|

Faculty Professional Development and Evaluation

2.33 PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN
A. Faculty members are responsible for keeping abreast with both the scholarship and the pedagogy of their field(s), and related areas. The faculty’s continuous growth and development help sustain their vitality, which should be apparent in the content and quality of their teaching and scholarship. B. The Professional Development Plan is fundamental to the faculty member’s role. It addresses needs in the person’s professional development, seeks to develop personal abilities, includes research to be undertaken, and integrates personal and professional plans with the University’s long range and short range needs and goals. C. Faculty members whose workloads consist of teaching responsibilities (without administrative assignment) develop their professional growth plans at the time of their evaluation as noted in 2.36. D. Format for the Professional Development Plan: 1. What strengths do you bring to your specific roles and areas of responsibility? 2. What professional gaps, weaknesses, or limitations do you face in meeting these responsibilities? 3. Describe the plans you have to strengthen these areas. 4. What resources are needed to help you develop professionally? 5. What are your long-range professional development plans? (Include new areas of responsibility in which you would like to serve, new skills you would like to develop, new knowledge you would like to learn, and so forth.) How do you plan to work towards achievement of these goals? 6. What steps are you taking to improve student engagement in your classes? 7. In what ways might the university best support your work at the university? 8. How well and in which specific areas do you think you are helping the institution achieve its overall goals? 9. Signature of faculty member and date.

View Policy
2.36 FACULTY EVALUATION PROCESS
A. Evaluations include criteria outlined in the Faculty Handbook Advancement In Rank Policy, 2.72. Course evaluations are completed by students in each faculty member’s course each semester. B. The following materials are used in the evaluation process for each faculty member. 1. Performance Review Form (procedure involves self-evaluation and supervisor evaluation) 2. Classroom Visitation Appraisal 3. Optional: Classroom Visitation Appraisal by selected peer 4. Student Evaluations Forms 5. Professional Development Plan C. Advancement In Rank, Contract Renewal, And Tenure 1. Advancement in rank materials are submitted as noted in 2.-36A. 2. Contract renewal: Recommendations for contract renewal of individual faculty members are sent to the president by the Vice President for Academic Affairs by August 31 for consideration by the Board of Regents at the September Board meeting. 3. Materials submitted for the March peer review process form the basis of the contract renewal recommendation. Division chairs may submit supplemental materials to the office of the dean of the faculty by August 31 if there are changes or additions for an individual faculty member after the March peer review process materials were submitted. 4. Tenure: Procedures for faculty members requesting tenure are as noted in 2.73 I and II.

