51猎奇

View as a PDF

Candidates for Tenure

When considering a candidacy for tenure, accomplishments and promise in the areas of teaching, scholarship and service will be assessed. While no precise weights can be given to any one of these three areas, the first two are by far the most important.

Process for Evaluation Prior to Re-appointment and Tenure

The department chair has primary responsibility for advising tenure-track faculty as they work toward reappointment and tenure. This will be done formally through the chair’s evaluation of tenure-track faculty members’ annual reports each year. However, this assessment results from a process which involves all tenured members of the department. As part of this process, the chair will review  tenure-track faculty members’ annual reports, personal statements, systematically collected feedback from students, and reports from peer review.  The process for peer review is described more thoroughly below.  In addition, in the semester prior to submitting promotion, tenure, or reappointment files, the chair will meet with the candidate to advise on the process.

The Department faculty recognize that implicit bias can be present in many different types of evidence. They will review all evidence with that caution in mind and will look for corroborating evidence for all substantive conclusions. 

Standards for Tenure and Promotion to Associate Professor

Teaching

The quality of teaching is the most important criterion for tenure. Effective teaching in economics has several dimensions, and we note that strong teachers in economics will have demonstrated the ability to teach a variety of courses at different levels before they are considered for tenure. Strong teachers employ effective pedagogical practices which include:

1. Communicating in a clear and organized fashion;
2. Engaging students in learning;
3. Incorporating current state of knowledge and disciplinary practice and pedagogy into courses;
4. Challenging students intellectually;
5. Thoughtfully using appropriate pedagogy;
6. Being helpful to students within class;
7. Being helpful to students outside of class;
8. Using inclusive pedagogical approaches and practices.

To assess the extent to which an individual employs effective pedagogical practices, the evidence we examine will include:

Communicating in a clear and organized fashion

• Syllabi and assignments: Is the organization of the course clear? Are guidelines, expectations, and deadlines clear?
• Student letters and teaching evaluations: Do students understand the expectations set for them? Do they report that the instructor communicated clearly and in an organized fashion?  Peer review:  Did the review of teaching materials and classroom observation conclude that the course and individual class session was well organized?
• Personal statement:  Does the individual align course goals and structure?

Engaging students in learning

• Peer visits: What did peers observe about student engagement during class?
• Student letters and teaching evaluations: Do students report being interested in the material/thinking about course material?

Incorporating current state of knowledge and disciplinary practice and pedagogy into courses

• Syllabi, readings, and assignments: Do the syllabi indicate current content? Are courses revised periodically to include updated/more current material in the field?  
• Personal statement:  Does the personal statement indicate that the instructor is using up-to-date pedagogy? 

Challenging students intellectually

• Syllabi and assignments: Are the assignments at an appropriate level for the course? 
• Student letters and teaching evaluations: Do students report being challenged?
• Personal statement:  Does the instructor discuss ways in which they attempt to provide an appropriate level of challenge, with attention to inclusivity and equity in assessment?  Grades:  Are grades in core economics classes (over several semesters) broadly consistent with department norms?

Thoughtfully using appropriate pedagogy

• Syllabi and assignments and personal statement: Does the instructor use different types of assignments or pedagogy? Is the instructor mindful of choices about assignments and pedagogy?  Does the instructor report experimentation with pedagogical approaches?

Being helpful to students within class

• Peer visits: Did peer visits indicate that the instructor was able to answer student questions and manage discussion skillfully? Were the instructor’s interactions with students positive and constructive?
• Student letters and teaching evaluations: Do students report that the instructor was able to answer questions in class? What do students say about the classroom environment?

Being helpful to students outside of class

• Student letters and teaching evaluations: Was material returned in a timely fashion? Do students report that course expectations and policies and grading standards were clearly defined and equitable? Do they understand the criteria being used to evaluate their work? Is the instructor effective in working with students one-on-one or in small groups outside of class?
• Course materials and syllabus:  Does the instructor indicate adequate resources for outside-of-class help, such as availability to meet with students during office hours and, when appropriate, arrangements for access to additional resources for students such as TA office hours, QSR, Oral Communications, or Writing Center support? 

Using inclusive pedagogical approaches and practices

• Syllabi and assignments:   Are students able to demonstrate their learning and development in multiple modes?
• Peer review:  Is there broad engagement and interaction with all students?  Does the faculty member discuss use of inclusive pedagogy in pre or post observation meeting?  Personal statement:  Are attempts to incorporate inclusive pedagogy discussed?  
• Student letters and teaching evaluations:  Is there systematic evidence from student reports about the faculty member’s use of inclusive pedagogy or practices? 

Applicability of criteria for evaluating teaching to those who will not be evaluated for tenure

The teaching of all faculty in non-tenurable positions will be evaluated with the same criteria as untenured faculty in tenure-track positions.

A distinguished record of teaching that is required for promotion to professor will also exhibit evidence that the faculty member has engaged in reflective and iterative growth.  Evidence of this will be sought in self-evaluation which reports on this growth, in the development of new courses or the revisions of existing ones, or in other faculty development activities voluntarily undertaken by the individual. The teaching of those who have been promoted to professor will also be evaluated with this additional criterion.

