Core Values

  1. Liberal Arts Foundation
  2. In-Depth Programs of Study
  3. Global Perspective and Diversity
  4. World of Work
  5. Community
  6. Leadership
  7. Service

Learn More about our Core Values

Family Friendly Marietta

Learn about living in Marietta, Ohio, and the Mid-Ohio Valley.

http://mariettachamber.com/

 

 

 

Online Giving

Marietta College Faculty Manual

APPENDICIES TO THE FACULTY CONSTITUTION
APPENDIX 2-7.
REAPPOINTMENT, TENURE, AND PROMOTION COMMITTEE: POLICIES AND PRACTICES
Last Updated: 8/11/09

Page 1 | Page 2 | Page 3 | Page 4 | Page 5 | Page 6 | Page 7 | Page 8


Page 1

REAPPOINTMENT, TENURE, AND PROMOTION COMMITTEE: POLICIES AND PRACTICES

Functions

The Reappointment, Tenure and Promotion (RTP) Committee makes recommendations to the dean of the faculty regarding untenured faculty and regarding the promotion of faculty. In both cases, the burden of proof is on the faculty member to show that he or she deserves reappointment, tenure or promotion.

Granting tenure requires a clear and compelling case for doing so; therefore an unenthusiastic recommendation for tenure is unlikely to be carried out. The committee does its best to be fair and reasonable in evaluating untenured faculty, but tenure probably will be granted only when that fair and reasonable evaluation results in a clear and compelling case for tenure.

Part of the tenure decision is, of course, a staff planning decision. Even an outstanding faculty member cannot be granted tenure if the position is not tenurable from the staff planning standpoint. However, the staff planning part of the tenure decision is not part of the RTP committee’s evaluation. The committee only looks at the quality of the untenured faculty member and makes its recommendation entirely based on that.

The committee gives feedback in the form of a written evaluation to untenured faculty to help them improve their performance.

Schedule

During the first week of the fall semester, the committee will notify the faculty of the deadline for promotion nominations, of the date on which updated tenure and promotion portfolios are due in the dean’s office, and the date on which chair’s evaluations of untenured faculty and faculty who have been nominated for promotion are due in the dean’s office. Nominations for promotion, to be sent to the chair of the RTP committee, are usually due by the end of the first week of September. The chair of the committee informs the promotion nominee and his or her chair of the nomination. The committee expects the updated portfolios, for promotion candidates as well as untenured faculty, to be in the dean’s office by the last week of September. This latter date is also the date the committee expects each department chair to have delivered his or her evaluation of the promotion candidate or untenured faculty member to the dean’s office.

The committee makes its tenure recommendations to the dean of the faculty by mid-January in time for consideration by the Board of Trustees at their February meeting. Third year and promotion recommendations are made to the dean by mid-February in time for consideration before contracts come out in mid-March.

Portfolios

The committee expects all untenured faculty members to maintain portfolios documenting their activities and achievements in the areas of teaching excellence, professional development and contributions to the College and the larger community. These portfolios are kept in the dean’s office and should be updated before the end of September. Faculty members may remove their portfolios from the dean’s office to update them but should return them to the office as quickly as possible. The committee also expects each promotion candidate to submit, through the dean’s office, a similar portfolio.

Included in this appendix are copies of two checklists, one for untenured faculty and one for promotion candidates, that outline the major categories that should be included in portfolios as well as examples of materials within the categories. Note that the list of examples within categories is not meant to be an exhaustive list, rather it is an attempt to indicate the variety of types of documentation that can be used.


Page 2

TENURE FILE CHECKLIST

A tenure file checklist was originally developed by the 1989-90 Tenure Committee in hopes that it would provide some guidance and standardization in preparing tenure files. It has at times been amended to reflect currently used evaluation criteria. The Tenure Committee recommends that you purchase a three-ring binder and set aside a section for each of the following categories:

1.   Curriculum Vita (supplied first year) and Resume Updates

2.   Evidence of Teaching Effectiveness
  • Student evaluations - the summary form and typed student comments sent to you by the dean
  • Course Materials: syllabi, outlines for non-standard or otherwise unique courses, student assignments, etc.
  • Evidence of any kind relating to advising effectiveness
3.   Letters from Previous Tenure Committees

4.   Annual Evaluations by Department Chair
  • Faculty serving as chair of an academic department must get someone outside their department to perform the evaluation. Chairs must also provide annual evaluations conducted by their convenor.
5.   Evidence of Professional Growth
  • Research and publications: list of papers and article should be in resume updates; you may wish to include a sample or further elaboration.
  • Presentations, software, videos, or any other evidence of professional activities and involvement.
6.   Evidence of Service to Department, College, Community
  • Letters from colleagues, committee chairs.
  • Letters or other evidence of significant activities on or off campus.
7.   Miscellaneous Documents
  • Grant proposals, professional development plans, report of activities while on leave or sabbatical, and so on.

