The Well Prepared CandidateJim Germida, Vice-Provost Faculty Relations

www.usask.ca

The University Review Committee

Who is the University Review Committee? • Nine tenured or continuing status employees nominated by

the Nominations Committee of Council and approved by Council with the length of their term specified to ensure a reasonable turnover of membership

• The Provost and Vice-President Academic, or designate is the Chair

• Two Faculty Association representatives who serve strictly as observers with voice, but no vote

The University Review Committee

• Reviews College recommendations for the renewal of probation from College renewal and tenure committee and all college recommendations for the award of tenure and

• Promotion to the ranks of Professor and Librarian, and approves them if they are not inconsistent with the standards of the department, college and university. [Article 15.9.4 (v)]; [Article 16.4.4 (vi)]

• Provides “second level review” of recommendations for tenure, renewal of probation and promotion to professor for non-departmentalized colleges

• Receives and adjudicates on appeals from faculty denied renewal of probation, tenure and promotion to professor

The University Review Committee•Now has the ability to recommend a 2-year extension to the probationary period if the appeal is unsuccessful. Only one extension of probation will be permitted. The extension can be granted by either URC or the Renewals and Tenure Appeal Committee. [Article 15.9.4 (vii)]

•Submits to the President for transmission to the Board its recommendations for renewal, tenure and promotion. [Articles 15.9.4 (viii)/16.4.4. (viii)]

Some URC Statistics: 2014/15

Renewal of Probationary Period: 36 cases36 positive recommendations0 negative recommendationsNo appeals

Tenure & Continuing Status: 42 cases 39 positive recommendations1 negative recommendation1 successful appeal2 extensions of probationary period

Promotion to Full Professor: 24 cases 20 positive recommendations4 negative recommendations0 successful appeal

Total Cases: 102

Roles and Responsibilities Deans and Department Heads

• Mentor and guide faculty for successful career progress; provide direction, and feedback to faculty as they prepare their case files

• Manage case files to ensure sufficient and appropriate data is collected and cases thoroughly documented

• Create awareness of, and adherence to, Department, College and University Standards

• Provide leadership in the interpretation and consistent application of the standards; focus on evidence and what it takes to be a tenured and promoted member of our academic community

• Enforce deadlines and adhere to procedures

CommunicationColleges and Departments

• In several of the case files last year, it was apparent that the Department Renewals and Tenure Committees’ overall support was not shared by the College Review Committees’

• These differences, were typically apparent in the areas of interpretation of the Standards, and, evaluation of a candidate’s scholarly record

• When such situations arise between a Department Renewals and Tenure Committee and the CRC, it is the dean’s responsibility to communicate the concerns to the department heads

• Subsequently, it is the department heads responsibility to communicate these concerns to the candidates

Shared ResponsibilitiesShared Responsibilities

• Selecting RefereesSelecting Referees: : The University Standards state that “the Department Head or Dean, in consultation with committee members, should provide at least half of the names on the list”.

• Teaching EvaluationsTeaching Evaluations: : Both student and peer evaluations are a mandatory part of the case file. The requirements are a “series of evaluations, over a period of time”.

Best PracticesBest Practices Leading the ProcessLeading the Process

Mentorship: Mentorship: Showing new faculty the ropes • Guide them towards tenure & promotion• Advise on distribution of their time & efforts• Help in selecting graduate students and their supervision• Be a sounding board; be a constructively hard critic• New Research Mentorship Program for Faculty began July 1, 2012

We spend time and effort to recruit the best people we could find – let’s spend a few moments to help them survive the system and help us build the university.

Best PracticesBest PracticesCompleting FormsCompleting Forms

FormsForms• The votes need to add up - For tenure and promotion cases, a negative vote

in any one category should translate to a negative vote for the case

• All categories should be accurately filled out to reflect the total number of voting members present

• Frequently the rationale provided by a department is reiterated by the college, which suggests the CRC did not undertake their own assessment

• Too often departmental and college committees provide only cryptic arguments in their rationale for the judgments they are making, leaving URC to intuit the unspoken reasoning

• Even when the argument is more fully developed, there is frequently inadequate reference to the precise language of the Standards

Best PracticesBest PracticesProceduresProcedures

The ProcessThe Process• Guide the discussion at the department level

Statements of rationaleStatements of rationale• Must indicate the quality and significance of the candidate’s work and how

it was assessed

• Must explain the decision at the department level and include both majority and minority views

• Must address all of the categories of assessment

• Must be directly and clearly linked to the appropriate standards. Direct references to additional requirements in department and college standards must be included

VotingVoting• “each member of a Committee, including the chair, shall have one vote”.

