Missouri Western State University
Faculty Senate

Meetings - Minutes | Committees - Reports & Minutes |
Committees - Membership | News | Home | Minutes Admin

Faculty Senate Minutes - 5/5/2005



Missouri Western State College
Faculty Senate Minutes
(Proposed)

May 5, 2005
SU 220

Current Senators Present: President Andrews, Vice President Hegeman, Secretary Ottinger, Past President Greiert, Senators Caldwell, Gregory, Haney, Heider, Hunt, Nandan, Noynaert, Tapia, Voelkel, and Williams.

Current Senators Absent: Senators Holian and Tushaus

Newly Elected Senators Present: Phil Mullins, Shiva Nandan, Karen Fulton

Ex-Officio Members Present: Vice President Arnold

Ex-Officio Members Absent: President Scanlon

Guests Present: Mike Ducey (Chair of Scholarship Committee), Members of the Peer Evaluation Committee, Ken Lee, Melissa Daggett.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Call to Order: President Larry Andrews called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m.

Approval of April 21st Minutes: (Noynaert/Tapia)
Minutes were approved by unanimous voice vote.

Approval of Agenda: (Haney/Gregory)
Name of "Lab Hours Committee" should be corrected to "Faculty Load Committee"
Agenda was approved by unanimous voice vote.

Report from College President: none.

Report from Vice President for Academic and Student Affairs:
¡ì Missouri Legislature approved a flat budget for higher education for the next year. It has been sent to the Governor's office. MWSU has $1.5 Million in increased expenditures for this next year.
¡ì Discussion of recent incident on campus.

Report from Senate President:
¡ì Executive Committee has met twice since the last meeting.
¡ì PS Dean Candidate introduced the idea of a Faculty Satisfaction Survey that the 2005-06 executive committee may wish to investigate for possible implementation at MWSU.
¡ì Letter was prepared for members of Peer Review Committee to thank them for their service.
¡ì Plaques were given to each retiring senator.

Report from General Studies Committee: See Minutes Appendix A for written report. Liaison Cindy Heider presented the report.

(Tapia/Haney) Motion to accept the report. Report accepted.

Report from Scholarship Committee: See Minutes Appendix B for written report. Committee Chair Mike Ducey presented the report.

(Haney/Heider) Motion to accept the report. Report accepted.

Report from Ad Hoc Advising Hours Committee: See Minutes Appendix C for written report. Committee Chair John Tapia presented the report.

(Nandan/Heider) Motion to accept the report. Report accepted.

Report from Ad Hoc Faculty Load Committee: See Minutes Appendix D for written report. Committee Chair Ben Caldwell presented the report.

(Haney/Tapia) Motion to accept the report. Report accepted.

Old Business:

SB-23-05 (Heider/Nandan) The Faculty Senate accept the proposed Policy Guide revisions implementing an up-or-out tenure system drafted by the Peer Review Committee in response to SR 14-05.

(Tapia/Haney) Amendment to change first sentence of section VII.A.1. from
"The primary responsibility of a faculty member..." to
"One of the primary responsibilities of a faculty member..."

Amendment passed by voice vote.

(Tapia/Haney) Amendment to change first sentence after the table in VII.A.1 from
"Evidence of teaching effectiveness includes,..." to
"Evidence of teaching effectiveness may include..."

Amendment passed by voice vote.

(Tapia/Haney) Amendment to change second sentence VII.A.2.a from
"Evidence of service to students include..." to
"Evidence of service to students may include..."

Amendment passed by voice vote.

(Tapia/Hunt) Amendment to add additional bullet to VII.A.2.a stating
"Serving as faculty advisor for a large number of students, freshman and/or transfer students."

Amendment withdrawn.

(Tapia/Haney) Amendment to move the last bullet of VII.A.1 stating
"Academic advising (including number of advisees) and mentoring activities such as sponsorship of independent student work"
to the end of the bullets of section VII.A.2.a.

Amendment passed by voice vote.

(Tapia/Gregory) Amendment to change the phrase "include" to "may include" in the following sentences:

Second sentence of VII.A.2.b "Evidence of institutional service include,..."
Second sentence of VII.A.2.c "Evidence of service to the discipline or profession include,..."
Fourth sentence of VII.A.2.d "Evidence of community service include,..."

Amendment passed by voice vote.

(Tapia/Caldwell) Amendment to add a bullet to VII.A.3.a reading as follows:
"Activity to retain professional certification or license. "

Discussion: Retaining a certification is scholarship activity. Sometimes it is just paying a fee. The bullets in this section are part of a quote. The additional bullet would be included outside the quote. This statement is already included in VII.A.3.b.3.2nd bullet.

Amendment failed by roll call vote: (Caldwell=yes, Gregory=yes, Haney=no, Hegeman=no, Heider=no, Holian=not present, Hunt=yes, Nandan=not present, Noynaert=no, Ottinger=no, Tapia=yes, Tushaus=not present, Voelkel=yes, Williams= no yes=5, no=6, not present = 3)

(Tapia/Haney) Amendment to strike the following line from VII.B.1.c.Additional Materials.4th bullet, which reads "Student enrollment in faculty member's course(s) as a result of the exercise of elective options."

Amendment passed by voice vote.

(Tapia/Caldwell) Amendment to alter the last sentence of section VII.C from
"When the "M" or "U" evaluation is considered...." to
"When the "U" evaluation is considered...."

Amendment passed by voice vote.

(Tapia/Haney) Amendment to insert the following paragraph into section VII.E.5 just before the section on "President's Recommendation and Board's Approval":

"In situations where an individual is being considered for either a faculty position or an administrative position with a request for tenure, the Vice President for Academic and Student Affairs shall convene a Promotion/Tenure subcommittee, selected by the Promotion/Tenure committee, to review the materials of said applicant. The committee's recommendation with rationale and materials shall be forwarded to the Vice President for Academic and Student Affairs who will, in turn, forward his recommendation to the President."

Amendment failed by voice vote.

Motion (SB-23-05) Passed, as amended, by unanimous voice vote. Final version of bill is attached as Minutes Appendix E.

Adjournment: (Ottinger/Heider)
Senate adjourned at 5:20 pm.

Respectfully Submitted,

Michael B. Ottinger, PhD
Senate Secretary.

MINUTES APPENDIX A

Spring 2005 General Studies Progress Report
The General Studies committee has successfully met the charges given by the Faculty Senate. The committee has made certain all General Studies course syllabi are in compliance with the philosophical objectives of the General Studies program.

In addition, the committee received permission from Faculty Senate and CGAC to changes the hours of PHY 110 from 5 to 4 beginning Fall 05. Permission was also granted from Faculty Senate and CGAC to more accurately reflect the number of course hours that may be taken from the General Studies program. Currently, the General Studies hours show 42-44, beginning in Fall 05 it will show 42-46 hours.

The committee has been actively discussing two new proposals to the General Studies program. The first proposal is PHL 220 ¡°Symbolic Logic¡± for inclusion in Category One ¨C line 1. The second proposal is CSC 220 ¡°Computers & Informational Technologies in Modern Culture¡± for inclusion in Category Four ¨C line 2. Although much discussion has arisen from the proposals, no official vote was taken during the spring semester. The committee will meet again in the fall to vote on the two proposals and make recommendations to the Faculty Senate.

Respectfully submitted,


Greg Kriewitz, Chair

MINUTES APPENDIX B

Faculty Senate Scholarship Committee Report
AY 2004/05

Committee Members:
Michael Ducey, CHEM (Chair, 3rd year of 3)
Don Lillie, CST (3rd year of 3)
Freddie Nix, CJLS (2nd year of 3)
Deborah Freedman, MUS (1st year of 3)
Yona Rasis, ET (1st year of 3)
Angie Beam, Director of Financial Aid (ex officio)

Charges to the Committee:
1. ¡°Act with the Director of Financial Aid in determining the distribution of scholarships to individual applicants.¡±
2. ¡°Work with the academic departments in determining need and criteria for scholarships.¡±
3. ¡°Support and augment the efforts of Missouri Western State College Foundation and the President of the College in their attempts to secure donations for scholarships.¡±

Activity Related to Charge 1: ¡°¡°Act with the Director of Financial Aid in determining the distribution of scholarships to individual applicants.¡±
The committee met a total of three times to discuss matters related to scholarship distribution. Meetings were held on:
February 24, 2005
March 10th, 2005
March 24th, 2005
As part of these meetings the committee agreed upon a set of procedures and criteria that would be used in the awarding of MWSC Foundations Scholarships which the committee was tasked to award. The committee recommended the distribution of $31,150 to 22 students from 20 scholarship funds (list of awards is found in Appendix A). All awards received approval by the MWSC Foundation. A detailed summary of the activity of each committee meeting is found in Appendix B.