View Policy
2.72 Faculty Advancement in Rank
I. Eligibility for Advancement in Rank A. A Tenure-Track Instructor is eligible to be advanced to Assistant Professor when he/she has earned a transcripted terminal degree. B. An Assistant Professor is eligible to apply to be advanced to Associate Professor when he/she 1. Has served as an assistant professor for a minimum of four full-time years at Concordia University St. Paul by the time of the promotion (see appropriate Term Faculty policy for receiving credit toward advancement for years served as a Term Faculty with a terminal degree); 2. Has earned a transcripted terminal degree; 3. Has been recommended on the basis of the evaluation process indicated in Part II of this policy. C. An Associate Professor is eligible to apply to be advanced to Full Professor, when he/she 1. Has served as an associate professor for a minimum of six years at Concordia University, St. Paul by the time of the promotion. a. During a transitional period a five-year eligibility will be in effect: i. Associate professors who were advanced in July of 2013 will be eligible to apply in fall of 2017 for a 2018 advancement. ii. Associate professors who were advanced in July of 2014 or earlier will be eligible to apply in fall of 2018 for a 2019 advancement. iii. Associate professors who were advanced in July of 2015 will be eligible to apply in fall of 2019 for a 2020 advancement. 2. Has earned a transcripted terminal degree. 3. Has been recommended on the basis of the evaluation process indicated in Part II of this policy. II. Criteria Considered for Reappointment and Advancement in Rank Advancement in rank is based on merit, rather than being automatic or routine. In addition to the guidelines, as set forth by this document, the consideration is not an exhaustive measure of accomplishment and merit. These guidelines are intended to be a guide, in part, for the faculty member’s process of compiling documentation. Guidelines include the kinds of accomplishments that the committee will find pertinent for consideration for advancement. Advancement in Rank 1. Assistant Professor What is an assistant professor? Typically, the assistant professor is the entry level into the community of tenuretrack scholars and teachers at CSP. During this phase of a career, establishing oneself as a proficient teacher is paramount. The assistant professor must engage students and show proof of their learning and progress. In addition, the assistant professor begins to help build the CSP community through committees and other activities. Much of the assistant professor’s scholarship is the scholarship of learning, fine-tuning techniques that aid in student learning, and developing a scholarship agenda. 2. Associate Professor What is an associate professor? The associate professor is an established member of the CSP community. With mastery and control of teaching, the associate professor can move on to more service and to implementing the scholarship agenda. Associate professors must prove membership into a community of scholars by evidence of important scholarship: writing, presentations, knowledge creation, and exemplary service to their fields of inquiry. 3. Professor To be a Full Professor at CSP is a privileged position, but a position that assumes great responsibility. Full Professors have the weight of the responsibility of community maintenance. Full Professors are responsible for service, scholarship, teaching, and excellent deportment. They are the community role models. They are the leaders and mentors in the community. III. Documentation Preparing to Apply for Advancement 1. The annual performance review, the professional development plan and the university rubrics provide the basis for advancement preparation. The Advancement Committee meets regularly year round and is available to provide mentoring and feedback regarding how a faculty member’s work fits into the university rubrics. 2. All junior faculty should seek out mentors in their early years at Concordia University. These mentors will help the candidates understand and become invested in the Concordia community. 3. In the year prior to being a candidate for advancement, the faculty member must conduct an honest and intricate self-evaluation. Am I ready for advancement? Have I made sufficient achievements in all three categories: teaching, service, and scholarship? Have I enough evidence of these achievements to be considered a worthy candidate for advancement? 4. By the autumn of the year of advancement candidacy, the faculty member should consult with her/his department chair and dean(s). The faculty member may ask each of these people to evaluate her/his work against the rubrics and provide feedback. Prior performance evaluations should be used in these discussions. The faculty member may meet individually with the chair and the dean, or jointly with them. The department chair and dean have accountability to CSP to having only qualified candidates apply for advancement. 