Page 3

PROMOTION FILE CHECKLIST

This promotion file checklist is modeled on the tenure file checklist and has been developed by the 1996-97 Reappointment, Tenure & Promotion Committee in hopes that it would provide some guidance and standardization in preparing promotion files. If you are seeking promotion to Associate Professor the documents suggested below should refer to the last three years. If you are seeking promotion to Full Professor the documents suggested below should refer to the last six years. The Committee recommends that you purchase a three-ring binder and set aside a section for each of the following categories:

1.   Curriculum Vita (supplied first year) and Resume Updates

2.   Evidence of Teaching Effectiveness
  • Student evaluations - the summary form and typed student comments sent to you by the dean
  • Course Materials: syllabi, outlines for non-standard or otherwise unique courses, student assignments, etc.
3.

  Annual Evaluations by Department Chair
  • Faculty serving as chair of an academic department must get someone outside their department to perform the evaluation. Chairs must also provide annual evaluations conducted by their convenor.
4.   Evidence of Professional Growth
  • Research and publications: list of papers and article should be in resume updates; you may wish to include a sample or further elaboration.
  • Presentations, software, videos, or any other evidence of professional activities and involvement.
5.   Evidence of Service to Department, College, Community
  • Letters from colleagues, committee chairs.
  • Letters or other evidence of significant activities on or off campus.
6.   Evidence of Advising Effectiveness
  • Evidence of any kind relating to advising.
7.   Miscellaneous Documents
  • Grant proposals, professional development plans, report of activities while on leave or sabbatical, and so on.

Page 4

RTP Committee Guidelines for Evaluating Tenure and Promotion Portfolios

These guidelines were developed by the 2007-2008 RTP Committee; the full faculty voted to make them applicable for faculty whose employment started in Fall 2008. These guidelines were developed to make the process the RTP Committee uses in its deliberations more transparent to all by clearly looking at the criteria used in evaluating teaching, professional development, and service.

PART I – Guidelines for Evaluating Teaching Effectiveness

Recognizing that “teaching effectiveness” encompasses many facets of a faculty member’s activities in the classroom, the RTP Committee will take into consideration the following criteria when reviewing a portfolio:

1. The teaching record over time

Questions that RTP will consider:
  • Is there evidence that the content and approach to courses has evolved in response to student comments, colleagues' suggestions, and the faculty member's own reflection?
  • How do students evaluate and describe the faculty member's courses?
  • How do these evaluations change over time? Are there any recurring themes in student comments or other assessment tools that are of concern?
  • How do course evaluation numerical values compare to those of similar courses within the discipline and division?
  • Has the faculty member attended or contributed to on-campus or off-campus pedagogy-related workshops, seminars, conferences, etc.?
  • Other than end of the semester evaluations, have other assessment tools been used?
Evidence provided in the portfolio:
  • Written reflections on teaching effectiveness
  • Course Evaluation results (qualitative and quantitative)
  • Other course assessment activities (could also include capstone results tied to the course objectives)
  • Identification of pedagogy-related activities (e.g., conference agenda, printed programs)
  • Letters from classroom observers (e.g., department chair, peer)
2. Course materials

Questions that RTP will consider:
  • Are the course syllabi well organized?
  • Do the course syllabi and assignments (e.g., tests, essays, papers) reflect rigor and thoughtfulness?
  • Do the course assignments encourage creative and critical thinking?
Evidence provided in the portfolio: (representative sample of the following materials should be included)
  • Course syllabi
  • Assignment guidelines
  • Exams
  • Teaching innovations
  • Other materials created by the instructor (e.g., worksheets, discussion questions, PowerPoints)

Page 5

3. Comments by classroom observers

Questions that RTP will consider:
  • What do the observers say about the faculty member’s teaching?
  • What do the RTP committee members say about the faculty member’s teaching, using the RTP Faculty Observation Form?
  • Are there any areas of concern regarding classroom performance (e.g., lack of organization, unengaged students, side conversations)?
  • If areas of concern were brought up through earlier reviews (e.g., third-year review), has the faculty member addressed them satisfactorily?
Evidence provided in the portfolio:
  • Letters from classroom observers (e.g., department chair, peer)
4. Teaching philosophy