Activity related to Charge 2: ¡°Work with the academic departments in determining need and criteria for scholarships.¡±
The committee identified the kinds of information necessary to determine scholarship awards. In addition, the committee discussed the current application process.

Based upon this year¡¯s application process, the following changes were recommended to the Director of Financial Aid:

The following information should be provided to effectively and fairly screen applicants for award. In addition, the information should be provided in a searchable and sortable format such as a spreadsheet or database.

Name
Student ID Number
Date of Birth
Address with County of Residence
Student Status
Major and Degree
Current GPA
High School Attended
High School Size, rank and GPA
Student Essay Statement
Financial Need Information including:
Independent/ dependent
Family Size
Number in College
Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) Financial Need Score

Changes should be made to the wording in the Scholarship Description section of the Financial Aid website. Wording changes should include changing application procedures to accurately reflect scholarship description. As an example the Elliot Goldman and Libbie Loraine Goldman Scholarship was not awarded this year because there were no qualified applicants meeting the required application procedures (there were applicants who met the description criteria). The scholarship description states in part ¡°Recipients must be full-time residents of Buchanan Count and full-time students. All students may apply. However, preference will be given to junior and senior students who plan to apply for admission to law school and students majoring in art or business administration.¡± The application procedure requires that students ¡°Must reference that you are a full-time resident of Buchanan County, are a full-time junior or senior planning to attend law school or are majoring in Art or Business in you Supporting Statement to be considered for this Scholarship.¡± This language prevented the committee from considering any student who did not following this application procedure. Additionally, many of the scholarships reviewed by this committee do not have financial need requirements, however, as part of the application procedures students must submit a FAFSA application. This should only be true for awards with financial need as part of the criteria.

Activity related to Charge 3: ¡°Support and augment the efforts of Missouri Western State College Foundation and the President of the College in their attempts to secure donations for scholarships.¡±
The committee met this charge in three ways. 1) All applications were screened to insure that students followed the application procedure and met individual scholarship criteria. 2) The committee sent a list of recommendations to the Financial Aid liaison (Cindy Spots) to insure that all applicants that were required to show financial need demonstrated it in their Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA). 3) The final list of recommended awardees was sent to the Foundation office for final screening. Through this process, all awardees met the legal and donor requirements for award.

Recommendations for 2005/2006
- Committee should work with Financial Aid during the Fall Semester to insure that the necessary information is provided for each applicant.
- Chair should meet with the Vice President for Institutional Advancement, Director of Financial Aid, and the Foundation Development Associate early in the Fall semester to identify any issues associated with the committee charges.



For the Committee:


Michael W. Ducey
Chair, Faculty Senate Scholarship Committee
Appendix A: Summary of Recommended Awards.

The AY 04/05 MWSC Faculty Senate Scholarship Committee recommended the following scholarship awards. If multiple awards are recommended, the recommended scholarship values are designated.
Scholarship Number of Awards Scholarship Value
Buchanan County Medical Society 1 award $200
Rod W. Fletcher Fund 1 award $5000
Harold Dubach 2 awards at $1000 each $2000
Clark C. Glaze 1 award $500
Goldman & Goldman No Qualified Applicant $1500
Kiefer & Kiefer 3 awards at $666 each $2000
Alma Pletcher 1 award $500
Frank R. Smith Memorial 5 awards at $2000 each $10,000
Opal L. Steward 2 awards at $1000 each $2000
James W. Supple Memorial 1 award $750
Andrews Whitaker 1 award $300
Jack & Frieda Zurow 1 award $400
Corinne Hancock 1 award $2000
Desota McCabe Memorial 1 award $500
Melmed 1 award $500
Midland Moorehead Eng/Tech 1 award $300
Harry Monson 1 award $300
Kelly Patterson 1 award $3000
Dr. Thompson E. Potter 1 award $400
Porter Clinton County 1 award $500



Appendix B: Academic Year 2003/04 Meeting attendance and summary of Faculty Senate Scholarship Committee.

February 24, 2005
Members Present: Michael Ducey, Don Lillie, Freddie Nix, Yona Rasis, Deborah Freedman, and Cindy Spotts (in for Angie Beam).
1. Cindy Spotts identified important dates and deadlines:
a. Scholarship application deadline of March 1, 2005.
b. The committee would be able to obtain student applications and summary reports from Financial Aid by March 10th.
1. The committee determined that the following procedures would be used to determine awardees.
a. Scholarship applications would be divided up between the five voting committee members.
b. Each committee member would review their assigned applications and recommend awardees to the full committee.
c. During the recommendation phase in the full committee each member would review the scholarship criteria with the committee, state their recommendations, and identify why they chose the applicants that they were recommending.
d. Following discussion, the committee would then determine final awards.
2. The Committee determined that it would meet again on March 10th.

March 10, 2005
Members Present: Michael Ducey, Don Lillie, Freddie Nix, Yona Rasis, Deborah Freedman, and Cindy Spotts (in for Angie Beam).

The following issues were discussed:
1. Cindy Spotts delivered student applications to the committee. She also indicated that she would send student essays to the committee chair via email. It was pointed out that because of the institution of the new Banner system and phase out of the Admin system, that the summary reports contained financial aid information for students from the previous year, as the current years information was inaccessible. In addition, because first time freshman were entered directly into the Banner system, there were no summary reports available for first time freshman. In addition, it was not clear what students had completed the FAFSA, as required in the application procedures, and which had not. Don Lillie raised a concern about the legality of the review process given this lack of information. The committee voted unanimously to only consider those applications that we knew met the application procedure requirements. The legality was subsequently taken up in a phone conversation with MWSC legal counsel, Tim Kissock, who concurred with the position of the committee. Cindy Spotts indicated that she would attempt to provide the committee current financial information on each student as well as information on first time freshman.

2. Scholarships were divided among the members in the following manner:
Michael Ducey: Frank R. Smith
Opal L. Steward
Melmed
Rod W. Fletcher Fund
Don Lillie: Andrews Whitaker
Jack and Frieda Zurow
Corinne Hancock
Kelly Patterson
Freddie Nix: Arthur C. Glaze
Goldman and Goldman
Desota MeCabe Memorial
Dr. Thompson E. Potter
Yona Rasis: Harold Dubach
Alma Pletcher
James W. Supple Memorial
Midland Moorehead Eng/ Tech
Deborah Freedman: Buchanan County Medical Society
Kiefer & Kiefer
Harry Monson
Porter Clinton County

March 24, 2005
Members Present: Michael Ducey, Freddie Nix, Yona Rasis, Deborah Freedman, and Cindy Spotts (in for Angie Beam).

Each member recommended and defended awardees for their assigned scholarships. Recommendations from Don Lillie were presented by the Chair in is absence (absent for curricular reasons). A list of awardees was compiled. It was decided that upon receipt of Don¡¯s recommendations and final review from the Financial Aid Office that a final list would be prepared and the committee would concur or not concur via email.

Final approval was obtained from all committee members on April 11, 2005 at which time the final list was forwarded to Foundation for approval.

A discussion on the kinds of information required for review took place. The following criteria were determined as necessary for review:

Name
Student ID Number
Date of Birth
Address with County of Residence
Student Status
Major and Degree
Current GPA
High School Attended
High School Size, rank and GPA
Student Essay Statement
Financial Need Information including:
Independent/ dependent
Family Size
Number in College
Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) Financial Need Score

In addition, student applications and data should be made available to the committee in a sortable and searchable format.