5. If the candidate, the department chair, and the dean determine that the candidate is ready to be seriously considered for advancement, the candidate should prepare a portfolio for advancement. 6. A potential candidate is unlikely to be advanced without the support of the department chair or dean, but may petition with the VPAA to submit their portfolio. ****************************************************************************** Instructions for Faculty Applying for Advancement in Rank It is expected that candidates being considered for advancement have the support of their department chair and/or dean before applying for advancement. Faculty candidates being considered for advancement shall make themselves available for the liaison meetings, the meeting discussion and any observations necessary for consideration. The portfolio contains materials completed since the last advancement and should be organized in the following manner: 1. Cover Page – a single page including: Name and Current Title, Department(s), College(s), Direct Supervisor(s), Dean(s), Academic Year, Desired Position if advanced 2. Letter of Introduction and Overall Summary – 1-2 page letter introducing themselves that includes a description of their roles and expectations at Concordia, based on the job description for which they were hired and retained. The summary should include arguments in favor of advancement for the candidate at this time. The applicant should specify their classification for their application, (Primarily: faculty/administrator and Primarily: undergraduate/graduate), and include a brief rationale for these classifications. 3. Required Overall Evidence It is the candidate’s responsibility to make it clear to the Advancement Committee that all criteria for advancement have been met. a. Curriculum Vitae b. Performance Reviews and Professional Development Plans (all since the last advancement) c. Letters of Recommendation  Immediate Supervisor  Dean of College  For graduate faculty; Associate Vice President for Graduate Studies  CSP Faculty member within candidate’s discipline  CSP Faculty member outside of candidate’s discipline  Professional within the candidate’s discipline outside CSP (optional)  Other letters of recommendation may be included within each portfolio section where appropriate (optional) 4. Section Summaries and Evidence– 3 summaries up to three pages each – 1 summary for each of these three sections is expected: Teaching, Scholarship and Service In each Section Summary, candidates should select their two or three major projects and/or overarching themes for each section area. These should highlight the candidate’s best examples in a given section area, thus making these the best arguments for their advancement at this time. The candidate is encouraged to be discerning and selective in the Section Summaries. NOTE: If an activity could fall into a reasonable definition of more than one of the three sections, (e.g.: Teaching and Service), the candidate is asked to select which Section is primary and which is secondary for that activity in order to aid the committee in its process. A. Teaching Section a. Section Summary b. Supporting evidence/documentation i. Student reviews of teaching ii. Supervisor reviews of teaching iii. Peer reviews of teaching (recommended) iv. Evidence of quality teaching as indicated in the criteria examples c. Additional evidence narrative- additional evidence not included in the Section Summary (Confirm portfolio size parameters with the Advancement Committee) d. Please refer to the required thresholds and confirm that it is clear to the committee that all Developing and Exemplary criteria have been met. B. Scholarship Section a. Section Summary b. Supporting evidence/documentation -Evidence of scholarship as indicated in the criteria examples c. Additional evidence narrative- additional evidence not included in the Section Summary (Confirm portfolio size parameters with the Advancement Committee) d. Please refer to the required thresholds and confirm that it is clear to the committee that all Developing and Exemplary criteria have been met. C. Service Section a. Section Summary b. Supporting evidence/documentation -Evidence of service as indicated in the criteria examples c. Additional evidence narrative- additional evidence not included in the Section Summary (Confirm portfolio size parameters with the Advancement Committee) d. Please refer to the required thresholds and confirm that it is clear to the committee that all Developing and Exemplary criteria have been met. 5. Other Proof of Evidence/Final Thoughts – a 1-2 page supplemental argument in favor of advancement for the candidate at this time based on materials going beyond, or not recognized by the other sections described in the Instructions.