Members may vote on a particular candidate only if they have taken part in the committee’s deliberations”

• “a quorum shall be two thirds of the members of a committee taken to the next highest integer. Employees on leave or excluded because of conflict of interest shall not be counted in order to determine the size of committee if a meeting has a quorum. However, an employee on leave who is a member of a committee may, if present, participate and vote in the meetings of the committee”

• “the decision on tenure shall be by simple majority of those voting. The vote of any member abstaining shall not be counted in support of either the affirmative or negative view. A tie vote means the motion is lost”

[Articles 15.11.3/16.5.2]

Best PracticesBest PracticesProceduresProcedures

• The numerical scoring for student evaluations needs to be defined, and the data should be summarized into an evaluative conclusive statement

• Provide the department average score for similar classes as a benchmark in the summation

• What courses were evaluated? How were student and peer assessments conducted?

• Issues raised in the student evaluations need to be addressed in the department’s rationale statement

Best PracticesBest PracticesAssessing TeachingAssessing Teaching

Best PracticesBest PracticesResearchResearch

• This is creative, intellectual work which is in the public realm and which has been subjected to external peer review

• Evaluation… at all ranks will address the quality and significance of the work

• An assessment of the candidate’s current and potential program of research and scholarship or artistic work within the context of the discipline

• An indication of the quality of journals, other publications or venues

• An assessment of the adequacy of research funding support (if required)

Best PracticesBest PracticesProfessional PracticeProfessional Practice

For Category 5: the 2002/11 University Standards state:

• Two components: Professional Practice; Scholarly Work “The evaluation should reflect the balance between the two components”

• “Professional practice means mastery of the professional skills associated with the discipline and their effective use in a discipline-appropriate setting.” Examples of professional practice are to be provided by the college

Best PracticesBest PracticesExternal RefereesExternal Referees

• External reviewers “must be sufficiently at arm’s length from the candidate so as to provide an objective assessment of performance…”

• There should be a clear concluding statement indicating whether or not the referee was recommending the promotion or tenure action

• A clear statement of the period under review must be in the letter to external referees

• The minimum requirements are three letters. Four letters are recommended. In the event that the URC must set aside a letter for any reason, the minimum requirement is still met to avoid the case being unnecessarily delayed

• The rationale from the department and the college should contain an accurate evaluation of the letters, or, justification in the rationale if the committee disagrees with, or, decides to disregard the opinion of one of the writers

Key Elements of A SuccessfulCase File

The Curriculum Vitae

• Standardized c.v. using the form for faculty available at http://www.usask.ca/vpfaculty/processes/president_review.php

• For promotion – only include information up to June 30th of the academic year. (Submissions in fall of 2015 should only include material up to June 30, 2015)

• For tenure, include all information up to and including the date of submission

Teaching• Include a statement of your philosophy of teaching

• A record of teaching roles should include both graduate and undergraduate courses, practical or other field work and information on your graduate students

• If your c.v. contains a complete record of your teaching roles (Item 9 in the Standard c.v.) it is not necessary to repeat that here; simply reference the appropriate sections of the c.v.

• You should have a summary statement of your understanding of the results of the student and peer evaluations

• You should have a statement outlining your response to the results of the teaching evaluations

Undergraduate Course Evaluation ToolQ# Question/Faculty member A B C D E F G H 1

UG AVG OVERALL

1 Course intellectually challenging and stimulating 4.01 4.47 4.65 5.13 4.71 4.93 5.42   4.762 Learned something valuable 3.98 4.63 5.06 5.00 4.94 5.21 5.58   4.913 Subject interest increased because of course 3.62 4.16 4.78 5.13 4.65 5.07 5.32   4.684 Learned and understood subject materials 3.71 4.53 4.89 5.38 4.88 5.50 5.26   4.885 Instructor enthusiastic about teaching course 4.40 4.88 5.00 6.00 5.18 5.50 5.73   5.246 Instructor dynamic and energetic in conducting course 3.92 4.65 4.89 5.75 5.06 5.57 5.74   5.087 Instructor enhanced presentations with use of humor 4.12 4.07 4.22 5.50 4.88 5.29 5.72   4.838 Instructor’s style of presentation held interest during class 3.20 4.15 4.17 5.25 4.35 5.29 5.61   4.579 Instructor’s explanations were clear 3.23 4.28 4.89 5.13 4.71 5.21 5.47   4.70

