Approved by Math Dept on 5/1/27/20065                        Approved by Dean Straney (for 1 year) on 6/13/2006

 

Note:  Approval by Academic Affairs still pending (as of 1/30/2006)

 
 
DEPARTMENT OF MATHEMATICS AND STATISTICS

CRITERIA AND PROCEDURES

for

REAPPOINTMENT, TENURE, AND PROMOTION

ACADEMIC YEAR 2006-2007

 

 

1.      Preface

 

The Reappointment, Tenure, and Promotion (RTP) process is a critically important faculty responsibility.  RTP is the mechanism by which we assure the success of our faculty and thereby assure educational quality for our students. While the president makes final decisions on reappointment, tenure, and promotion, it is the department faculty who are in the best position to provide clear expectations, create an environment conducive to achieving expectations, and render the most informed recommendations to the president. 

 

This document sets forth the expectations of quality of instruction, scholarship, and service held by the faculty of the Mathematics Department.  The use of the word ¡°mathematics¡± in this document is to be understood as encompassing mathematics, mathematics education, and statistics. The criteria and procedures contained herein shall be used to determine whether a faculty member eligible for Reappointment, Tenure, or Promotion is meeting those expectations (such a faculty member will be referred to here as a Candidate).  This document also describes the responsibility of the Candidate and of the Department's RTP Committee (DRTPC) in all matters of the RTP process.

 

 

2.      Statements of Responsibility

 

 

2.1    The Candidate

 

It is the responsibility of the Candidate to be familiar with the expectation of quality, criteria, and procedures in this document.  The Candidate must be familiar with the University Manual, especially Appendices 10 and 16, which speak directly to matters concerning the RTP process.  During the first week of fall quarter of a year of eligibility, the Candidate shall notify the DRTPC Chair in writing of the intent to request an RTP action(s) or that no action will be requested.  This notification will be non-binding.

 

 

It is the responsibility of the Candidate to furnish the necessary documentation showing that all criteria for the action(s) requested have been met.  This documentation must be specific and verifiable.  All decisions will be based only on material contained in the Personnel Action File (PAF), the supporting documentation submitted by the Candidate, and on the Candidate's self-evaluation statement.  Therefore, the Candidate shall maintain a complete portfolio of all evidence and documentation in the areas of Teaching, Scholarship, and Service supporting the Candidate's requested actions to be made available upon request.  Suggestions of possible material to include in this portfolio are given in the respective sections.

 

 

The Candidate's self-evaluation statement is an important part of the information to be used in the RTP decision process.  Here the Candidate should explain how her or his professional activities and documentation decisively show that the Candidate has met the criteria for each area of responsibility.  This documentation must include a detailed description of the teaching, scholarship, or service performed; additional documentation shall normally be placed in the Candidate¡¯s portfolio.  The Candidate, however, may place specific additional documentation in the submitted RTP package if she or he feels that it is necessary for a proper evaluation and should consult the DRTPC Chair if unsure where to place such materials.  In his or her self-evaluation, the Candidate should carefully demonstrate how the documentation establishes the quality of the activity and should not rely solely on quantity of activities.  The Candidate should not request points for professional activities but rather shall be clear enough in her or his self-evaluation that the importance of a given activity can be judged properly by the DRTPC.  Candidates for reappointment must discuss their progress toward meeting the criteria for tenure.  All Candidates must discuss progress made on any recommendations for improvement given in the previous RTP cycle.  The Candidate is encouraged to submit an electronic version of his or her RTP self-evaluation to the Chair of the DRTPC along with a hard copy of the RTP package.

 

 

2.2    The DRTPC

 

It is the responsibility of the DRTPC to evaluate the quality of the Candidate's teaching, scholarship, and service activities and to award the appropriate number of points based on the information supplied by the Candidate.  After examining, verifying, and evaluating the documentation in the PAF of the relevant evaluation period and that submitted by the Candidate and in accordance with this document's criteria and procedures, the DRTPC will judge the quality and acceptability of the activities.  This evaluation may involve the solicitation of recommendations of colleagues from off-campus, in which case the Candidate may suggest names of such colleagues.

 

 

Based on this examination and evaluation, the DRTPC will decide whether the Candidate does or does not meet the criteria for the requested action(s) by a simple majority of the DRTPC members eligible to vote on the issue, with abstentions or absences without proxies counting as negative votes.  This may entail multiple decisions, one for each requested action.  The DRTPC will make a positive recommendation on a requested action(s) if the Candidate was found to meet the criteria and will make a negative recommendation otherwise.  The DRTPC shall explain its decision in writing.  Any minority report shall be part of the DRTPC recommendation.  The DRTPC must also include a discussion of progress made on any recommendations for improvement given in the previous RTP cycle.  For action requests covering a range of time such as promotions or tenure, the DRTPC will honor the point totals awarded by all previous DRTPC.