MINUTES APPENDIX C
Report
Faculty Senate Advising Load Sub-committee
Committee Members: Jill Miller, Criminal Justice/Legal Studies, Beverly Payne, Business, John Tapia, Communication Studies/Theatre, Sharon Vestal, Computer Science/Math/Physics, Roger Voelkel, Nursing
The Advising Load sub-committee has met five times to discuss the charge given by the Faculty Senate: "examining how advising should be equated into faculty teaching loads" (Faculty Senate Minutes 12/02/04).
The committee examined 1) how other colleges and universities equate advising into faculty load, 2) the Student Engagement and the Advisement Program: Strengthening the Mission of Missouri Western State College (Report by Tim Dodd, 12/31/04) and 3) the Noel Levitz Report on faculty advising.
There does not appear to be a standardized approach to the treatment of advising in terms of faculty teaching loads. Some of the more typical treatments of dealing with advising in terms of workload are as follows:
1) Most full-time faculty members are required to do advising.
2) Most full-time faculty members are required to do advising to be tenured/promoted.
3) Some colleges and universities negotiate advising load within the faculty contract (for example: Fewer class assignments with a heavy advising load).
4) Some colleges and universities hire personnel whose primary job is to advise (especially in departments where there is a heavy advising load).
5) The typical advising load for college and university faculty is from 20 to 30 students.
6) Some colleges and universities do not lump advising under teaching for purposes of evaluation, promotion and tenure; it may be treated under a category such as teaching and/or service.
The Student Engagement and the Advisement Program by Tim Dodd, Associate Dean Undergraduate Studies Case Reserve University, suggests, among other items, the following for Missouri Western State College:
1) "charge a committee of faculty, students, and administrators with developing guidelines for academic support and advising at Missouri Western."
2) "hire a full-time director of advising."
3) "designate a person in each department to be responsible for the department's
advising program and information" (has been done).
4) "optimize that adviser/advisee assignment scheme that permits advisers to advise students who also are taking a class by the adviser" (has been done).
5) "recognize that student affairs professionals are also educators and often are the best advisers of 'at-risk' and other special students.
6) "invite student affairs professionals who will serve as advisers into the academic culture through shared information and discussion sessions with faculty advisers."
Some of the suggestions made in this report regarding advising have been put into effect at Missouri Western. The basic problem for MWSC faculty concerns equity. Advising loads range from 1 or 2 advisees to 60-70 advisees per faculty member.
The committee discussed the following concerning addressing this problem at Western:
1) Hire an individual or individuals whose primary responsibility is advisement in high demand departments.
2) Hire students to assist in the advisement of students in high demand departments.
3) A centralized advising center be established to advise remedial students and
students without a declared major (the name remedial would need to be changed).
4) Just say "no" to advising additional students when a faculty member has more than 25 advisees.
5) The advising of remedial and students without a declared major be assigned to those faculty members with fewer than 25 advisees.
6) That chairpersons act responsibly when assigning advisees to faculty members.
7) That faculty members with more than 25 advisees receive additional
compensation.
8) That advising be considered under "service" for the purposes of evaluation, promotion and tenure.
The committee also recommends the continuation of the following:
1) That transfer students majoring in a particular department continue to be advised at the department level.
2) BIS students continue to be advised at the department level, depending on their area of concentration.

The committee acknowledges that there is an issue of equity in terms of faculty advising load. After reviewing a great deal of material, however, we were unable to recommend a solution to this problem due to the fact that there are so many types of advisers and advisees. With an up-or-out tenure system, in conjunction with the distinguished regents award program and the transition of Western from a college to that of university status, the committee realizes the need to establish a "level playing field" in this, as other areas, of faculty demand to promote professional development. We encourage the next faculty senate to again address this issue and hope that the administration will work with departments with heavy advising loads to alleviate the problem.




















STUDENT ENGAGEMENT AND THE ADVISEMENT PROGRAM: STRENGTHENING THE MISSION OF MISSOURI WESTERN STATE COLLEGE

A Report Submitted by:
Tim Dodd, Associate Dean
Undergraduate Studies
Case Western Reserve University
December 31, 2004


MINUTES APPENDIX D

Report of Ad Hoc Faculty Load Committee
MINUTES APPENDIX E

VII. FACULTY EVALUATION PROCEDURES

The evaluation of a faculty member is a continuous process that involves the accumulation of relevant data and information that permits intelligent judgments concerning a faculty member's performance. Evaluation procedures are used in the annual review, in the tenure review, in promotion reviews, and in special reviews such as those for Regents Distinguished Professor awards and grants for professional leave and sabbatical. At the heart of an effective evaluation system lies the requirement that a faculty member diligently seek self-improvement and that evaluators responsibly interpret results and carefully support comments and recommendations

A. AREAS OF FACULTY EVALUATION

Faculty performance is evaluated in three areas: teaching, service, and scholarship/creative activity. The discussion below provides a general orientation to institutional expectations for performance in each area.

1. Teaching

One of the primary responsibilities of a faculty member at Western involves effective teaching and student interaction through classroom activities, campus involvement, and advising.

In order concisely to describe classroom responsibilities in annual evaluations, tenure and promotion packages and other award competitions, a template such as the following should be used to display data.


COURSE NAMETYPE (Major, GS) NUMBER OF STUDENTS GRADE DISTRIBUTION Ovrall Effctivnss & STD + mean & STD
ENG 108--GS 15 5A¡¯s; 5B¡¯s; 3C¡¯s¡¯ 1D; 1 F, 4 W 2.0--.832.3--.78


Evidence of teaching effectiveness may include, but is not limited to
¡¤ Presentation of subject matter in a carefully organized, clear, logical, and competent manner in class presentations, syllabi, teaching resource guides, web materials, posted notes, and other teaching materials
¡¤ Deployment of creative, challenging, and competent student learning evaluation measures such as examinations, quizzes, writing assignments, and other assignments appropriate for the subject matter
¡¤ Appropriate rigor in the assignment of student grades for specific assignments and courses
¡¤ Demonstrating satisfactory teaching performance in numerical and written student evaluation results
¡¤ Purposeful reflection and professional development activities in relation to the success of the teaching experiences and as a means to continued improvement of teaching
¡¤ Instructional innovation and development including, but not limited to, new courses or components of courses or special pedagogical practices or special tutorial/individualized work
¡¤ Performance of duties allied to instruction such as curriculum development, advising, and/or skill in coping with special student problems
¡¤ Peer evaluations from colleagues
¡¤ Participation in programs that promote intellectual growth and instructional development in the discipline
¡¤ Sponsorship of learning opportunities beyond the classroom, but relevant to the discipline such as organizing a film program, a class trip, a campus event, or some similar co-curricular opportunity
¡¤ Participation in campus initiatives related to teaching such as learning communities and honors programs
¡¤ Meeting requirements established by the department and institution
¡¤ Maintaining respect for students


2. Service

The faculty role in higher education includes professional service as one of three areas of faculty responsibility and opportunity. Consistent with the mission and values of Western, through professional service a faculty member contributes knowledge, skills, and expertise to activities designed to benefit students, the institution, the discipline/profession, and the community.

a. Students

Service to students may include activities that go beyond the usual teaching expectations of a faculty member. Evidence of service to students may include, but is not limited to
¡¤ Serving as a faculty advisor to a student organization
¡¤ Providing guidance for a student project not associated with the faculty member¡¯s assigned workload
¡¤ Providing an out-of-class seminar to students on academic and student affairs topics
¡¤ Academic advising (including number of advisees) and mentoring activities such as sponsorship of independent student work

b. Institution

Faculty members¡¯ service to individual departments and the university assists the institution in developing and maintaining activities that ensure and enhance the mission of the institution. Evidence of institutional service may include, but is not limited to
¡¤ Providing leadership for a committee or an academic unit
¡¤ Serving as an elected member of Faculty Senate or as an active member of a Faculty Senate, institutional or departmental committee.
¡¤ Writing a committee report
¡¤ Representing the institution on a community project or in a partnership project

c. Discipline/Profession

Service to the academic discipline or profession involves
faculty activities that focus on disciplinary goals or on enhancing the work of professional organizations. Evidence of service to the discipline or profession may include, but is not limited to
¡¤ Participating in accreditation activities
¡¤ Editing a professional journal or serving as a peer reviewer or juror
¡¤ Organizing a professional conference or a conference panel or event
¡¤ Serving as an elected officer of a professional society
¡¤ Active participation in the work of a professional association

d. Community

As one of the values included in the Western mission, service includes activities that contribute to the public good. Faculty members serve communities through their expertise as educators, scholars, fine or performing artists, administrators, or practitioners. Service not related to the faculty member¡¯s discipline or profession is valued and may be documented; however, this type of service alone would not be considered sufficient. Evidence of community service may include, but is not limited to

Giving public presentations or performances
Participating in economic or community development activities
¡¤ Serving as a board member for a community non-profit organization
¡¤ Serving as a consultant or evaluating programs, policies or personnel for agencies
¡¤ Written or video work published in non-academic media outlets

3. Scholarship/Creative Activity

Activities fulfilling faculty responsibility for scholarship include not only scientific research and humanistic scholarship but also creative expression in the arts. Faculty must be engaged in on-going scholarship/creative activity in order to be current and competent in their areas of instruction. Active participation in the ongoing conversation of scholarly/professional communities is expected of all faculty at the postsecondary level.

a. Criteria

The following criteria, although not exhaustive, help to delineate an activity as scholarly/creative (Diamond, 2002)
¡¤ The activity or work requires a high level of discipline-related expertise.
¡¤ The activity or work is conducted in a scholarly manner with clear goals, adequate preparation, and appropriate methodology.
¡¤ The activity or work and its results are appropriately and effectively documented and disseminated. (This reporting should include a reflective critique that addresses the significance of the work, the process that was used, and what was learned).
¡¤ The activity or work has significance beyond the individual context. (It breaks new ground or is innovative and can be replicated or elaborated).
¡¤ The activity or work, both process and product or result, is reviewed and judged to be meritorious and significant by a panel of one¡¯s peers. This element is necessary for all forms of scholarly and creative activity.

b. Classification

Using the classification of scholarly/creative activity provided by Ernest Boyer (1990), there are four types of scholarship/creative activity.

