Post-tenure Review Preparation Guidelines
At four year intervals prior to a promotion to Professor rank, and at five year intervals thereafter, tenured faculty members are required to participate in a post-tenure review. The review is designed to be a collegial and systematic attempt by senior colleagues and administrators to help chart a course through the various career stages of a professional educator.
The following portfolio should be submitted:
1. An updated curriculum vitae
2. A personal statement of teaching and advising philosophy and professional growth and development that will serve:
- To guide any materials - syllabi, assignments, samples of completed and graded student work, publications, presentations - that you plan to include;
- To highlight those aspects of teaching, professional development and service that you deem most important;
- To emphasize particular areas of personal growth and professional involvement since the last review;
- To reference the documentary evidence as desired and appropriate with materials and artifacts such as CDs, DVDs, photographs, articles, books.
3. [required for Associates, optional but highly recommended for Professors] Student Rating Form (SRI) Report summary data charts and/or IDEA summary reports from the most recent five years. The Institutional Research Office can provide you with an Excel workbook with a summary table and graphs of your pre-IDEA SRI ratings. Please contact Mark Salisbury if you are interested in this option.
4. Grade tendencies tabulations (Academic Affairs will provide this to the candidate for inclusion in your portfolio)
5. Weighting of evaluation components sheet
The faculty member may also present a file of supporting materials. The individual may choose what to include, but we typically see, for example: ·
- Individual SRI forms (required for Associates, highly recommended for Professors)
- Evidence of student learning (e.g., samples of student papers, exams, projects; pre- and post-test data; other assessment forms)
- Books, articles, papers that have been published or presented
- Evidence of creative projects or performances, reviews, etc.
- Evidence of campus, professional, and/or public service
Associate Professors should provide seven (7) copies of the primary review materials (items 1-5 above). Professors should provide three (3) copies of materials (items 1-5 above). In addition, please provide an electronic version of the primary review materials. Each of items 1-5 listed above should be in 5 separate files titled:
- Personal Statement,
- SRI Folder (This folder will have multiple files),
- Grading tendencies Report,
- Merit weightings.
Please provide Erin Digney in the Dean of Students Office with these electronic documents either via email or on a flash drive.
A written statement by your department chair should be shared with you before the submission date. This document is usually 1-3 pages long and comments on your work, including reports on classroom observations and teaching evaluations as well as feedback from tenured departmental colleagues. Copies of this statement will be submitted to Faculty Welfare Committee by the department chair: seven (7) copies for Associate Professors, three (3) copies for Professors.
The organization of the portfolio is designed to accommodate the unique aspects of each faculty member's teaching responsibilities and broader involvement in the life of the college as well as to allow for individual creativity in presentation. It is suggested, however, that organization follow the evaluation components - teaching, professional activity, and campus service - and, if designated by the faculty member, public service. It is hoped that assembling the portfolio will become an important process of self-examination, discovery, and reconsideration quite apart from the Welfare Committee's formal review.
Following the review, the Faculty Welfare Committee will provide a written response to the senior colleague. In addition, a numeric rating will be compiled using weights that the faculty member has assigned to the evaluative components prior to the review.