 

 

Since the decision made by the DRTPC is that the Candidate did or did not meet the criteria for the requested action, the DRTPC's written explanation of their decision is a very important part of the information to be used in the RTP decision process beyond the Department.  As the members of the DRTPC will often be more experienced in teaching, scholarship, and research than the Candidate, it is important for them to guide the Candidate in his or her efforts to be a quality teacher-scholar.  As candidates will often emphasize one area or other of teaching, scholarship, and service, it is also important for the DRTPC to respect this choice of activities and evaluate the Candidate holistically.  The clarity and logic of this explanation of their decision will assist others in the process and will serve both the Candidate and the Department.  Therefore, the DRTPC must fully and completely explain how its evaluation of the Candidate's activities and documentation led them to the decision they reached.  In this written evaluation, the DRTPC must identify and explain any exceptional qualities exhibited by the Candidate in the areas of teaching, scholarship, and service.  The DRTPC should also address any concerns that arose in their evaluation of the Candidate so the Candidate understands the collective recommendation of the DRTPC.

 

If eligible to evaluate the Candidate, the Department Chair shall independently submit a written statement regarding the Candidate.  This statement is submitted as part of the Candidate's evaluation documents.

 

3.  Statements of Expectations and Assessment in Teaching, Scholarship, and Service

 

 

3.1    Teaching

 

The faculty of the Department of Mathematics Department and Statistics recognizes the primary importance of teaching performance among the responsibilities and duties of its members.  The faculty of the Department recognizes the wisdom of promoting a diverse set of learning opportunities for the students of mathematics.  Candidates have the freedom to employ pedagogies that they believe will promote learning.  Thus, the use of teaching and learning methods such as lecture, board work, technology, homework, projects, presentations, small group techniques, course development in xerographic form, and course management software shall be valued to the extent that they promote student learning.

 

 

Using departmental forms, the Candidate must conduct a minimum of one in-class student evaluation per quarter, and a minimum of four evaluations per year in the period under consideration, unless his or her annual assignment is less than four classes.  Summaries of these will be included in the Candidate's PAF.

 

 

A minimum of two peer evaluations of teaching performance shall be conducted in the period under consideration using the DRTP Peer Evaluation Form.  A minimum of one peer evaluation per quarter shall be conducted in at least two different quarters in each academic year unless the Candidate¡¯s assignment prevents it.  Any classroom visitation by a peer evaluator shall be done before the end of the eighth week of the quarter.  Each peer evaluator must review the departmental RTP criteria prior to conducting a peer evaluation.  The written evaluation must specifically address those criteria in relation to the performance of the candidate during the classroom visitation.   The Candidate shall supply a copy of the syllabus, handouts, exams, projects, etc. within 3 working days of the time of the visit.  The peer evaluator must submit a copy of the evaluation to the DRTPC Chair by the end of the ninth week of the quarter.  A copy of  the evaluation must be given to the Candidate by the DRTPC Chair within two weeks of the evaluation and no later than the tenth week of the quarter.  The DRTPC Chair is responsible for ensuring that the minimum number of peer evaluations is conducted and that these peer evaluations are placed in the candidate¡¯s PAF.  These evaluations do not need to be done by DRTPC members.  Any request by the Candidate to receive a peer evaluation by a non-member of the DRTPC should be directed to the DRTPC Chair.  The author of the peer evaluation  should include strengths and weaknesses observed during the visit or in the supplied class materials, and shall specifically note if no deficiencies are observed

 

 

All official student evaluations and all peer evaluations conducted during the period under review must be submitted by the Candidate as part of his or her RTP package.  The candidate is expected to discuss the manner in which these tools have influenced his or her teaching.  In addition, the candidate shall put together a teaching portfolio containing syllabi, exams, handouts, and other relevant documentation pertaining to teaching-related activities. The DRTPC may refer to the teaching portfolio in the evaluation of Category 2, listed below.  This portfolio will not accompany the Candidates RTP package, but will be listed in an appendix under ¡°additional materials available¡±.

 

 

The Candidate's self-evaluation statement should clearly state his or her principles about and approach to teaching and should explain how she or he meets the department's criteria for teaching.  As an evaluation of these objectives is essentially qualitative, the Candidate must demonstrate an acceptable level of performance through submission of appropriate documentation. In the case of non-traditional courses (such as on-line courses, supervising student teaching, etc.), sufficient documentation of the teaching activities should be provided by the Candidate to allow the DRTPC to evaluate the assignment.  The DRTPC will consider all documentation regarding the quality of teaching provided by the Candidate that contributes to the Candidate's effectiveness. The DRTPC¡¯s main concerns will be with the Candidate¡¯s ability to effectively communicate and elucidate mathematical concepts, and with the Candidate¡¯s efforts to continuously improve his/her teaching. Generally, activities in the following categories will be considered in the DRTPC¡¯s evaluation:

 

 

1.   Effectiveness in communicating and elucidating course content

effectively organizing the course,

clearly communicating ideas and concepts,

effectively answering students¡¯ questions, both in and outside of class

effectively using teaching and learning methods.