1. Scholarship of Discovery includes basic research or creative expression. Examples include
¡¤ A published article, monograph, or book that advances understanding (Such artifacts have been reviewed by peers in the publication process)
¡¤ Original research presented in an academic paper or other academic venue (Such artifacts have been judged by peers in the review process as worthy of public discussion)
¡¤ Artifacts such as poems, paintings, theatrical productions (or other works of original expression) that have been reviewed in a jury process
¡¤ A successful grant application for basic research/scholarly/creative activity

2. Scholarship of Integration includes scholarly work that reviews and/or integrates prior research. Examples include
¡¤ A published article or textbook or a juried presentation that summarizes or synthesizes earlier scholarly work and/or crosses disciplinary boundaries. (Such artifacts have been reviewed by peers in the publication process)
¡¤ A published book or software review or a review article. (Such artifacts have been invited/ authorized by or selected by peers for publication)
¡¤ Presentations selected for a scholarly/professional meeting, which present a critique, or frame a position (paper) in a scholarly/professional debate,
¡¤ Published bibliographies
¡¤ Artifacts that are published or presented that provide critical analysis of scholarly projects, artistic exhibits or performances, or museum exhibits
¡¤ Successful grant applications for projects that integrate already existing scholarly resources

3. Scholarship of Application includes scholarly work that applies current knowledge and innovations to important practices. Examples include
¡¤ Publications or juried presentations that focus on applications or practical problems in the field
¡¤ Activities to acquire or maintain certification for disciplinary specialties (process should be described)
¡¤ Consulting (peer reviewed)
¡¤ Successful grant applications for projects that focus on application problems

4. Scholarship of Teaching includes scholarship that focuses on the nature and improvement of teaching. Examples include
¡¤ Publications or juried presentations that focus on issues of pedagogy or any aspect of the instructional mission of the institution
¡¤ Written studies or reviews (that include a peer review element), which focus on assessment
¡¤ Successful grant applications for projects that focus on practical problems linked to any dimension of instruction

References

Boyer, E.L. (1990). Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the
Professoriate. Princeton: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.

Diamond, R.M. (2002). Defining scholarship for the twenty-first
century. In Scholarship in the Postmodern Era: New Venues, New Values, New Visions. Zahorski, K.J. (ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.


B. THE EVALUATION FILE

An evaluation file for each faculty member will be kept in the office of the department chairperson. Access to this file is guaranteed only to the individual faculty member and to those responsible for making annual, tenure, promotion, and/or special reviews unless the individual faculty member gives prior written approval. In addition to maintaining files and discharging other assigned responsibilities in the evaluation process, department chairpersons are responsible for making faculty members aware, through department meetings and bulletins, of each individual's responsibility in connection with self-evaluation.

1. Evaluation Materials To Be Included in the Permanent File

a. Job Descriptions

Job Descriptions are prepared jointly and signed by the individual faculty member and the department chairperson at the beginning of each academic year. Job descriptions may vary among academic departments as well as among faculty within a department.

b. Annual Summaries of Teaching

Updated annual summaries of regular teaching assignments and other specific assigned responsibilities should be included. The template above (VII. A. 1) provides an example of a concise way teaching data can be presented.

c. Student Evaluations of Faculty

o A common institutional evaluation instrument and procedures for its administration are to be used for student evaluation of faculty throughout the campus. The student evaluation provides for an assessment of teaching effectiveness and for written comments assessing strengths and areas of concern.
o The results of the student evaluations are provided to the faculty member as information for self-improvement and to the department chairperson as part of the information used in the total faculty evaluation process. For these reasons, student evaluation of faculty will take place in every class.
o Raw, non-summarized results of student evaluations conducted in each class taught by the faculty member are given to the faculty member. Summary data are also provided to the faculty member; a copy is placed in the evaluation file of the faculty member.
o Departments are not limited to the institutional evaluation form but may develop additional instruments, with the approval of the dean, to enhance the evaluation process.
o In evaluating teaching for the purpose of annual, tenure and promotion reviews, the data obtained from student evaluations should not be used as the only criterion.

Additional Materials: Data from student evaluations should be
used and interpreted in conjunction with data from other sources.
The following is a partial list of other data for evaluation. The chairperson, in concert with his or her department, shall determine which of these or other supplementary data will be used. This list is not meant to be exhaustive, nor is the use of any particular item obligatory. This list is not in any order of importance or preference.
¡¤ Course syllabi and examinations
¡¤ Course grade distribution
¡¤ Classroom visitations
¡¤ Peer evaluation
¡¤ Student performances on course-relevant examinations other than those constructed by the faculty member alone (e.g., departmentally constructed exams over subject area, nationally standardized exams)
¡¤ Long-term follow up of students' subsequent use of course-relevant knowledge
¡¤ Faculty member's self-evaluation

Administrative Procedure for Student Evaluation of
Faculty

¡¤ The form shall be administered during the last two regular class weeks of the semester but not during the final examination period. If a course meets for only part of the semester the evaluation should take place during the last two regular class weeks of the course but not during the final examination period.
¡¤ The results of the evaluation will be computer tabulated.
¡¤ The department chairperson in consultation with the faculty member will determine the procedure for selecting the individual (other than a student) who will administer the evaluation. The evaluation will be administered by someone other than the instructor. It is anticipated that administration of the evaluation will take ten to twenty minutes in order to accommodate written comments.
¡¤ Classroom instructions to be read by administrator are as follows:

"Student evaluation of instructors is used for improvement of teaching and for annual, tenure, and promotion reviews. It is therefore important that you answer fairly and honestly. Written comments are particularly helpful to your instructor. Your instructor will not see your evaluation until course grades are determined. Your signature on the form is optional. Please use a #2 pencil for your response on the survey questions."

¡¤ Upon completion by the students, the evaluation sheets for the class shall be placed in an envelope, which has the instructor's name, course title, and course line number printed on it. The person administering the evaluation shall seal the envelope and return it to the department administrative assistant. The Information Technology Department shall likewise return the evaluations in sealed envelopes to the department.
¡¤ The evaluation envelopes will be retained in the department until all departmental evaluations are complete. A request form (obtained from the Information Technology Department) must be completed and submitted with the evaluations. A "basic analysis" for each class, for each faculty member, and for each department will be provided by the Information Technology Department.
¡¤ The evaluation envelopes and request forms must be delivered to the Information Technology Department by the first day of finals. All processed evaluation materials will be sealed in an envelope and held in the Information Technology Department until the day after semester grades are due in the Records Office. On that date or after, each department must send a representative to the Information Technology Department to obtain and sign for the evaluation materials; they will not be mailed.
¡¤ The original student evaluations and an analysis will be returned to the department chairperson for administrative use and in order to discuss the information with the faculty for self-improvement and evaluation purposes.
¡¤ The chairperson will retain the computer analysis in the faculty member's evaluation file. The faculty member will be provided the original student evaluations and a copy of the computer analysis.
¡¤ It is the faculty member's responsibility to produce the student evaluations when needed for annual, tenure, and promotion reviews.

d. Annual Self-evaluation

Each faculty member should submit an annual self-evaluation using the Self Evaluation Form no later than January 22.

Self-evaluations should document the three areas of faculty performance, teaching, service, and scholarship/creative activity (see VII A. ¡°Areas of Faculty Evaluation¡±).

e. Annual Chairperson/Dean Evaluation

Annual evaluations by the department chairperson (or, in the case of a department chairperson, the appropriate school dean) are to be completed by February 15 of each academic year.

This evaluation is based on performance in teaching, service, and scholarship/creative activity (see VII A. ¡°Areas of Faculty Evaluation¡±).

The annual evaluation cycle is to be completed by the first Friday of April of each academic year. That is, a copy of the Faculty Annual Evaluation Form (see discussion below), which includes the chairperson¡¯s evaluation, goes from the chairperson to the dean and Vice President of Academic and Student Affairs and will be returned to the faculty member through administrative channels by the first Friday in April. A copy also is placed in the evaluation file.

