Reappointment/Promotion/Tenure


Criteria and/or Standards for Reappointment, Promotion, Tenure, Professor

Supplement, and Performance Review for Tenured Faculty.

 

All faculty members are required to assemble a portfolio of evidence to be considered in tenure and promotion reviews. The portfolio is to include content addressing each of the criteria, as well as all applicable standards under each criterion. As part of the portfolio it is the faculty membersresponsibility to recommend specific point values for each standard, and provide appropriate documentation and/or justification for each recommendation. Approval or appropriate modification of recommended point values is the prerogative and responsibility of the personnel committee.

 

1.     Criteria. In accordance with the Agreement, criteria refer to areas of evaluation. The areas of evaluation in which faculty members are to be evaluated include the following:

 

a.          Teaching - Teaching is to include all instructional responsibilities assigned to a faculty member that can be identified by a CMU course number.

 

 

b.          Scholarly and Creative Activity - Scholarly and Creative Activity is to include all scholarly and creative activities of the faculty member that are directly or indirectly related to their professional discipline and/or their assigned responsibilities within the university.


c.         Service Service is divided into two categories. The first category includes activities that provide service that benefits the university and community. This includes service at the program, division, school, college and campus-wide levels as well as public service to the community. The second category of service is activity that is directly related to the faculty membersprofessional discipline.

This includes service to professional organizations and to agencies directly related to the profession.

 

 

2.          Standards. In accordance with the Agreement, standards refer to the performance requirements to be applied to each criterion (area of evaluation). Each area of evaluation will have a unique set of standards by which faculty are to be evaluated.

 

 

a.          Teaching Standards - Every faculty member is expected to demonstrate effectiveness in teaching. Evidence of effectiveness in teaching will be reviewed in up to five categories as described in parts “i through v of this sub-section. Demonstration of effectiveness in teaching must include evidence in both categories i (Student Perceptions of Teaching) and ii (Process of Teaching). Candidates must achieve a performance score of 6 or higher in category i and a score of at least 6 in category ii. Faculty members must also submit evidence of teaching effectiveness by presenting additional evidence in at least one of the three remaining categories (Outcome Assessment, Peer Assessment, Educational Support Activities).

 

i.           Student Perceptions of Teaching - This will most often consist of data from SOS or SET surveys provided by the university. However individual faculty members may choose another instrument or additional instruments provided they have been approved by the university or division.

 

ii.          Process of Teaching - Process of teaching is to include a statement of teaching philosophy, and examples of course materials that document the quality and organization of course content, as well as appropriateness and effectiveness of educational methodologies.

 

iii.         Outcome Assessment - Outcome assessment refers to evidence of quality outcomes that are (in whole or in part) the specific result of identifiable instructional responsibilities of a faculty member. Such evidence includes but is not limited to results of outcome surveys of students, graduates or employers; standardized


examinations; performance assessments in clinical education; as well as other measures that demonstrate student achievement of major course and curricular outcome objectives.

 

iv.        Peer Assessment - Peer assessment of teaching refers to formal evaluation of specific aspects of a faculty members teaching. It is to be performed by a person with credible knowledge and experience as an educator, as well as sufficient knowledge of the content area upon which the evaluation is to take place. Peer assessment is to be pre- arranged, including the time and content areas to be assessed, as well as the criteria by which the faculty member is to be judged and recommendations made.

Where possible, peer assessment should also include

description of changes made by a faculty member as a result of recommendations from peer assessment, and the results of those changes.

 

 

v.         Educational Support Activities - Educational support activities include academic advising, research advising for students doing Plan-B papers, serving on thesis or dissertation committees, serving as an advisor or speaker for student organizations, providing representation and advisement to students and potential students in career and major forums.

 

 

vi.        Clinical Activities Clinical activities include activities that enhance and support the teaching of clinical skills to students within the programs. This category includes attending clinical education courses, attaining professional certifications, university course work that is related to clinical skills, and clinical practice in specialized area. Scores in this category cannot be applied toward the minimum 30 points in teaching.

 

 

Each faculty member must accumulate a minimum of 30 points for teaching effectiveness. This is to include at least six or more points in category i and at least six or more points in category ii. Points achieved in Section vi., Clinical Activities, cannot be counted toward the minimum 30 points.  Faculty members who present evidence of teaching effectiveness beyond the minimum may accumulate up to 60 points toward their numerical score in the evaluation process. Point accumulations for evidence of teaching effectiveness are to be based upon evidence accumulated since the faculty members initial appointment or most recent promotion.