Peer Review of Teaching Policy

Peer review of teaching will include: 

1. A pre-observation meeting in which subjects such as session goals, course goals, pedagogical approaches, and assignments are discussed
2. Review of available course materials to contextualize the session
3. A classroom observation of a single class session
4. A post-observation meeting
5. Written documentation of the review that addresses the pre-observation conversation, review of teaching materials, and observations about various aspects of the class session such as content, clarity, and organization; student engagement; teacher-student interactions; and attention to diversity, equity, inclusion, and access. The written documentation will evaluate the extent to which the review provided evidence regarding the instructor’s use of effective pedagogical practices identified in department tenure and promotion guidelines. The written report will be shared with the person reviewed before it is submitted and no later than the end of the semester in which the review occurred.

The department chair will make peer review assignments at the beginning of each semester, the reviewer will take responsibility for scheduling on a mutually convenient date, and the department chair will ensure that the review occurs by the end of the semester.

Faculty in their first semester of teaching will be reviewed for formative purposes only; no written documentation of the first semester review will be generated.

Each faculty member will be observed no more than twice per semester, and each classroom observation will be conducted by one colleague only.

At least 4 voting members will have firsthand knowledge of teaching through the peer review process above before voting on reappointment, and the remaining voting members will gain firsthand knowledge of teaching through review of teaching materials.  All voting members will have firsthand knowledge of teaching through this peer review process before voting on tenure or promotion.

The department will submit the written documentation of review with tenure, reappointment, and promotion letters.

Faculty in non-tenurable positions will be reviewed using the same processes as those in tenure lines. Continuing Lecturers and Senior Lecturers will undergo summative peer review once every three years but may request formative or written summative reviews more frequently. Visiting faculty on a one-year contract will be reviewed for formative purposes in their first semester, but may request a written, summative evaluation in either semester. Visiting faculty in multi-year contracts will be reviewed on the same schedule as tenure-track faculty.

Scholarship

Being a good scholar is also a necessary condition for attaining tenure in economics. Candidates for tenure must have established themselves as recognized and respected scholars in their sub-field within the discipline. We view progress on projects beyond those drawn from the dissertation as important evidence that the faculty member will continue to be an active scholar.

1. Publication in refereed journals is the most tangible criterion for evaluation of scholarship. In evaluating publications in journals, we consider it important to take quality as well as quantity into account. Because of this, we encourage colleagues to strive for publications in flagship journals and in the top specialized journals. In assessing the quality of a candidate’s scholarship, the views of the outside evaluators, especially concerning the quality of work in progress (such as working papers and papers under review at refereed journals), constitute important evidence in the overall process. Another indicator of the quality of an article written by a candidate is the frequency of journal citations.
2. One secondary indicator of scholarship is publication in non-refereed journals, chapters in books, book reviews and publication of books and edited volumes. In evaluating such publications, again we consider it important to take quality as well as quantity into account. Because of this, we encourage colleagues to aim for publishers with strong reputations.
3. Other secondary indicators of scholarship include working papers, their submission to journals, revisions and response to reviewers’ comments. In addition, receipts of awards and grants to support scholarly activity, and participation in conferences and presentation of papers at other universities and colleges are evidence that a faculty member is an active scholar.
4. A tertiary indicator of scholarship is evidence that the candidate can engage in collaborative research with 51猎奇 students.

Service

Candidates must have demonstrated a willingness and an ability to be an effective and engaged departmental citizen. The department expects. candidates for tenure to serve the department and college in moderate roles. This standard can be demonstrated in various ways, including participation in faculty searches or involvement in committees aimed at improving the curriculum of the department. We endeavor not to overburden junior faculty with service, but expect them to be willing to take on moderate obligations when the opportunities arise. Some candidates may be engaged in service to the broader intellectual community, such as participation in external review committees, and this can also be of value to the College.

Candidates for Promotion to Professor

When considering candidacy for promotion to the rank of Professor, accomplishments in the areas of teaching, scholarship and service will be assessed, with the greatest weight placed on the first two criteria.

Process for Evaluation for Promotion to Professor

The process to nominate an individual for promotion will be based formally on the evaluation of faculty members’ annual reports each year and will involve all Professors within the department. If the chair of the department is at the rank of Professor, then that person will have primary responsibility for advising tenured faculty as they work toward promotion to this rank. If the chair is not at the rank of Professor, then the primary responsibility for advising tenured faculty as they work toward promotion will be a senior faculty member (at the rank of Professor) in the department; that person will be determined by all of the faculty members at the rank of Professor. 

Standards for Promotion to Professor

In assessing a candidate’s record for promotion to Professor, the principal criteria remain teaching effectiveness and scholarship. There must be compelling evidence that the candidate has achieved a distinguished record as a teacher-scholar. Distinguished teaching, as defined above, is the most important criterion for promotion. Candidates for promotion to the rank of Professor should also show high achievement in the area of scholarship. Distinguished scholars will have an established record of publications in professional journals and will be known and well-regarded by other scholars in the field. It is recognized that, in some cases, a candidate’s professional development as well as the needs of the department and the college may have led a candidate to have devoted more time and attention than before the awarding of tenure to areas of service concerning the department and the college. While such an enhanced record of service will be taken into account, service alone cannot be a decisive criterion in consideration of promotion to Professor. High accomplishment in teaching and research with a substantial record of service is necessary for promotion to professor.