C. FACULTY ANNUAL EVALUATION SUMMARY

Each faculty member will be formally evaluated annually utilizing the Faculty Annual Evaluation Form. The evaluation period will encompass the full calendar year. The form will serve as the faculty member's written evaluation and will be utilized as the basis for the annual review interview.

¡¤ The chairperson will complete the Faculty Annual Evaluation
Form, sign it, and discuss the evaluation with the
faculty member early in the spring semester.
¡¤ Each faculty member will read, sign, and receive a copy of
his or her summary form during the meeting with the chairperson.
¡¤ The faculty member has the right to attach a statement to the
form if he or she so desires, before it is forwarded to the
appropriate dean.
¡¤ Normally, the chairperson submits the Faculty Annual Evaluation Form and faculty member¡¯s Self-Evaluation Form to the school dean by February 15. However, each faculty member will have the opportunity to discuss the chairperson's recommendation, sign, and offer any written rebuttals before the Faculty Annual Evaluation Form is submitted to the dean.
¡¤ The dean will normally submit the review/evaluation package
to the Vice President for Academic and Student Affairs by February 25.
¡¤ The Vice President for Academic and Student Affairs will complete the Faculty Annual Evaluation Form by the first Friday in April, and a copy will be returned to the faculty member through administrative channels.
¡¤ The Vice President for Academic and Student Affairs will also submit the review/evaluation recommendations to the President who will make recommendations to the Board of Regents for final disposition.
¡¤ When the President's recommendation differs from the
recommendation of the Vice President for Academic and Student Affairs, the faculty member will be notified.
¡¤ If the faculty member believes there are grounds for a grievance, procedures in the Policy Guide should be followed.

Evaluation Code on the Faculty Annual Evaluation Form

The S, M, U evaluation code is defined as follows:

S - performance satisfactory
M - performance marginal, need for significant improvement
U - performance unacceptable

It is expected that the "S" evaluation will be utilized with the great majority of faculty members across campus. It indicates performance, which ranges from acceptable to superior.

The "M" evaluation denotes marginal performance and indicates the need for significant improvement. Such an evaluation shall be explained by the Department Chairperson on the Faculty Annual Evaluation Form.

The "U" evaluation indicates that the faculty member is performing in a poor and unacceptable manner. This evaluation shall be explained on the Faculty Annual Evaluation Form.

When the "U" evaluation is considered serious enough to jeopardize future employment, the Early Warning Provision (below) will be initiated.


D. EARLY WARNING PROVISION FOR FACULTY

The purpose of the following provision is to make sure that a faculty member with serious shortcomings is made aware of them so that the opportunity for improvement is available.

Faculty members who have been employed full-time at Missouri Western State College for more than two years shall not fail to receive a reappointment recommendation by the administration because of an unsatisfactory evaluation in teaching, service or scholarship/creative activity unless they have been advised of their shortcomings. The formal early warning shall be issued by the department chairperson, or, in the case of chairperson, by the appropriate dean, in writing on the FACULTY REAPPOINTMENT FORM and incorporated within the formal evaluation process.

A faculty member placed on early warning must demonstrate at the next annual evaluation to the satisfaction of the Vice President for Academic and Student Affairs, in consultation with the department chair and dean, that the shortcomings have been remedied and are not likely to reoccur. Failing to do so will result in the termination of a non-tenured faculty member effective at the end of that spring semester, or in the case of a tenured faculty member, will result in a terminal contract for the following academic year.

E. TENURE

1. General Tenure Philosophy

Tenure, as a status in higher education, is a means to protect the independent inquiry and the openness of academic discourse of faculty as teacher-scholars. Tenure also provides stability to the professoriate as a vocation.

Integral with this freedom of inquiry and openness of discourse are a set of interdependent professional responsibilities and competencies, including fidelity and integrity with professional standards and ethical codes of conduct; relevance and context of subject matter in teaching; habitual scholarly engagement with one¡¯s field; and collegial decorum in the free exchange of ideas in debate and other forums. In sum, ¡°the freedom to pursue ideas, to raise inconvenient questions, to create an agenda of inquiry that builds on one¡¯s imagination and curiosity must be maintained as essential to the work of professoriate¡­the quid pro quo for this autonomy is accountability¡± (Rice, 1996, p. 27).

Faculty accountability is determined by systematic evaluation of their teaching, service, and scholarship/creative activity.

Faculty evaluation, whether annual or periodic (i.e., event specific related to tenure, promotion, awards, etc.), should begin with self-evaluation and include multiple levels of peer review. This peer review (i.e., departmental, institutional, community, by scholarly/creative peers outside the institution) will be audited by academic administrators to assess the reliability of its results and to minimize any role ¡°faculty rivalries, jealousies and prejudices sometimes play¡± in peer review (Byrne, 1997, p.12).

The primacy of professional peer review in faculty evaluation and the professional assessment of academic administrators are essential to ensuring the vitality of the status of tenure and academic freedom.

A formal tenure review is designed to determine, principally through peer review and administrative professional assessment, which tenure-track, probationary faculty have earned tenure status through excellence in their teaching, service, and scholarship/creative activity.

The Board of Regents grants tenure to faculty whose excellence has been demonstrated. Although some faculty may be hired with tenure or credit toward tenure (identified on the contract), most faculty are awarded tenure only after a tenure review in the sixth year of service. The elements of the tenure review process are specified below.

Tenure, as granted by the Board of Regents at Missouri Western State University, is designed to protect academic freedom and to insure due process for the termination of a teaching contract. Tenure, as recognized by MWSU, is not designed to protect an incompetent instructor.

Tenure assures the tenured faculty member automatic reappointment with the following conditions and exceptions.

¡¤ Tenured faculty are subject to the Early Warning Provision (VII. D).

¡¤ The services of a faculty member may be terminated immediately for gross immorality or disloyalty to the government of the United States, admitted or proved.

¡¤ A tenured person denied reappointment shall have the right to a hearing before the Grievance Committee if requested in writing to the chairperson of that committee within thirty (30) days after notification of such refusal. (See Appendix H, Grievance Procedure for Faculty).

References:

Byrne, J. B (1997). Academic freedom without tenure? New Pathways Working Paper, no. 5. Washington, DC: American Association for Higher Education.

Rice, R. E. (1996) Making a place for the New American Scholar. New Pathways Working Paper, no. 1. Washington, DC: American Association for Higher Education.

2. The Tenure Process

Faculty members hired on a tenure-track position commencing after July 1, 2005 are required to have a tenure review in the sixth year. That tenure review coincides with a promotion review. If a candidate is recommended for tenure but is not promoted, he or she is not barred from re-applying for promotion.

In cases in which faculty are hired with tenure or are given credit toward tenure, either tenured status or the timeframe for a tenure review should appear on the initial contract.

Normally, a non-tenured faculty member is not granted sabbatical leave but if he or she is in a special circumstance, this period will not be counted toward the specified time before a tenure review. Time spent on an official leave of absence without pay will not be included in the total probationary time accumulated. A faculty member on a half-time contract is eligible to become a tenure candidate during the twelfth probationary year.

If the faculty member is not granted tenure in the tenure review, he or she will receive a one-year terminal contract in the following year.

After July 1, 2005, MWSU faculty members who are not in their first contract and who do not presently have tenure (hereafter referred to as incumbent faculty), must determine the year for a tenure review. The tenure review shall be no more than six years from the contract year in which an up-or-out tenure system becomes institutional policy. The tenure review shall not be before the incumbent has been at the institution five years.

The date for a tenure review should be communicated to the office of the Vice President for Academic and Student Affairs by March 15, 2006. It is recommended that incumbent faculty set the date for the tenure review after seeking input from the departmental chairperson (with advice from colleagues) and the dean. Incumbent faculty who elect to have a tenure review in academic year 05-06 must notify their chairperson, dean and the office of the Vice President for Academic and Student Affairs by the end of the third week of the Fall 2005 term.

If no date is set by March 15, 2006 for tenure review, the faculty member will receive a terminal year contract for the following year.

The faculty member, department chairperson, dean, and the Vice President for Academic and Student Affairs must approve any change in the tenure review date.

Candidates for tenure must have a mid-term review in the third year (of a six year probationary period) that mirrors the tenure application process up to the level of school dean. The chairperson is primarily responsible for initiating this review.

Annual evaluation interviews by the department chairperson of those on tenure track should also address issues related to work toward tenure. The mid-term review should document a prospective tenure candidate¡¯s strengths as well as areas in which additional work should be focused in subsequent years. This documentation should appear either on the annual evaluation form or as an attachment to that form.