Point values for evidence of teaching quality are indicated in the following table:

 

 

Point Values for Assessment of Teaching

30 - 60 points

i. Student perceptions of Teaching (required)

Exceptional*                                                                          Unacceptable#

15                   12                    9                     6                     3                     0

* Exceptional scores reflect high numerical scores on student surveys, as well as a preponderance of written student comments that reflect a high degree of student satisfaction with the instruction provided by the faculty member.

#  Unacceptable scores reflect low numerical scores on student surveys and a preponderance of written student comments that reflect low student satisfaction with the instruction provided by a faculty member.

ii. Process of Teaching (required)

Exceptional*                                                                          Unacceptable#

15                   12                    9                     6                     3                     0

* Exceptional scores require a clear, coherent and consistent teaching philosophy that is grounded in educational theory and research. It also requires that the content of the course is current, accurate, well organized, and delivered in the most appropriate manner for the type of material, curricular objectives and learner needs.

#  Unacceptable scores reflect a lack of teaching philosophy or one that is ill conceived. It may also reflect a course that is out of date, inaccurate, poorly organized and/or not delivered well.

iii. Outcome Assessment (optional)

Exceptional*                                                                          Unacceptable#

10                   8                    6                   4                   2                     0

* Exceptional scores require clear and convincing evidence that the faculty memberscontributions to the education of students in their respective programs contribute to positive outcomes for the students and program, and has a direct influence on those outcomes.

#  Unacceptable scores reflect a lack of evidence for positive outcomes, or evidence of negative influence on the outcomes for the students and/or program.


iv. Peer Assessment (optional)

Exceptional*                                                                          Unacceptable#

10                   8                    6                    4                    2                     0

* Exceptional scores require high ratings on a comprehensive and methodical peer evaluation by an appropriate evaluator, as well as positive, productive changes to improve instruction in response to applicable recommendations made by the evaluator.

#  Unacceptable scores reflect low ratings on peer evaluation and insufficient or inappropriate responses to recommendations for improvements.

v. Educational Support Activities (optional)

Exceptional*                                                                          Unacceptable#

5                  4                  3                  2                   1                  0

* Exceptional scores require continuous involvement in educational support activities, demonstrated leadership, and high quality contributions.

#  Unacceptable scores reflect a lack of involvement in educational support activities and/or little or no contributions to the activities in which faculty are involved.

 

vi. Clinical Activity (1-5 pts)

Hours               Points

Active clinical practice in the faculty members professional discipline (total for the evaluation period, including practice- oriented clinical fellowships)

100 199             1

200 499             2

500 999             4

1000 or more           5

Coursework relevant to teaching responsibilities (1-5 pts)

Academic coursework relevant to the faculty members professional discipline, related degree pursuits, or responsibilities within the university (per semester hour of credit)

Participation in professional development seminars/workshops (per 10 hours of participation)

Individual continuing professional education not included within other activities related to scholarship, teaching, or service (per 10 hours of participation)

 

 

b.          Standards for Scholarly and Creative Activities - Every faculty member is expected to maintain a program of scholarly and creative activity that results in evidence of bona fide (credible) achievement. Such activities include research and development relevant to the faculty members professional discipline and/or


assigned responsibilities within the university. It must also include appropriate dissemination of the products of those activities.

 

Scholarly and creative activities are to be judged for their quality and impact on the professional discipline and/or on the university community. In order for the product of a faculty members scholarly and creative activities to be considered, there must be evaluation to verify the quality of the product, as well as the magnitude of the faculty members contribution to the product. Such verification may be an integral part of the peer review process for a journal publication, or it may be in some other form.

 

It is the faculty members responsibility to assemble credible evidence of the quality and impact of a product, as well as their contribution to the product, in order to demonstrate its merit in the tenure and promotion process.

 

 

Each faculty member must accumulate a minimum of 30 points in the criterion of scholarly and creative activities for tenure. A minimum of 30 points must also be accumulated for promotion in academic rank. If otherwise eligible, a faculty member may seek tenure and promotion at the same time, counting the same points toward both. In all cases, at least 12 points must be from Tier Ischolarly and creative activities as defined in the table below. Faculty members who present sufficient evidence of scholarly and creative activities beyond the minimum may accumulate up to 50 points towards their numerical score in the evaluation process.

