time is provided. 2.2.3.3.Work in progress and
unpublished work should be assessed whenever possible. 2.2.3.4.When appropriate,
professional contributions should be evaluated by professional persons in a
position to assess the quality and significance of the contributions.
Ordinarily the number or length of publications per se shall not be criteria
for tenure or promotion. In cases where a faculty member has made significant
contributions to his or her discipline or professional community over a
number of years, that total contribution should be taken into account. 2.2.3.5.Reviewing bodies,
Department RTP, Department Chair, College RTP, Dean or General Unit equivalent
and University RTP committee, must evaluate scholarly, artistic or
professional achievements with respect to the guidelines appropriate (see
2.2.4) to the candidate. 2.2.4.
Contents of Dossier in Relation to
Achievements 2.2.4.1.The dossier shall
contain material which documents achievements during the period of review
which includes the years for which any service credit was granted. 2.2.4.2.The dossier shall not
include documentation of achievements outside the review period except on a
comprehensive vita. 2.2.4.3.The dossier shall
include approved departmental, school or division guidelines appropriate for
the faculty member being reviewed. 2.2.4.4.The dossier shall
include documentation concerned with achievements as specified in the, “Scholarly,
Artistic or Professional Achievement, Periods of Review and Evaluation
Periodicity for Retention, Tenure and Promotion for specify College or
Unit.” 2.2.4.5.Recommendations or
decisions and statements of reasons made by committees and administrators in
previous performance evaluations and annual summaries of achievements during
the period under review shall be included in dossiers. |
Note: this part is from the grants section in S98-8 but has been moved and slightly modified Original wording: “these criteria, although encouraging and rewarding faculty members for successfully obtaining research grants and other external financial support, explicitly exclude any requirement that faculty members must obtain such support as a condition for retention, tenure, or promotion, with one exception: when external funding is explicitly designated as part of a particular academic assignment (such as director of a research center, or gallery), for which appropriate assigned time is provided. This section à integrated into 2.2.5.2 Note: that this à section is normally located elsewhere in S98-8 but has been moved here for comparison The material on period of review has been moved to appropriate sections on Retention, Tenure and Promotion |
2.2.3.
Evaluation of Achievements 2.2.3.1 Scholarly or artistic or professional achievement should be thoroughly evaluated by one's disciplinary peers, within and/or outside one's department, not merely enumerated. Acceptance of scholarly or artistic work by an editorial or review board (or jury) constitutes an evaluation of that work.. 2.2.3.2 Although faculty members should be encouraged and
rewarded for successfully obtaining research grants and other external
financial support, they cannot be required to obtain such support as a
condition for retention, tenure, or promotion, with one exception: when
external funding is explicitly designated as part of a particular academic
assignment (such as director of a research center, or gallery), for which
appropriate assigned time is provided. 2.2.3.3 Work in progress and unpublished work should be assessed whenever possible. 2.2.3.4 When appropriate, professional contributions should be
evaluated by professional persons in a position to assess the quality and
significance of the contributions. Ordinarily the number or length of
publications per se shall not be a criterion for tenure or promotion. In
cases where a faculty member has made significant contributions to his/her
discipline or professional community over a number of years, that total
contribution should be taken into account.
2.2.3.5 Reviewing bodies, Department RTP,
Department Chair, College RTP, Dean or General Unit equivalent and University
RTP committee, must evaluate scholarly, artistic or professional achievements
with respect to the guidelines appropriate (see 2.2.4) to the candidate.
2.2.4.1 The dossier shall contain material which documents achievements during the period of review which includes the years for which any service credit was granted. 2.2.4.2 The dossier shall not include documentation of achievements outside the review period except on a comprehensive vita. 2.2.4.3 The dossier shall include approved departmental, school or division guidelines appropriate for the faculty member being reviewed. 2.2.4.4 The dossier shall include documentation
concerned with achievements as specified in the, “Scholarly, Artistic
or Professional Achievement, Periods of Review and Evaluation Periodicity for
Retention, Tenure and Promotion for specify College or Unit.” 2.2.4.5 Recommendations or decisions and statements of reasons made by committees and administrators in previous evaluations during the period under review shall be included in dossiers. |