Academic departments must have a review committee that provides a recommendation to the departmental chairperson on tenure and promotion decisions. The departmental chairperson provides his or her review to the dean but must include the recommendation from the departmental committee. The departmental chairperson is responsible for appointing the departmental committee. It is recommended that the committee be small (3) and that membership include as many colleagues in the same discipline as possible. The departmental committee should also be involved in the mid-term review process to assure that mid-term review and tenure/promotion processes are aligned.

Incumbent faculty must have a mid-term tenure review if the tenure review date is three or more years after the institution adopts an up-or-out system. Incumbent faculty who opt for a tenure review in less than three years can request a mid-term review. The chart below illustrates the recommended time frame for the mid-term review for incumbent faculty.


Tenure Review in Years Mid-term Review in Years
6 3
5 2
4 2
3 1

Incumbent faculty members who set a tenure review date prior to the six year limit (after the institution adopts an up-or-out policy) but who do not receive tenure, receive a terminal one year contract following the review year.

External Peer Review Material: The department chairperson and the candidate must confer and agree upon at least one and no more than three scholars/artists outside the institution from whom input on a candidate¡¯s scholarly/creative work can be solicited for the tenure review. Candidates are expected to provide the chairperson a brief disclosure statement identifying any knowledge they have of proposed external peer reviewers. Candidates may submit scholarly/creative materials that already reflect external peer review in addition to this special request for input on professional development materials. At least one external reviewer will be asked for a confidential review (authorized by the candidate and focusing on representative materials the candidate selects) provided in a letter sent directly to the departmental chairperson and available to others involved in tenure decisions. Confidential peer reviews are added to the tenure package by the chairperson and removed by the VPASA before materials are returned.

Additional review letters (if any) appraising teaching, service, and scholarship/creative activity can also be solicited by the candidate; these too should be sent directly to the department chairperson. The quality of the peer evaluation of scholarship/creative activity and not the number of such evaluations is what is important in the decision-making process. All peer review materials received by the department chairperson should become part of the package examined by the departmental review committee and others in the chain of review. A standardized instruction sheet for outside review letters is included in the Policy Guide.

Other Peer Review Materials: Candidates for tenure and promotion are encouraged to provide supporting peer review material that evaluates teaching, service, and scholarship/creative activity in their application package. Many academic departments have a variety of ways to provide peer input. Such material should be included in the package and identified as peer review material.

The tenure candidate must authorize release of materials in his or her permanent faculty file for use by appropriate committee members. It should be understood that the confidentiality of such file is to be protected and its contents to be used solely for the purpose of making tenure recommendations.


3. The Tenure Package and Areas Evaluated

Candidates for tenure prepare tenure/promotion packages that are reviewed first in the department (by the departmental committee and the chairperson) and subsequently by the dean, the Promotion and Tenure Committee and the Vice President for Academic and Student Affairs. The review process begins in the fall semester of the sixth contract year or at the year designated on the contract for incumbent faculty and those hired with credit toward tenure. Those involved in review of material, including the Promotion and Tenure Committee, provide two separate recommendations, one for tenure and the other for promotion.

The candidate for tenure is to be reviewed according to the categories of teaching, service, and scholarship/creative activity. Degree status is not a tenure criterion, unless contractually stipulated.

Note: For Academic Year 2005-2006, candidates for tenure are encouraged, but are not required to include the external peer review and the department committee review in their tenure package. These candidates have the option of completing a mid-term review prior to the submission of their tenure application.

Note: During the tenure cycle, if the university is officially closed on the date materials or responses are due, those items may be submitted on the next official university business day.

4. Tenure Packet Organization

The primary tenure packet is limited to one three-ring notebook not to exceed two inches in thickness. Items should not have to be removed from the packet to be read. A second notebook should be submitted containing ALL student evaluations received during the rating period, or for the most recent six years. The tenure candidate should meet with the departmental chairperson early in the fall term to set up a plan for an external review of selected artifacts and to set a date for turning over all the materials collected for the tenure package to the departmental committee. The tenure candidate shall include in the package the following materials listed below. A table of contents and appropriate tabs for the package are recommended:

A. Comprehensive narrative statement making a case for tenure. This
statement should be no more than 10 single-spaced pages.
B. Curriculum Vitae
C. Annual Summaries of Teaching
D. Annual Faculty Self Evaluations
E. Annual Chairperson Evaluations
F. Peer recommendations/assessments of teaching ,service, and
scholarship/creative activity (excluding the confidential external peer review that is added to the package by the chairperson).
G. Evidence of quality of teaching (see VII. A).
H. Evidence of quality of service (see VII. A).
I. Evidence of quality of scholarship/creative activity (see VII. A)

5. Tenure Procedures

Routing and Review of Materials

Department Committee and Chairperson
By December 1, the departmental committee will submit its tenure recommendation and rationale for this recommendation to the departmental chairperson. The tenure package also must be sent forward to the department chair by this date and the departmental committee must provide the candidate with a copy of the tenure recommendation and rationale. The candidate may respond to the committee recommendation in written form by 4:30 p.m. of the third working day after December 1; copies of the response should be sent to the chairperson for inclusion in the candidate's tenure package. By January 7, the department chairperson, will submit his or her tenure recommendation and the rationale for this recommendation to the dean along with the candidate's tenure package. Also by January 7, the chairperson will provide the candidate with a copy of the tenure recommendation and rationale. The candidate may respond to the chairperson's recommendation in written form by 4:30 p.m. of the third working day after January 7 and copies of the response should be sent to the chairperson and to the dean for inclusion in the candidate's tenure package.

Review and Recommendation: Dean
By February 1, the dean will review the tenure package submitted by the chairperson and will make a recommendation on tenure, with rationale, to the Vice President for Academic and Student Affairs along with the candidate's tenure package. A copy of the recommendation and rationale will be sent to the Promotion/Tenure Committee. The dean will notify the candidate of the recommendation and rationale at the same time the recommendation is sent to the Vice President for Academic and Student Affairs. If the candidate wishes to rebut the dean's recommendation, he or she must do so in writing to the Vice President for Academic and Student Affairs within three working days (from receipt of the letter) for inclusion in the candidate's tenure package and to allow a copy to be sent to the dean.

Review and Recommendation: Tenure Committee
The Faculty Promotion/Tenure Committee will, after February 3, have access to all tenure materials submitted to the Vice President for Academic and Student Affairs. Using these materials, the Faculty Promotion/Tenure Committee will review the recommendations of the department chairperson and the dean along with any responses submitted by the candidate. By April 4, the Promotion/Tenure Committee's recommendation and rationale, attached to the tenure materials, will be submitted to the Vice President for Academic and Student Affairs. The recommendation will consist of a yes or no vote by the committee, accompanied by a list of strengths and weaknesses of the candidate and the rationale. A copy of the recommendation and rationale will be available to the candidate in the Office of the Vice President for Academic and Student Affairs after I p.m. on April 4. It is the candidate's responsibility to obtain this copy. If the committee vote is negative, the candidate will have three working days (from receipt of the letter) to respond to the committee's recommendation. The response will be submitted in writing to the Vice President for Academic and Student Affairs for inclusion in the tenure candidate's package, with a copy being sent to the Promotion/Tenure Committee.

The Promotion/Tenure Committee shall base its tenure recommendation on the quality of teaching, service and scholarship/creative activity. See the discussion above (VII. A ) which provides a general orientation to institutional expectations for performance in each area.

The candidate has the option of appearing before the subcommittee reviewing his or her packet to discuss materials documented in the application packet. Applicants will not have the option of appearing before the entire Promotion/Tenure Committee. No new materials may be introduced. To exercise this option, the candidate must notify the Promotion/Tenure Committee chairperson in writing by March 1. The Promotion/Tenure Committee chairperson will contact the subcommittee members who must arrange to meet with the candidate prior to any full committee discussion and/or voting on this candidate.

Review and Recommendation: Vice President for Academic and Student Affairs. By May 5, the Vice President for Academic and Student Affairs will review all tenure recommendations with rationale and materials and make recommendations with rationale to the President. The Vice President for Academic and Student Affairs will provide a copy of the tenure recommendation with rationale to the candidate at the time the recommendation is submitted to the President. The candidate will have three working days to respond to the Vice President's recommendation. The response will be submitted in writing to the President for inclusion in the tenure candidate's package, with a copy being sent to the Vice President for Academic and Student Affairs.

President's Recommendation and Board's Approval
The President will make a recommendation for action by the Board of Regents. The minutes of the Board of Regents shall include the name of the faculty members placed on tenure.


