Guidelines for Preparing Credentials for Tenure and/or Promotion Review:

III. Evaluations of Teaching, Research/Creative Activity, Service, and Advising and Mentoring (to be completed by the Department Promotion and Tenure committee)

The judgments by one's professional colleagues are crucial to the review process. The purpose of this section is to document the collective judgment of peers most familiar with the candidate's teaching, scholarship, and service. Toward this end it is important that the evaluative statements be supported by appended documentation solicited from the candidate and data gathered independently by the department.

 

External review of scholarship is required. Such external peer review should incorporate the candidate's recommendations of experts to be consulted in his or her discipline. (See 3.1.62) In those cases where the candidate's work involves interdisciplinary programs (e.g., Law, Politics, and Society, Women's Studies, etc.), evaluations from the program director or faculty are to be obtained.

 

A. Outline for Evaluation of Teaching

1. How have the candidate's teaching interests and competence fit into the programs of the department/ division, college/school, and university?

 

2. Which criteria among those listed in 3.1.31 and in the department's statement were given the greatest emphasis in the evaluation of teaching?

 

3. What processes were used and what data were gathered to assess teaching effectiveness?

   a. Were all courses evaluated by students? If not, what criteria were used by the faculty member and/or Department to determine which classes to sample?

   b. How was peer evaluation of teaching carried out? Who did the observations and what was the nature of the visits (e.g., the number of visits. the courses observed)? Include summaries of such visits in the Appendix.

 

4. What is the committee's evaluation of effectiveness of the candidate's teaching?

    Evaluate the candidate's competence as a teacher in light of the above. Cite the candidate's strengths and weaknesses. Include student and peer evaluations in the Appendix.

    On what sources of data are these judgments based?

 

B. Outline for Evaluation of Scholarship/Creative Activity

1. The Department should provide the context in which the evaluation is being conducted, identifying the departmental or disciplinary standards for scholarly and creative work. Within that context, evaluate the candidate's scholarly work. Which of the works represent important contributions? Where available, summarize or quote from reviewers' opinions and include in the Appendix photocopies of reviews. For books, clearly identify the nature of the publisher and the process of acceptance for publication. For nonpublished work such as conference presentations, please describe the nature of internal and/or external review procedure. For joint publications indicate the candidate's contribution.

 

If the candidate's creative work is demonstrated by concerts, compositions, exhibitions, or personal performances, comment on the quality of these. Cite the reviewers' comments.

 

2. Outside Letters of Evaluation: The department, in the case of scholarship/creative activity, will seek reviews from persons outside the University who are in a position to speak about the significance and promise of the candidate's work. Persons solicited for these reviews of scholarly/creative work should be provided with the necessary materials and the time to complete such reviews before the College review committee begins its consideration of the candidates. All persons so solicited should be made aware that the candidate may see these letters when they are included in the file, unless he or she has waived the right to see them.

   a. The candidate's work should be supported by three or four reviews, from both persons suggested by the candidate and persons suggested by the department.

   b. Reviewers should be professionally reputable, but they should not include the thesis director or close acquaintances or direct collaborators of the candidate.

   c. After developing a list of prospective reviewers, in consultation with the candidate, the department should contact them and arrange for receiving the reviews.

   d. Correspondence with reviewers should urge that the candidate's scholarly or creative work be considered in the context of the primary emphasis Drake places upon teaching.

 

C. Outline for Evaluation of Service

Although service is an important contribution made by a candidate to the Department, College, and University, it cannot be regarded as a substitute for superior achievement in the areas of teaching and scholarship. The evaluation should include:

 

1. A Departmental statement explaining its expectations regarding the level of service, inside and outside the Department, at various stages of the promotion and/or tenure review period. This statement should identify policies or circumstances peculiar to the Department or the candidate that affect a candidate's level of service. They should also describe administrative positions and responsibilities, if relevant to a candidate.

 

2. Evaluation of the candidate's service to the Department, College, and University, in the context of the preceding departmental statement. This evaluation can contain reference to:

   a. candidate's contributions to the Department/Division through committee work, advising, and other capacities;

   b. candidate's contributions to the University and School or College;

   c. candidate's contributions to scholarly and professional organizations.

 

Departments may include letters recognizing a significant service by the candidates.

 

D. Outline for Evaluation of Advising and Mentoring

Advising and mentoring are important faculty roles. However, not all faculty will be equally engaged in advising and mentoring. For some faculty, workload agreements may exclude responsibility for advising. The evaluation should include:

 

1. A Departmental statement explaining its expectations regarding the level of advising at various stages of the promotion and/or tenure review period. This statement should identify policies or circumstances peculiar to the Department or the candidate that affect a candidate's level of advising and mentoring, including explanation if no advising has been expected.

 

2. Evaluation of the candidate's advising and mentoring. This evaluation can contain reference to:

   a. Candidate's efforts to become knowledgeable about curricular and other advising issues and procedures;

   b. candidate's willingness to participate fully in providing for advising needs in the program;

   c. special activities undertaken by the candidate to provide effective advising/mentoring; candidate's contributions to the Department/Division through advising and mentoring

 

3. The Department should provide any evidence of the quality of the advising/mentoring activities of the candidate.