View Policy
2.74 SABBATICAL LEAVES
A. Each institution shall state policies regarding sabbaticals for faculty and leave of absence procedures for all employees within Board for Higher Education guidelines. (2001 Synodical Handbook 6.57) B. The purpose of a sabbatical leave is to provide a time of scholarly renewal for the faculty member. It is assumed that this renewal comes when the faculty member has sufficient time to devote to study and exploration in his or her field. Therefore, the primary criterion for approval of sabbatical leave is evidence of scholarly activity. This may include professional growth activities such as significant research, creative work, advanced studies, and special discipline-related service to the district, synod, or other external education or government agencies. The sabbatical project should lead to a deeper and broader understanding of one’s discipline and/or to an understanding of a new discipline. Recipients of sabbatical leaves should be prepared to provide some tangible evidence of scholarly achievement. This may include (but is not limited to) such things as published articles, professional presentations, and creative works. The sabbatical leave application should clearly identify the scholarship goals. C. Procedures: 1. Full time ranked faculty receive consideration for a sabbatical based upon their index number. Those with the highest index number will ordinarily receive priority consideration for a half-year sabbatical. The index number is determined by years of service at synodical institutions of higher education minus the number of previous sabbaticals (at Concordia University, St. Paul or other synodical institutions of higher education) multiplied by nine. Example: Professor X has served synodical institutions of higher education as a full-time ranked faculty member for 23 years, with two sabbaticals. Professor X’s index number would be determined as follows: 23 years of full-time service -18 (2 previous sabbaticals, 2 x 9 = 18) 5 (index number) 2. A Leave of Absence has no effect on the individual’s index number. 3. Individuals with an index number of seven or higher and who have not had a sabbatical in the last five full years may apply for a full year sabbatical at any time. Full year sabbaticals are granted in addition to the previously determined number of half-year sabbaticals. 4. Faculty coming to the University from other synodical institutions of higher education must serve a minimum of 2 years at Concordia University, St. Paul prior to receiving a sabbatical, index number not withstanding. Faculty members who have served at non-synodical institutions of higher learning will be given one index number for every two years served at those institutions, not to exceed an index number of four. 5. At least five full years must intervene between a faculty member’s sabbaticals, index number not withstanding. 6. The Vice President for Academic Affairs sets the number of half-year sabbatical openings at least five years in advance, and forwards to the Board of Regents names of individuals who will be eligible for half and full year sabbaticals for the next three years. Faculty members are informed when their name has been forwarded to the Board of Regents for preliminary approval. 7. All faculty members will be informed annually by the Vice President of Academic Affairs their index number, as well as an estimate of the year that they will be eligible for sabbatical leave. Faculty members eligible for sabbatical leave will be notified by the dean of their respective colleges two years prior to the anticipated sabbatical date. This notification will include a copy of the sabbatical leave application instructions. 8. Normally, faculty members with the highest index number are granted sabbaticals if their sabbatical application meets the scholarship criteria. When there are more applications than sabbatical openings at a specific index number, the quality of the application and the potential benefit for Concordia University, St. Paul are used as prioritizing criteria in selecting sabbatical recipients. 9. Typically, half year sabbaticals at full pay are scheduled for July 1 – December 31, or January 1 – June 30 as desired by the individual faculty member, and a full year sabbatical at half pay covers one calendar year, and is scheduled from July 1 – June 30. However, if other dates would interfere less with teaching and administrative responsibilities, the faculty member may choose an alternative sabbatical schedule. The rationale for requesting the alternative dates should be provided in the sabbatical application. 10. The Vice President for Academic Affairs and the appropriate college dean make provisions for the workloads of the faculty members who have been granted a sabbatical. Guest instructors are provided with the adequate supplies, space, and equipment to carry out their assigned tasks. 11. A faculty member receiving a sabbatical leave may apply for an additional fellowship or grants for this period to help defray sabbatical costs 12. Faculty members on sabbatical continue to receive full Concordia Plans benefits. D. Sabbatical Leave Application Process: 1. The formal application for sabbatical leave is due October 1 of the academic year prior to the academic year in which the sabbatical is scheduled, and should include the components described below. A letter of support from the college dean should accompany the application detailing how the college/department proposes to cover the faculty member’s teaching and/or administrative workload. Faculty members are encouraged to make use of the resources of the Faculty Scholarship Center when preparing their proposal. An electronic version of the application form is available. 2. The application is submitted to the Faculty Development Policies Committee. The committee will review applications and may request additional information from the faculty member and/or work with the faculty member to strengthen the proposal if necessary. The committee shall forward its recommendations for sabbaticals to the Vice President for Academic Affairs by November 20. The Vice President for Academic Affairs makes his or her recommendations to the President of the institution by December 15, and, at the same time, informs the individual applicants of that recommendation. If an application is not recommended by the Vice President for Academic Affairs, the faculty member next on the index number priority list will be invited to apply for a sabbatical leave. The President of the University forwards his or her recommendations to the Board of Regents. Upon recommendation from the president, the Board of Regents takes action on the requested sabbaticals in their January meeting. At any time in this recommendation process, if the recommendation is contrary to that of the Faculty Development Policies Committee, the committee may file a report advocating its position. The faculty member shall receive formal notification of the decision regarding the sabbatical application from the president of the institution within six months of the application. During the spring semester of the academic year, the Vice President for Academic Affairs shall publicize the names of the recipients of the sabbatical leaves for the following year. E. Format for Sabbatical Leave Application 1. Date of Application 2. Name of Faculty Member 3. Anticipated dates of sabbatical leave 4. Title of Sabbatical Project 5. Description of the project 6. Goals and objectives of the project 7. Work plan and time frame for the project 8. Any additional funds which will be received during the sabbatical 9 Timeliness of the project for faculty member’s career and for the institution 10. Description of qualifications faculty member possesses which will enable completion of the project 11. How and when the project will be evaluated 12. How and when the project’s results will be shared with others 13. Applicant’s signature and date F. Obligations of Sabbatical Recipient 1. Makes every reasonable effort to fulfill the terms of the sabbatical 2. Submits a revised plan to the VPAA for approval should circumstances nullify the first plan or if a new opportunity of greater professional value arises. The Vice President for Academic Affairs shall consult with the Faculty Development Committee before making a decision on the revised plan 3. Returns to the University for a minimum of one academic year following the completion of the sabbatical leave 4. Files a report of the sabbatical activities with the Faculty Development Committee and the Vice President for Academic Affairs immediately following the close of the sabbatical leave. This report includes an assessment of the faculty member’s achievement of the scholarship goals identified in the sabbatical leave application. 5. Shares the product of the sabbatical with the campus community in an appropriate way.