SUMMARY OF TENURE TIMETABLE

From To Date

Candidate Department Committee Fall Term

Department Committee Chairperson 12/1

Chairperson Dean 1/7


Dean VPASA 2/1


VPASA Committee 2/3

Committee VPASA 4/4


VPASA President 5/5


President Board of Regents



F. FACULTY PROMOTION

Promotion is for the purpose of recognizing excellence in the areas of teaching, service, and scholarship/creative activity. Experiences, time in rank and preparation minima are not sufficient justification for promotion. Promotion is not automatic, nor will it be regulated by a quota system. Promotions will be contingent upon availability of funds.

1. PROMOTION ELIGIBILITY AND PERFORMANCE GUIDELINES

a. Promotion from Instructor to Assistant Professor

Requirements for promotion consideration

A minimum of three years of full-time university teaching at Missouri Western State University will be required for promotion to this rank.** Application for promotion can be made during the second semester of the third year of service at the rank of instructor. A terminal degree in the field of appointment, ordinarily the doctorate, is required (see Terminal Degrees). However, a faculty member with the rank of instructor will be promoted to the rank of assistant professor immediately upon verification of the doctorate (the academic contract salary of the faculty member will be adjusted to reflect the new rank beginning the month following the verification from the faculty member¡¯s university/college documenting completion of all requirements for the doctorate. The educational advancement salary increase will be determined prior to promotion adjustment monies).

Performance levels required for promotion to Assistant
Professor

The instructor seeking promotion to assistant professor must be able to document strong teaching effectiveness. Each candidate¡¯s teaching effectiveness will be compared with that of other MWSU faculty members. Support for institutional and departmental goals on the part of the candidate is expected; documentation of service to students, the institution, discipline/profession and/or the community is necessary. Some evidence of growth in scholarship/creative activity is required. The faculty member must show active leadership in service or a strong commitment to growth in scholarship/creative activity through progress toward a terminal degree or comparable goals.

b. Promotion from Assistant Professor to Associate
Professor

Requirements for promotion consideration

A minimum of six years of full-time university teaching experience at the rank of assistant professor** at MWSU is required for promotion to this rank. * Application for promotion to Associate Professor normally occurs in the sixth year of service at the same time that application for tenure is made. The tenure package doubles as a promotion package, although judgments about tenure and promotion remain separate judgments at each level. For promotion consideration, the candidate must

¡¤ Have the appropriate terminal degree in which the faculty
member holds the appointment, or
¡¤ Have at least the MA+30 educational level status with four
additional years of full-time university experience at the
rank of assistant professor at MWSU, or
¡¤ Have eight additional years of full-time university experience at the rank of assistant professor at MWSU, or
¡¤ Have made exceptional contributions to the university or the profession. Exceptional performance must be documented in detail by the candidate and addressed and evaluated by the chair and dean.

*Faculty employed by MWSU before July 1, 2005, are eligible to apply for Associate in the fifth contract year providing that they have also applied for tenure in the same cycle. Faculty employed by MWSU before July 1, 2005 who already have tenure but have not been promoted to the rank of Associate can apply for promotion at any time. Faculty hired with credit toward tenure are eligible to apply for promotion to Associate in the year in which they have a tenure review.

Performance levels required for promotion to Associate Professor

The assistant professor seeking promotion to associate professor must be able to document a consistently strong teaching effectiveness. Each candidate¡¯s teaching will be compared with that of other MWSU faculty members. Active, constructive service in departmental, institutional, and community is expected. The candidate must demonstrate that he or she has kept current with advances in areas of expertise and teaching duties and that significant growth in scholarship/creative activity has continued.


c. Promotion from Associate Professor to Professor

Requirements for promotion consideration

A minimum of five years of full-time experience at the rank of associate professor at MWSU is required for promotion to this rank.** Application for promotion can be made during the second semester of the fifth year of service at the rank of associate professor. The appropriate terminal degree in the discipline in which the faculty member holds the appointment is normally required for promotion to the rank of professor. However, the faculty member who does not have the appropriate terminal degree but who has consistently demonstrated outstanding teaching, and who has made exceptional contributions in service to both the institution and discipline/profession, and community, may request consideration for promotion to the rank of professor based upon these contributions. Exceptional performance in teaching, service, and scholarship/creative activity must be documented in detail by the candidate and addressed and evaluated by the chair and dean. The terminal degree must not be a limiting factor for the candidate being considered on the basis of exceptional performance.

**Neither sabbatical leave nor leave of absence without pay constitutes full-time taching experience. Two years of half-time college teaching experience will be considered as one year of full-time teaching experience.


Performance levels required for promotion to Professor

The associate professor seeking promotion to professor must be able to document quality performance in the areas of teaching, service, and scholarship/creative activity. The faculty member¡¯s performance in one area might be outstanding and compensate for a solid but not outstanding performance in another area. Teaching must be superior when compared with other MWSU faculty. A high-quality participation in departmental service is required on a regular basis. Evidence of active leadership in departmental and institutional service is expected. In the area of scholarship/creative activity, the faculty member seeking promotion to professor must document consistent growth. Significant professional service to the student, institution, discipline/profession and community must be documented.

In addition, the promotion candidate must authorize release of his or her permanent faculty file in the office of the Vice President for Academic and Student Affairs for use by appropriate committee members, it being understood that the confidentiality of such file is to be protected and its contents to be used solely for the purpose of making promotion recommendations.


2. PROMOTION PACKAGE

The candidate for promotion is to be reviewed according to the areas of teaching, service, and scholarship/creative activity. Promotion candidates should careful study the discussion of VII. A. Areas of Faculty Evaluation in which the institution¡¯s general expectations for teaching, service and scholarship/creative activity are outlined (See also above E. TENURE 4. Tenure Package Organization and Areas Evaluated).

Preparation of Promotion Package

a. The information should be well organized with a table of contents.

b. Where possible, qualitative and quantitative comparisons should be made which will demonstrate the candidate¡¯s performance in relation to other departmental and MWSU faculty.

c. Data presented should be analyzed and explained.

d. The candidate should show how the documentation included in the promotion package is relevant to the candidate¡¯s teaching, service, and scholarship/creative activity.

e. All information the candidate considers relevant for promotion evaluation must be in the promotion package.

f. It is the candidate¡¯s responsibility to show he or she is qualified to be promoted.

g. Promotion materials must be confined to one three-ring notebook NOT to exceed two inches in thickness. All materials must be easily available without having to remove them from the notebook. A second notebook may be submitted containing ALL student evaluations received during the rating period, or for the most recent five years.

h. Annual faculty self-evaluation forms, faculty annual evaluation summary forms, and chairperson annual evaluation forms must be included for each year of evaluation period.

Areas Evaluated

These lists are not meant to be exhaustive nor is the use of any particular item obligatory. These lists are not in any order of importance or preference. Careful study of the discussion of VII. A. Areas of Faculty Evaluation is recommended. In this section, the institution¡¯s general expectations for teaching, service and scholarship/creative activity are outlined.


a. Teaching (See VII. A. 1. Teaching)

Appropriate qualitative evidence may include:

o Course organization (e.g., samples of syllabi, objectives, assignments, tests, lecture notes, student evaluations, etc.)
o Course demands (e.g., objectives, tests, peer evaluations, chairperson evaluations, syllabi, etc.)
o Pedagogical innovation (e.g., peer evaluation,
curriculum proposals, scholarship/creative activity
application to classroom, chairperson evaluations,
etc.)
o Student-instructor interaction ( e.g., written student
comments, advising, tutoring, peer evaluation,
chairperson evaluations, etc.)
o Brief overall self-assessment of teaching role(s).

Appropriate quantitative evidence may include

o Interpretation of student evaluation data
o Course taught
o Number of students
o Grade distribution

The template above (VIII. A) shows how this data can be concisely presented.


b. Service (See VII. A. 2. Service)

o Participation in student, institution, discipline/profession and community activities
o Examples include showing initiative in departmental development, and peer evaluation of contributions to the department.

c. Scholarship/Creative Activity (See VII. A. 3. Scholarship/Creative Activity)

o Additional formal education *

o Attendance at workshops*

o Travel**

o Publications***

o Research activities and grants***

o Membership and degree of participation in professional organizations

o Presentation of papers and other speaking engagements related to the faculty member¡¯s professional expertise


* Neither sabbatical leave nor leave of absence without pay constitutes full-time teaching experience. Two years of half-time university teaching experience will be considered as on year of full-time teaching experience.

** Faculty members must show how this experience has increased their potential worth to the university within their present positions.