Questions that RTP will consider:
  • Does the Teaching Philosophy Statement show depth and thoughtfulness?
  • Does the Teaching Philosophy Statement fit with the evaluatee's actual classroom teaching?
  • Does it incorporate pedagogical best practices within the discipline?
Evidence provided in portfolio:
  • Teaching Philosophy statement by faculty member
  • Other teaching materials in the RTP Portfolio

Page 6

PART II -Guidelines for Evaluating Professional Development

Recognizing that “Professional Development” encompasses many facets of a faculty member’s activities, the RTP Committee will take into consideration the following criteria when reviewing a portfolio:

1. Professional Development Goals/Agenda

Questions that RTP will consider:
  • Does the faculty member have clear and challenging professional development goals?
  • Are the goals relevant to the faculty member’s professional area?
Evidence provided in portfolio:
  • Professional Development Goals and Reflection in Annual Faculty Evaluation
  • Comments related to Goals from Academic Unit/Department Chair in Annual Faculty Evaluation
2. Professional Development Record

Question that RTP will consider:
  • Does the record show progress toward achieving the stated professional development goals?
Evidence provided in the portfolio (representative sample of the following materials should be included):
  • Conference Programs
  • Conference Papers (e.g., abstract, handout)
  • Certifications
  • Grant Applications (e.g., title page, copy of final report, award letter)
  • Artistic Performance Programs
  • Visual Art Programs
  • Workshop Programs
  • Abstract and/or Title Page of Publications (e.g., books, articles, reviews)
Expectations for Professional Development: It is the expectation of the RTP Committee that an acceptable portfolio will contain at least three pieces of evidence from the following categories, although in the judgment of the Department Chair and the RTP Committee other levels of Professional Development activity may be acceptable.
  1. peer-reviewed/invited publications
  2. invited artistic performances/visual art exhibits (beyond Marietta College)
  3. presentations, including papers/poster sessions/panel chair/panel discussant/keynote speeches/workshops (state, national, international)/professional certifications
  4. consulting within discipline (beyond Marietta College)
  5. off-campus grant applications

Page 7

3. Professional Development Impact

Questions that RTP will consider:
  • Has the faculty member’s scholarship contributed to his/her teaching?
  • Has the faculty member’s scholarship contributed to his/her field?
  • How does the Academic Unit/Department Chair view the faculty member’s professional development?
  • How do colleagues in the field view the faculty member’s scholarship?
Evidence provided in the portfolio:
  • Professional Development Impact Statement
  • Letters from colleagues in the faculty member’s professional field (e.g., department chair, peer from Marietta and/or from other institutions, leaders in professional organizations)
PART III – Guidelines for Evaluating Service

Recognizing that “service” encompasses many facets of a faculty member’s activities in his/her academic unit, on and off campus, the RTP Committee will take into consideration the following criteria when reviewing a portfolio:

1.  Service to Academic Unit/Department

Question that RTP will consider:
  • Does the candidate’s record show substantive and sustained involvement in the activities of the academic unit/department?
Evidence provided in portfolio (representative sample of the following materials should be included):
  • Description of leadership and support roles in advancing the mission, vision, and goals of the academic unit/department
  • Description of candidate’s service included in academic unit/department chair’s letter
  • Letter of support from colleagues who have observed the candidate’s service to the academic unit/department
2.  Service to the College

Question that RTP will consider:
  • Does the candidate’s record show substantive and sustained involvement in College activities?
Evidence provided in the portfolio (representative sample of the following materials should be included):
  • Letter of support from colleagues who have observed the candidate’s service to the College
  • Record of campus membership/leadership (standing committee, ad hoc committee, program director, department chair, division coordinator, other assigned duties)
  • Record of participation/leadership in College programs (admissions activities, inter-departmental curriculum development, alumni activities, student organizations, and college-wide academic programs, such as Leadership, Honors, First-Year Seminar, Investigative Studies, Environmental Science, Gender Studies, and others)

Page 8

3. Service to the Community

Questions that RTP will consider:
  • Does the candidate through his/her activities advance the College’s Core Value – Service to the Region?
  • Is the candidate active in the life of his/her professional community?
Evidence provided in the portfolio (representative sample of the following materials should be included):
  • Letters of support from members of community/professional organization
  • Record of service to the community (public presentations, service on advisory boards, volunteer service, especially in area(s) of expertise, participation in public forums, service to the professional community)