View Policy
2.882 QUASI ENDOWMENT GRANT FACULTY DEVELOPMENT AWARD PROGRAM
A. Policy: The University maintains a quasi-endowed fund to promote scholarly activity. The program is administered by the Faculty Development Policies Committee serving in an advisory role to the Vice President for Academic Affairs. B. Procedures 1. Applications for funds are accepted two times a year. The guidelines, deadlines, and application format are posted on the Faculty Scholarship Center website at least two months in advance of the application deadline. 2. The Faculty Development Committee makes recommendations for awards to the Vice President for Academic Affairs. Normally, notification of awards will be given to applicants no later than one month after the deadline.

View Policy

Uncategorized

2.33 PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN
A. Faculty members are responsible for keeping abreast with both the scholarship and the pedagogy of their field(s), and related areas. The faculty’s continuous growth and development help sustain their vitality, which should be apparent in the content and quality of their teaching and scholarship. B. The Professional Development Plan is fundamental to the faculty member’s role. It addresses needs in the person’s professional development, seeks to develop personal abilities, includes research to be undertaken, and integrates personal and professional plans with the University’s long range and short range needs and goals. C. Faculty members whose workloads consist of teaching responsibilities (without administrative assignment) develop their professional growth plans at the time of their evaluation as noted in 2.36. D. Format for the Professional Development Plan: 1. What strengths do you bring to your specific roles and areas of responsibility? 2. What professional gaps, weaknesses, or limitations do you face in meeting these responsibilities? 3. Describe the plans you have to strengthen these areas. 4. What resources are needed to help you develop professionally? 5. What are your long-range professional development plans? (Include new areas of responsibility in which you would like to serve, new skills you would like to develop, new knowledge you would like to learn, and so forth.) How do you plan to work towards achievement of these goals? 6. What steps are you taking to improve student engagement in your classes? 7. In what ways might the university best support your work at the university? 8. How well and in which specific areas do you think you are helping the institution achieve its overall goals? 9. Signature of faculty member and date.

View Policy
2.36 FACULTY EVALUATION PROCESS
A. Evaluations include criteria outlined in the Faculty Handbook Advancement In Rank Policy, 2.72. Course evaluations are completed by students in each faculty member’s course each semester. B. The following materials are used in the evaluation process for each faculty member. 1. Performance Review Form (procedure involves self-evaluation and supervisor evaluation) 2. Classroom Visitation Appraisal 3. Optional: Classroom Visitation Appraisal by selected peer 4. Student Evaluations Forms 5. Professional Development Plan C. Advancement In Rank, Contract Renewal, And Tenure 1. Advancement in rank materials are submitted as noted in 2.-36A. 2. Contract renewal: Recommendations for contract renewal of individual faculty members are sent to the president by the Vice President for Academic Affairs by August 31 for consideration by the Board of Regents at the September Board meeting. 3. Materials submitted for the March peer review process form the basis of the contract renewal recommendation. Division chairs may submit supplemental materials to the office of the dean of the faculty by August 31 if there are changes or additions for an individual faculty member after the March peer review process materials were submitted. 4. Tenure: Procedures for faculty members requesting tenure are as noted in 2.73 I and II.

