2. Provides access to materials required for review as specified in the department COPEP addendum, program COPEP addendum (if relevant), and the letter of offer. 3. Receives a copy of the chair’s summary letter and has the opportunity to respond before it is submitted to the Dean. The Department 1. Reviews the faculty member in a manner established by the department COPEP addendum, program COPEP addendum (if relevant), and the letter of offer. 2. Prepares a written review. 3. Shares the review with the faculty member and allows her/him five days to correct errors of fact. 4. Forwards the review to the Dean. B. ANNUAL EVALUATION OF PROBATIONARY FACULTY Preface The probationary period is a time when the department chair and faculty focus on providing regular feedback to the probationary faculty member regarding his/her progress toward tenure and promotion through the probationary faculty evaluation process. Reasonable support and encouragement will be provided to ensure that areas needing further attention to meet departmental, program (if relevant), College, and University requirements for tenure and promotion are identified and addressed. All probationary tenure-track faculty will be reviewed annually. The chair’s annual letter of evaluation will summarize the faculty and department chair’s assessment of the probationary faculty member’s progress toward meeting expectations and contributions to the department. The timing of the review shall be in accordance with the . The takes precedence over the COPEP when there is a conflict between the two. Responsibilities The Candidate: 1. Reviews the , COPEP, departmental COPEP addendum, and program COPEP addendum (if relevant).
2. The Departmental Standards section should include a copy of the section of the department’s COPEP addendum relevant to tenure review and/or promotion review. If the candidate is also a member of a College program, such as SMATE and AMSEC, a copy of the section of the program’s COPEP addendum should be included as well. 3. The Reflections by the Candidate section should describe and evaluate the faculty member’s teaching, scholarly program, and service activities and since the time of the original appointment as a probationary faculty member in the case of tenure review or since the last promotion in the case of promotion review. To that end, the candidate should write three reflections: a) A teaching reflection supporting the assertion that she/he is an effective teacher, assessing her/his growth gained as teacher, including strengths and for improvement, and describing future teaching goals. Evidence of teaching effectiveness may include students’ gains, teaching methods employed, and teaching innovations and curriculum developed pertinent to the review period. b) A scholarship reflection supporting the assertion that she/he engaged in productive scholarship or creative activity, assessing the achievements and impacts of her/his scholarship or creative activity, and describing future research directions and goals. c) A service reflection supporting the assertion that she/he actively participated in service, assessing her/his specific contributions to the service activities listed in the curriculum vitae and pertinent to the review period, and describing future service goals. 4. The Summary of Supporting Documentation section should provide a concise overview of all the materials in the supporting binder(s). 5. The Ancillary Documents section should contain the following types of documents: The departmental teaching feedback forms completed by faculty observers during the review period and provided to the candidate after being observed. All student evaluations including comments for courses listed in the curriculum vitae and pertinent to the review period. Course materials that demonstrate teaching effectiveness. Examples include pre- and post-course test scores and other assessment of student
excellence, respectively. Race, gender, ethnicity, and other attributes of the instructor irrelevant to teaching performance can influence evaluations. Course workload, difficulty, and expected grade may also be factors that impact evaluations. Any set of comments might include negative remarks not merited by actual teaching performance. Evaluation of Scholarly Activity Overall, the evaluation should accomplish the following: Describe and define the full range and nature of the candidate’s scholarship. Describe the work done at Western since appointment or last promotion as well as prior scholarship (if any) to provide a sense of the candidate’s scholarly career. Assess the significance of the candidate’s contribution in relation to scholarly activity in the candidate’s field, the level of work done in the department, and departmental expectations. Summarize and analyze the evidence that supports a judgment on the quality of the candidate’s accomplishments in scholarly activity. Issues and kinds of evidence may include: The relationships between the candidate’s scholarship and teaching and contributions to curriculum and program development. The quality, reputation or significance of venues: conferences, exhibits, etc. in which work has been published/exhibited/presented. Reception of the work in reviews or citations. Quotations should be carefully chosen to be representative or typical. Assessments of the contribution by those with particular expertise, members of the department or external reviewers. Quotations should be carefully chosen to be representative or typical. Time and effort required to develop discipline-based programs that support the curriculum (laboratories, galleries, field work, learning centers, etc.). Efforts to obtain external funding for scholarly activities if these are important to the candidate’s field. The status of work in progress and how it fits into the overall accomplishment.