10 Course materials well prepared and carefully explained 3.27 4.89 5.17 5.25 4.53 5.29 5.55   4.8511 Proposed objectives agreed with those actually taught 3.60 4.84 5.22 5.38 4.59 5.29 5.47   4.9112 Instructor lectures facilitated taking notes 3.99 4.81 4.67 5.75 3.94 5.36 5.67   4.8813 Students encouraged to participate in class discussions 4.66 4.27 5.00 5.75 4.59 5.08 5.61   4.9914 Students invited to share their ideas and knowledge 4.61 4.28 5.11 5.38 4.94 5.38 5.58   5.0415 Students encouraged to ask questions and were given meaningful answers 4.49 4.51 5.17 5.63 4.94 5.46 5.61   5.1216 Students encouraged to express own ideas and/or questions to instructor 4.52 4.22 5.12 5.38 4.71 5.46 5.55   4.9917 Instructor friendly to individual students 4.98 5.13 5.33 5.88 5.35 5.71 5.65   5.4318 Instructor made students welcome by seeking help/advice in/outside class 4.58 5.03 5.29 5.63 4.94 5.85 5.70   5.2919 Instructor had genuine interest in individual students 4.51 4.89 4.89 5.63 4.71 5.50 5.48   5.0920 Instructor adequately accessible to students during office hours or after class 4.45 4.85 5.12 5.13 4.33 5.54 5.57   5.0021 Instructor contrasted implications of various theories 4.17 4.53 5.00 5.25 4.75 5.15 5.39   4.892 Instructor presented background or origin of ideas/concepts developed in class 4.20 4.61 5.11 5.25 5.00 5.50 5.40   5.01

23 Instructor presented points of view other than his/her own 4.33 4.62 4.94 5.38 5.00 5.43 5.30   5.0024 Instructor adequately discussed current developments in field 4.40 4.79 5.39 5.63 5.41 5.36 5.42   5.2025 Feedback on examinations/graded materials was valuable 3.12 3.91 4.39 5.63 4.59 5.50 5.37   4.6426 Methods of evaluating student work were fair and appropriate 3.50 4.24 5.00 5.25 4.82 5.50 5.47   4.8327 Examinations/graded materials tested course content 3.14 4.12 5.06 5.50 4.53 5.07 5.40   4.6928 Required readings/texts were valuable 4.05 4.40 4.73 4.50 3.83 5.18 5.09   4.54

29Readings, homework, laboratories contributed to appreciation and understanding of course 4.16 4.68 4.50 4.50 4.41 5.00 5.17     4.63

Total 1 - 29 116.92 131.44 142.76 155.95 137.27 155.18 159.30 0.00 0.00Avg first 29 questions 4.03 4.53 4.92 5.38 4.73 5.35 5.49 0.00 0.00 4.92

31 Compared with other instructors at U of S, rate this instructor 3.1 4.3 4.72 5.38 4.75 5.5 5.76   4.7932 Overall instructor rating 3.31 4.42 4.83 5.88 4.5 5.64 5.72     4.90

Total 31 - 32 6.41 8.72 9.55 11.26 9.25 11.14 11.48 0.00 0.00Avg questions 31 - 32 3.21 4.36 4.78 5.63 4.63 5.57 5.74 0.00 0.00 4.84

Average overall = 4.92

Average overall = 4.84

Scholarly Work

• The primary and essential evidence in this category is publication in reputable peer-reviewed outlets, or, in the case of performance or artistic work, presentation in reputable peer-reviewed venues

• The statement should state the nature of the candidate’s research and future plans. It should address the quality and significance of the work

• It should include an explanation of the candidate’s role in joint publications, presentations, research grants

Scholarly Work Cont’d

• Specify percentage contribution; preferably correspondence from other co-authors confirming this

• Discipline specific authorship order and involvement of graduate students

• Candidates should annotate their CV and their contributions

Professional Practice

• A balance between the Professional Practice and Scholarly Work suggests an assessable volume of work, or productivity, in each area

• There should be compelling evidence that the candidate has a sustained high level of performance in the practice of the profession and established a reputation for expertise in the field, AND, the candidate has made a contribution to the creation and dissemination of knowledge through scholarly work”

• The successful candidate will demonstrate and provide evidence of leadership in the establishment and execution of a clearly defined program of scholarship and a positive indication that the candidate will maintain activity in scholarly work and professional practice”

Administration and Public Service

• Be specific; indicate role, contributions and degree of effort

• Explanation should identify purpose and impact of contributions

• Ensure you are familiar with your units standards on the necessity for Administration & Public Service

Thank you

Feel free to contact our office at anna.okapiec@usask.ca or by phone at 966-8490 if you have any further questions