View Policy
2.72 Faculty Advancement in Rank
I. Eligibility for Advancement in Rank A. A Tenure-Track Instructor is eligible to be advanced to Assistant Professor when he/she has earned a transcripted terminal degree. B. An Assistant Professor is eligible to apply to be advanced to Associate Professor when he/she 1. Has served as an assistant professor for a minimum of four full-time years at Concordia University St. Paul by the time of the promotion (see appropriate Term Faculty policy for receiving credit toward advancement for years served as a Term Faculty with a terminal degree); 2. Has earned a transcripted terminal degree; 3. Has been recommended on the basis of the evaluation process indicated in Part II of this policy. C. An Associate Professor is eligible to apply to be advanced to Full Professor, when he/she 1. Has served as an associate professor for a minimum of six years at Concordia University, St. Paul by the time of the promotion. a. During a transitional period a five-year eligibility will be in effect: i. Associate professors who were advanced in July of 2013 will be eligible to apply in fall of 2017 for a 2018 advancement. ii. Associate professors who were advanced in July of 2014 or earlier will be eligible to apply in fall of 2018 for a 2019 advancement. iii. Associate professors who were advanced in July of 2015 will be eligible to apply in fall of 2019 for a 2020 advancement. 2. Has earned a transcripted terminal degree. 3. Has been recommended on the basis of the evaluation process indicated in Part II of this policy. II. Criteria Considered for Reappointment and Advancement in Rank Advancement in rank is based on merit, rather than being automatic or routine. In addition to the guidelines, as set forth by this document, the consideration is not an exhaustive measure of accomplishment and merit. These guidelines are intended to be a guide, in part, for the faculty member’s process of compiling documentation. Guidelines include the kinds of accomplishments that the committee will find pertinent for consideration for advancement. Advancement in Rank 1. Assistant Professor What is an assistant professor? Typically, the assistant professor is the entry level into the community of tenuretrack scholars and teachers at CSP. During this phase of a career, establishing oneself as a proficient teacher is paramount. The assistant professor must engage students and show proof of their learning and progress. In addition, the assistant professor begins to help build the CSP community through committees and other activities. Much of the assistant professor’s scholarship is the scholarship of learning, fine-tuning techniques that aid in student learning, and developing a scholarship agenda. 2. Associate Professor What is an associate professor? The associate professor is an established member of the CSP community. With mastery and control of teaching, the associate professor can move on to more service and to implementing the scholarship agenda. Associate professors must prove membership into a community of scholars by evidence of important scholarship: writing, presentations, knowledge creation, and exemplary service to their fields of inquiry. 3. Professor To be a Full Professor at CSP is a privileged position, but a position that assumes great responsibility. Full Professors have the weight of the responsibility of community maintenance. Full Professors are responsible for service, scholarship, teaching, and excellent deportment. They are the community role models. They are the leaders and mentors in the community. III. Documentation Preparing to Apply for Advancement 1. The annual performance review, the professional development plan and the university rubrics provide the basis for advancement preparation. The Advancement Committee meets regularly year round and is available to provide mentoring and feedback regarding how a faculty member’s work fits into the university rubrics. 2. All junior faculty should seek out mentors in their early years at Concordia University. These mentors will help the candidates understand and become invested in the Concordia community. 3. In the year prior to being a candidate for advancement, the faculty member must conduct an honest and intricate self-evaluation. Am I ready for advancement? Have I made sufficient achievements in all three categories: teaching, service, and scholarship? Have I enough evidence of these achievements to be considered a worthy candidate for advancement? 4. By the autumn of the year of advancement candidacy, the faculty member should consult with her/his department chair and dean(s). The faculty member may ask each of these people to evaluate her/his work against the rubrics and provide feedback. Prior performance evaluations should be used in these discussions. The faculty member may meet individually with the chair and the dean, or jointly with them. The department chair and dean have accountability to CSP to having only qualified candidates apply for advancement. 5. If the candidate, the department chair, and the dean determine that the candidate is ready to be seriously considered for advancement, the candidate should prepare a portfolio for advancement. 