*** Peer evaluation data (including such things as comments by reviewers) for publications or other research activity or grant-related projects should be provided to document the value and quality of the candidate¡¯s work.

C. PROMOTION PROCEDURE

1. Initiation of Procedure

Promotion recommendations originate in the department. As specified in the discussion of tenure (VII. E) both a departmental review committee (appointed or the chairperson) and the chairperson produce an evaluation in a tenure review Material prepared for a tenure review serves also as a promotion package for the rank of Associate Professor. Both the departmental committee and the chairperson provide a promotion recommendation as well as a tenure recommendation.

Promotion to the rank of Assistant Professor and Professor utilizes the same basic procedure outlined for the tenure review/Associate Professor promotion. That is, a candidate¡¯s package is reviewed first by a departmental committee and then by the chairperson. Each produces a promotion recommendation.

Note: For Academic Year 2005-2006, a recommendation from a departmental committee is recommended but not required.

2. Preparation and Routing of Materials: Candidate and Chairperson

In the fall semester, the candidate for promotion presents the promotion package to the chairperson by a date agreeable to the chairperson, the departmental committee and the candidate. The departmental committee will provide a copy of the committee evaluation/recommendation and the supporting rationale to the faculty candidate by December 1, the final date by which to give the recommendation to the chairperson. Any negative recommendation must be delivered to the faculty candidate¡¯s office or mailbox by this date. The candidate has three working days to respond to the departmental committee. Such response will be submitted in written form to the chairperson by 4:30 p.m. no later than the third working day after December 1. At the candidate¡¯s request, this written response will become a permanent part of the promotion package.

By December 1, the departmental chairperson must receive the candidate¡¯s promotion package. It is important for the candidate to document as thoroughly as possible the quality of performance in each of the three areas of evaluation. The chairperson has the responsibility of evaluating the evidence presented by the faculty member as well as any other material available, placing these materials into a department perspective, and making evaluative judgments in the three areas. By January 7, the chairperson will submit his or her promotion recommendations and the rationale for these recommendations to the dean. The chairperson will provide a copy of the recommendation and the supporting rationale to the faculty candidate at the time the recommendation is submitted to the dean. Any negative recommendation must be delivered to the faculty candidate¡¯s office or mailbox by January 7. The candidate has three working days to respond to the chairperson¡¯s recommendation. Such response will be submitted in written form to the dean by 4:30 p.m. of the third working day after January 7. At the candidate¡¯s request, this written response will become a permanent part of the promotion package.

3. Review and Recommendation: Dean

By February 1, the dean will review the materials submitted by the chairperson along with any response by the candidate and will make a recommendation on promotion, with rationale, to the Vice President for Academic and Student Affairs along with the candidate¡¯s promotion package. A copy of the recommendation and rationale will be sent to the Promotion/Tenure Committee. The dean will provide a copy of the recommendation and supporting rationale to the candidate at the same time the recommendation is submitted to the Vice President for Academic and Student Affairs. Any negative recommendation must be delivered to the faculty candidate¡¯s office or mailbox by February 1. If the candidate wishes to rebut the dean¡¯s recommendation, he or she must do so in writing to the Vice President for Academic and Student Affairs within three working days. A copy will be sent to the dean and will become, at the candidate¡¯s request, a permanent part of the promotion package.

4. Review and Recommendation: Promotion Committee

The Faculty Promotion/Tenure Committee will, after February 3, have access to all promotion materials submitted to the Vice President for Academic and Student Affairs. Using these materials, the Faculty Promotion/Tenure committee will review the recommendations of the department chairperson and the dean along with any responses submitted by the candidate. By April 4, the Promotion/Tenure Committee¡¯s recommendation with supporting rationale, attached to the promotion materials, will be submitted to the Vice President for Academic and Student Affairs. The recommendation will consist of a yes or no vote by the committee, accompanied by a list of strengths and weaknesses of the candidate and the rationale. A copy of the recommendation and rationale will be available to the candidate in the Office of the Vice President for Academic and Student Affairs after 1 p.m. on April 4. It is the candidate¡¯s responsibility to obtain this copy. If the committee vote is negative, the candidate will have three working days to respond to the committee¡¯s recommendation. The response will be submitted in writing to the Vice President for Academic and Student Affairs and will become, at the candidate¡¯s request, a permanent part of the promotion package.

The candidate has the option of appearing before the subcommittee reviewing his or her packet to briefly discuss materials documented in the application packet. Applications will not have the option of appearing before the entire Promotion/Tenure Committee. No new materials may be introduced. To exercise this option, the candidate must notify the Promotion/Tenure Committee chairperson in writing by February 3. The Promotion/Tenure Committee chairperson will contact the subcommittee members who must arrange to meet with the candidate prior to any full committee discussion and/or voting on this candidate.

The Promotion/Tenure Committee shall base its promotion
recommendation on the following criteria:

¡ñ Quality of Teaching is one primary criterion for awarding a candidate promotion. Generally, a candidate for promotion may not have received an evaluation lower than "S" in Quality of Teaching on the Faculty Annual Evaluation Form during the most recent three years of probationary period.
¡ñ Quality of Service to the department, institution, and community is the second criterion for awarding promotion
¡ñ Quality of Scholarship/Creative Activity, which is closely associated with quality of teaching, is the final criteria for awarding promotion

5. Review and Recommendation: Vice President for Academic
and Student Affairs.

By May 5, the Vice President for Academic and Student Affairs will review all promotion recommendations and any candidate¡¯s responses and make recommendations with rationale to the President. Should the Vice President for Academic and Student Affairs and the Promotion/Tenure Committee fail to agree on a promotion recommendation, the Vice President for Academic and Student Affairs will attempt to resolve the disagreement before making a recommendation to the President. The Vice President for Academic and Student Affairs will provide a copy of the promotion recommendation with supporting rationale to the candidate at the time the recommendation is submitted to the President. Any negative recommendation must be delivered to the candidate¡¯s office or mailbox by May 5. The candidate has three working days to respond to the Vice President's recommendation. The response will be submitted in writing to the President.

NOTE: During the promotion cycle, if the university is officially closed on the date materials or responses are due, those items may be submitted on the next official university business day.


6. President's Recommendation and Board's Approval

The President¡¯s recommendation will be placed before the Board of Regents for final disposition. Promotion granted by the Board will be effective with the next year¡¯s contract and will include the following salary adjustments, which shall be in effect through AY2005-2006 (at which they shall be reviewed), for full-time faculty members:

Assistant Professor $2,000
Associate Professor $3,500
Professor $5,000


Annual Faculty Evaluation Form

Faculty Member_________________________________Department_________________

The chairperson¡¯s evaluation narrative should be attached to this page. The evaluation code below is defined as follows (refer to the Policy Guide for additional detail):

S --performance satisfactory
M--performance marginal, need for significant improvement
U¡ªperformance unsatisfactory
Circle One
I. Overall Quality of Teaching S M U
a. met requirements established by the department an institution
b. demonstrated satisfactory teaching performance
c. set reasonable standards
d. maintained respect for students
e. fulfilled responsibilities as an advisor
f. handled co-curricular assignments (if applicable)

Comments:


II. Overall Quality of Service S M U
a. carried out non-teaching assignments in the department
b. exerted a positive effort to reach department goals
c. served on faculty and institutional projects
d. involved in community projects; local use of scholarly/professional skills

Comments:


III. Overall Quality of Scholarship/Creative Activity S M U
a. further education or participation in professional meetings
b. appropriate travel
c. papers presented and/or publications/ creative artifacts
d. other research or grant-related work
e. disciplinary/professional organizational work

Comments:



_______________________ ____________________________
Chairperson¡¯s Signature/ Date Faculty Member¡¯s Signature/ Date





Annual Contract Recommendation Form
(to be completed by the chairperson)

Check as many as are appropriate:

Faculty Status:
Tenured faculty member _____
Tenure track faculty member (<2 years contract)_____
Tenure track faculty member (>2 year, but <6 years contract)_____
Non-tenure track faculty member_____

Contract Type:
Tenured faculty member in good standing (automatically reappointed)_____
Tenured faculty member under Early Warning _____
Continuing, probationary (i.e., tenure track), in good standing____
Continuing, probationary (i.e., tenure track),, under Early Warning____
Terminal contract_____
One-year contract_____
Pending, currently under tenure review______
Other (as specified below)_____



______________________________
Faculty Member¡¯s Signature /Date

______________________________
Chairpersons Signature /Date

Comments:




__________________________
Dean¡¯s Signature/Date

Comments:




______________________________
VPASA¡¯s Signature/Date