 

 

2.   Maintaining appropriate academic standards

adequate coverage of course content,

coverage of course content at an appropriate level of difficulty for a particular course,

evaluation of the student¡¯s learning.

 

 

In discussing one¡¯s effectiveness in communicating and elucidating course content, the Candidate should refer to data provided by the following items on the student evaluation from:  Item 1, item 2, item 4, and item 8.  The following items should be referred to in the Candidate¡¯s discussion of how he or she maintains appropriate academic standards:  Item 3, item 11, and item 15.  In addition, trends in the Candidate¡¯s student evaluation scores may be used when discussing his or her efforts to continually improve his or her teaching.  If the Candidate has modified his or her teaching techniques in response to previous evaluation scores, those modifications should be described here.  The Department wishes to cultivate in the Candidate a curiosity about his or her evaluation scores in relation to his or her teaching practices.

 

Under no circumstance will the quality of a candidate¡¯s teaching be determined by only one of the following criteria.  The potential for abuse of the following criteria is considerable and it is expected that great care will be exercised  when these guidelines are utilized to frame a comprehensive  evaluation of the Candidate¡¯s teaching. 

 

 

In discussing quality of teaching of a candidate, the Department will refer to the ¡°class average¡± that appears on the bottom of each student evaluation summary sheet, directly below the individual survey items.  Let m represent the weighted mean of the class averages for the classes surveyed during the period of review.  Below are three ranges for m with corresponding descriptors.

 

Surpasses Expectations                        2 £ m £ 1

Meets Expectations                   3 £ m < 2

Fails to meet Expectations         5 £ m < 3

 

The following criteria may be used to help evaluate the quality of teaching of the Candidate.  References are made to categories of activities that appear at the end of this section.

 

Excellent:  The Candidate should have a student evaluation ranking of ¡°Surpasses Expectations¡±.  In addition to demonstrating efforts to achieve Effectiveness in communicating and elucidating course content and to Maintain appropriate academic standards, he or she is expected to engage in at least 2 activities from Category A., and at least one activity from either Category B. or Category C. Note that having a student evaluation ranking of ¡°Meets Expectations¡± does not necessarily preclude a comprehensive teaching rating of ¡°Excellent¡±.  Such an evaluation ranking may be compensated for by participating in additional activities from any of the three Categories.

 

Satisfactory:  The Candidate should have a student evaluation ranking of ¡°Meets Expectations¡±.  He or she is expected to demonstrate efforts to achieve Effectiveness in communicating and elucidating course content and to Maintain appropriate academic standards.  Note that having a student evaluation ranking of ¡°Fails to meet Expectations¡± does not necessarily preclude a comprehensive teaching rating of ¡°Satisfactory¡±. 

 

Unsatisfactory:  The Candidate has a student evaluation ranking of ¡°Fails to meet Expectations¡± AND has consistently made no effort to demonstrate efforts to achieve Effectiveness in communicating and elucidating course content and to Maintain appropriate academic standards.  In addition, the Candidate has failed to address any concerns raised by the DRTPC in previous RTP reports.  It is expected that such a candidate will have received notification by the department of teaching deficiencies in peer evaluations during the period of review.

 

The Department emphasizes the fact that one¡¯s quality in teaching is defined solely in terms of the comprehensive performance of the individual Candidate – not in relation to the performances of his or her colleagues.

 

In addition to the categories above, the Candidate may wish to discuss other teaching-related activities, some of which are exemplified in the categories listed below. The DRTPC will consider all of these categories in evaluating the Candidate¡¯s overall teaching contribution to the Department.

 

A.  Extra-curricular teaching activities

supervising undergraduate research projects,

supervising students in independent study,

supervising master¡¯s theses,

developing and teaching special topics courses,

developing curriculum

teaching an honor¡¯s section of a math course

advising students.

 

 

B. Efforts towards improving teaching quality

requesting additional (i.e., beyond the required minimum) peer teaching evaluations for the purpose of improving the candidate¡¯s teaching,

administering additional (i.e., beyond the required minimum) student course evaluations for the purpose of improving the candidate¡¯s teaching,

attending faculty development workshops,

experimenting with new teaching methods.

 

 

C. Other activities

helping students or faculty with mathematics-related concerns beyond the classroom and office hours,

tutoring or mentoring students or faculty in a structured program,

supporting students in mathematics-related activities such as contests, math clubs, conferences,

making presentations that relate to teaching or learning mathematics to students, parents, or teachers,

              sponsoring students in programs to support graduate studies.  

 

3.2                                                                                                                                     Scholarship

This section examines the Candidate's scholarship in mathematics, mathematics education, and statistics. Scholarship activities have been organized into eight categories.  Some activities, of course, may not easily fit into a particular category.  In this case, the Candidate is encouraged to seek the advice of the DRTPC.  Ideally, the Candidate will participate in a range of activities that embrace several categories.  The DRTPC will evaluate the Candidate's performance in each of the categories. In each case, the name of the category is followed by the range of points which may be earned by the Candidate in that category.

 

 

Before examining each category, we highlight the different assessment approaches used.