Significant service to the College and/or University, including the faculty union, as demonstrated by committee leadership and active participation in committee work. Leadership in departmental activities and program development. Leadership in profession, including regional, national and international organizations. Significant involvement in local outreach or community service related to faculty professional activities, while not required, can be given weight in this category. Post Tenure Review The Department concurs with the 2008 Collective Bargaining Agreement requiring satisfactory performance in teaching, scholarship, and service. The department also concurs with the Collective Bargaining Agreement that the Department standards shall provide flexibility in the relative emphasis on teaching, scholarship, and service across the career life cycle of an individual faculty member. Teaching For a rating of department standards” in this category, we require evidence for sustained engagement in and attention to teaching as evidenced by: Faculty evaluations for courses taught since last evaluation. A statement of goals and self-assessment of accomplishments for courses taught since last evaluation. All student evaluations from the testing center during the evaluation period, including student evaluations for every courses Additional evidence may include letters from alumni and evaluations from professional peers. Evidence of effective research mentorship. Evidence of effective student mentoring could include Masters’ theses and student posters or presentations at external meetings. Research For a rating of “meets department standards” in this category, we expect evidence of continued engagement in research during the five year interval including some combination of: Published manuscripts. Funded research grants. (External grants receive more weight than internal grants). Presentations at national and/or regional conferences. Research proposals. (External proposals receive more weight than internal proposals). Mentorship of undergraduate and/or graduate projects and research. Faculty fellowships (for example, at a national laboratory, research center, or observatory). Service
but are not required to, submit an individual written assessment of the dossier and vote. Probationary faculty, non-tenure-track faculty, and staff do not vote. Spouses and domestic partners may not participate in decisions that affect each other's For cases involving promotion to Associate or Full Professor, tenured faculty shall meet to confidentially discuss the qualifications of the candidate. The procedure for the review process is: The Chair solicits external reviews of the quality of scholarship of faculty members to be evaluated for tenure and/or promotion. The external reviewers must be expert in an area of research overlapping that of the faculty member. The candidate for tenure and promotion will submit a list of qualified reviewers to the Chair. Candidates are encouraged to submit potential reviewers from baccalaureate institutions as well as research intensive institutions. Candidates may also submit a list of unacceptable reviewers. The Chair may solicit additional names of qualified reviewers from experts within the sub-discipline. From this pool of potential reviewers, the Chair shall select three reviewers, with the exclusion of the reviewers whom the candidate considered unacceptable. The Chair shall provide to the external reviewers the scholarship section of the faculty member’s tenure and promotion file. In addition, the Chair shall outline for the external reviewers Western’s teaching, research and service expectations and how these compare to research-intensive universities. This letter shall outline some details about the faculty member’s teaching load and other instructional responsibilities, as well as a record of his or her service, to aid the reviewer in evaluating the faculty member’s research activities. A minimum of two days before the discussion of the candidate, faculty members participating in the review process evaluate the external letters and all the materials provided by the candidate. Participating faculty complete the narrative section of the evaluation form as a draft and turn it into the Chair. Participating faculty conduct a discussion of the materials and qualifications of the candidate. Faculty complete their evaluation forms, vote and return the forms to the chair. The Chair tallies the numerical results of the evaluation forms. The Chair prepares the departmental evaluation and summary of the candidate. The Chair discusses the departmental summary with the candidate. The Chair prepares his/her personal recommendation of the candidate.
To meet departmental standards in this category, we require evidence of sustained engagement and success in teaching as evidenced by: Student teaching evaluations for all courses taught during the review period (unless unusual circumstances exist). Course syllabi, assignments, examinations and other assessment and supplemental materials generated by the instructor. A statement of general instructional and course and self-assessment of teaching accomplishments. Positive peer evaluations by several faculty. Other useful material includes evidence of curricular or instructional innovation, letters from recent students, alumni etc. Research The level of expectations in this category will typically be reduced during the later years of an individual faculty member’s professional life cycle, provided that there is commensurate growth in the candidate’s contributions to teaching and service. Activities such as engagement of undergraduate and / or graduate students in research and other scholarly projects, and professional scholarly service in the form of refereeing and reviewing publications, are examples of professional contributions that serve to replace the need for external scholarly validation (such as the publication of refereed papers) during the later years of service of individual faculty members. In the context outlined to meet departmental standards in this category, we require evidence of continued engagement in scholarship and creative activity, usually consisting of some combination of: Published manuscripts. Professional presentations at regional or national meetings. Grant funding. Mentorship of undergraduate or graduate projects and research. Active involvement in professional scholarly activities, such as review of publications or refereeing of papers. Evidence of on-going research and scholarship as evidenced by: abstracts, work in progress and submitted manuscripts, submitted proposals for grant funding,