 

 

In most cases point values for scholarly and creative activities are

to be based upon evidence accumulated since the faculty members

initial appointment or most recent promotion. Faculty members who are eligible to be considered for promotion or tenure before they have been in SRMS for four years, may supplement evidence accumulated in SRMS with additional evidence accumulated during the most recent four years in another CMU appointment or in another capacity outside the university. The proportion of points allowed for scholarly work preceding an appointment in SRMS must not exceed the proportion of time allowed for consideration prior to an appointment in SRMS. Point values for scholarly and creative activities are indicated in the following table:


Point Values for Assessment of Scholarly and Creative Activities*

30 - 50 points (at least 12 points from Tier I)

Tier I Scholarly and Creative Activities (minimum of 12 points required)* *

Author of a paper in journal approved as

Tier I by the respective division

Major contributor

12

Minor contributor

6

Author of a book

Sole contributor

12

Author of a book chapter

Major contributor

12

Minor contributor

6

Editor of a book

 

12

Editor of a Tier I professional journal

Editor in chief

12

Ed. Board Member

6

Issue Editor

6

Author of a monograph, or a position paper published in a Tier I journal

Major contributor

12

Minor contributor

6

Author of a scholarly proposal for an external grant or fellowship that is approved (>$10,000)

Major contributor

12

Minor contributor

6

Publication of a significant instructional resource (other than a written document) for broad public and/or professional use

Major contributor

12

Minor contributor

6

Tier II Scholarly and Creative Activities***

Author of an article in a journal not approved as Tier I by the respective division, or in a magazine, newsletter or newspaper

Major contributor

6

Minor contributor

3

Author of a major position paper published in a non-Tier I journal or disseminated by other substantive means

Major contributor

6

Minor contributor

3

Author of a scholarly proposal for a small external grant or fellowship that is approved (<$10,000)

Major contributor

6

Minor contributor

3

Author of a scholarly proposal for a large internal grant or fellowship that is funded (<$10,000)

Major contributor

4

Minor contributor

2

Author of a scholarly proposal for a large internal grant or fellowship that is funded (>$1,500)

Major contributor

2


Author of a scholarly proposal for a small internal grant or fellowship that is funded (<$1,500)

Major contributor

1

Platform or poster presentation at national or international professional meeting

Major contributor

3

Minor contributor

1

Platform or poster presentation at state or local professional meeting

Major contributor

1

Book/paper review writer for journal

(each review)

Sole contributor

1

Grant reviewer (each grant)

Sole contributor

1

Manuscript reviewer (each manuscript)

Sole contributor

1

Item writer for professional licensing or other competency exam

Sole contributor

1

Author of a resource document for the university, college, school or division

Major contributor

3

Minor contributor

1

Author of an accreditation self-study document for the university, college, school or division

Major contributor

3

Minor contributor

1

Author of a major proposal for a new program in the university, college, school or division

Major contributor

3

Minor contributor

1

Author and developer of a significant instructional resource (other than a written document) for use within the university

Major contributor

3

Minor contributor

1

 

*For each item submitted the faculty member is to provide a brief description of the product that will allow reviewers to judge the quality and impact of the product, as well as their personal contribution to the product. Specific evidence of quality, impact and contribution should be cited wherever possible.

**Tier I products are those of highest quality and impact on the discipline or university. Each division will maintain a list of journals that are central to the discipline and in which publications may qualify for Tier I credit.

***Tier II scholarly and creative activities are important professional contributions, but have lesser impact within the discipline or university.

 

 

In addition to the activities and products included in the tables, faculty members may submit evidence of other scholarly and


creative activities for consideration. In order to be counted there must be credible evidence of the quality and impact of other activities. Evidence of quality should include some form of evaluation of the activity and/or product, and evidence of impact should include description of the dissemination of the product. Point values requested/awarded for other activities should be justified on a comparative basis relative to the activities and products listed in the table above.

 

c.         Standards for Service - Every faculty member is expected to participate in active service to the university. Such activities are generally related to participation on university, college, school or division committees, or other activities that provide services to students and facilitate the business of the university.