6. A potential candidate is unlikely to be advanced without the support of the department chair or dean, but may petition with the VPAA to submit their portfolio. ****************************************************************************** Instructions for Faculty Applying for Advancement in Rank It is expected that candidates being considered for advancement have the support of their department chair and/or dean before applying for advancement. Faculty candidates being considered for advancement shall make themselves available for the liaison meetings, the meeting discussion and any observations necessary for consideration. The portfolio contains materials completed since the last advancement and should be organized in the following manner: 1. Cover Page – a single page including: Name and Current Title, Department(s), College(s), Direct Supervisor(s), Dean(s), Academic Year, Desired Position if advanced 2. Letter of Introduction and Overall Summary – 1-2 page letter introducing themselves that includes a description of their roles and expectations at Concordia, based on the job description for which they were hired and retained. The summary should include arguments in favor of advancement for the candidate at this time. The applicant should specify their classification for their application, (Primarily: faculty/administrator and Primarily: undergraduate/graduate), and include a brief rationale for these classifications. 3. Required Overall Evidence It is the candidate’s responsibility to make it clear to the Advancement Committee that all criteria for advancement have been met. a. Curriculum Vitae b. Performance Reviews and Professional Development Plans (all since the last advancement) c. Letters of Recommendation  Immediate Supervisor  Dean of College  For graduate faculty; Associate Vice President for Graduate Studies  CSP Faculty member within candidate’s discipline  CSP Faculty member outside of candidate’s discipline  Professional within the candidate’s discipline outside CSP (optional)  Other letters of recommendation may be included within each portfolio section where appropriate (optional) 4. Section Summaries and Evidence– 3 summaries up to three pages each – 1 summary for each of these three sections is expected: Teaching, Scholarship and Service In each Section Summary, candidates should select their two or three major projects and/or overarching themes for each section area. These should highlight the candidate’s best examples in a given section area, thus making these the best arguments for their advancement at this time. The candidate is encouraged to be discerning and selective in the Section Summaries. NOTE: If an activity could fall into a reasonable definition of more than one of the three sections, (e.g.: Teaching and Service), the candidate is asked to select which Section is primary and which is secondary for that activity in order to aid the committee in its process. A. Teaching Section a. Section Summary b. Supporting evidence/documentation i. Student reviews of teaching ii. Supervisor reviews of teaching iii. Peer reviews of teaching (recommended) iv. Evidence of quality teaching as indicated in the criteria examples c. Additional evidence narrative- additional evidence not included in the Section Summary (Confirm portfolio size parameters with the Advancement Committee) d. Please refer to the required thresholds and confirm that it is clear to the committee that all Developing and Exemplary criteria have been met. B. Scholarship Section a. Section Summary b. Supporting evidence/documentation -Evidence of scholarship as indicated in the criteria examples c. Additional evidence narrative- additional evidence not included in the Section Summary (Confirm portfolio size parameters with the Advancement Committee) d. Please refer to the required thresholds and confirm that it is clear to the committee that all Developing and Exemplary criteria have been met. C. Service Section a. Section Summary b. Supporting evidence/documentation -Evidence of service as indicated in the criteria examples c. Additional evidence narrative- additional evidence not included in the Section Summary (Confirm portfolio size parameters with the Advancement Committee) d. Please refer to the required thresholds and confirm that it is clear to the committee that all Developing and Exemplary criteria have been met. 5. Other Proof of Evidence/Final Thoughts – a 1-2 page supplemental argument in favor of advancement for the candidate at this time based on materials going beyond, or not recognized by the other sections described in the Instructions.

View Policy
2.882 QUASI ENDOWMENT GRANT FACULTY DEVELOPMENT AWARD PROGRAM
A. Policy: The University maintains a quasi-endowed fund to promote scholarly activity. The program is administered by the Faculty Development Policies Committee serving in an advisory role to the Vice President for Academic Affairs. B. Procedures 1. Applications for funds are accepted two times a year. The guidelines, deadlines, and application format are posted on the Faculty Scholarship Center website at least two months in advance of the application deadline. 2. The Faculty Development Committee makes recommendations for awards to the Vice President for Academic Affairs. Normally, notification of awards will be given to applicants no later than one month after the deadline.

View Policy