 

Faculty members may also receive credit for public service directly related to their professional discipline. Such activities may include volunteer service to professional organizations, government, community, school or other organizations.

 

Service activities are to be judged according to the importance of the activity to the organization, and the amount and quality of work contributed.

 

Each faculty member must accumulate a minimum of 30 points in the criterion of service activities for tenure, of which at least 12 points must be in service to the university, college and/or division. A minimum of 30 points must also be accumulated for promotion to a higher faculty rank, of which at least 12 points must be in service to the university. An eligible faculty member may seek

tenure and promotion at the same time if they have accumulated 30 points since their initial appointment or last promotion, with at

least 12 of those points in service to the university, college and/or

division. Faculty members who present sufficient evidence of service activities beyond the minimum may accumulate up to 40 points toward their numerical score in the evaluation process.

 

In most cases point values for service activities are to be based upon evidence accumulated since the faculty members initial appointment or most recent promotion. Faculty members who are eligible to be considered for promotion or tenure before they have been in SRMS for four years, may supplement evidence accumulated in SRMS with additional evidence accumulated during the most recent four years in another CMU appointment or in another capacity outside the university. The proportion of points allowed for service preceding an appointment in SRMS must not


exceed the proportion of time allowed for consideration prior to an appointment in SRMS. Point values for service activities are indicated in the following table:

 

 

Point Values for Assessment of Service Activities*

30 - 40 points

1. University Service (minimum of 12 points required)

University, college, school or division standing committee (per year)

Chair

1 - 3

Member

1 - 2

University, college, school or division task force (per year)

Chair

1 - 3

Member

1 - 2

University, college, school or division ad hoc committees (per year)

Chair

1 - 3

Member

1 - 2

Academic advisor to students (per year)

1

Advisor for student dissertation, thesis, Plan B or other scholarly activities outside the classroom (per product)

1

Academic advisor to a student organization (per year)

1

2. Professional Service Related to the Faculty Members Discipline

Officer or board member for a professional, government, community, school or other organization (per year)

1 - 3

Committee member for a professional, government, community, school or other organization (per year)

Chair

1 - 3

Member

1-2

Unpaid Consultation for a professional, government, community, school or other organization (per year of appointment)

 

1-3

Major elected office for an international, national, regional or state organization (per year of appointment)

Officer or Board member

3-5

Committee participation for an international, national, regional or state organization (per year of appointment)

Chair

3

Member

2

Professional recognition awards (per award)

International or national

2-5

Regional or state

1-3

Completion or renewal of professional certification or licensure that requires examination or other verification of current competence (such as portfolio review and CEU/CME accumulations)

 

1-5


*For each service activity cited, the faculty member is to provide a brief description of the activity that will allow reviewers to judge the faculty members role in the activity and the importance of the activity to the organization, and the amount and quality of work contributed by the faculty member. Specific evidence of the importance of the activity to the organization, and the amount and quality of work contributed should be cited whenever possible.

 

In addition to activities included in the table, faculty members may submit evidence of other service activities. In order to be counted there must be credible evidence that the activity was directly

related to the faculty membersprofessional discipline and was of direct benefit to the organization served. Point values requested/awarded for other service activities should be justified on a comparative basis relative to the activities listed in the table above.

 

A summary of the standards for promotion and tenure is included in the table below. Faculty members must achieve the minimum standards for each of the criteria in the evaluation in order to receive a minimally favorable recommendation. In order to receive a strong recommendation the faculty member must substantially exceed the minimum requirements for at least two criteria and accumulate 120 or more points according to the point system delineated in the tables under this section.

 

Summary of Point Accumulations Necessary for Tenure and Promotion

 

Minimum Required

Points

Maximum Point

Accumulation Allowed

Teaching

30

60

Scholarly and Creative Activities

30

50

Service Activities

30

40

Total

90

150

 

D.        Leaves. Members of SRMS shall be eligible for leaves according to the

guidelines, criteria and requirements specified in the Agreement, and in university and The Herbert H. and Grace A. Dow College of Health Professions policies.

CMU is an AA/EO institution, providing equal opportunity to all persons, including minorities, females, veterans, and individuals with disabilities. | CentralLink
Copyright Central Michigan University, Mount Pleasant, Mich. 48859 | Phone 989-774-4000 | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Full Site