Teaching & RTP
(Retention, Tenure, and Promotion)
University Policies on Excellence
in Teaching as a Criterion for Promotion
The University Policy File declares that "the primary qualification for reappointment, tenure or promotion shall be excellence in teaching." Because personnel committees may interpret this policy differently, CTL recommends that faculty members review this wording with their department chair and a knowledgeable personnel committee member.
San Diego State University Policy File
FACULTY
Reappointment, Tenure, and Promotion: Criteria
[Excerpts]
1.0 The State of California Master Plan for Higher Education designates teaching as The California State University’s primary responsibility but also recognizes research in acquiring and maintaining instructional excellence and service in meeting our responsibilities to our students and to the public interest.
2.1 Teaching Effectiveness: The primary qualification for reappointment, tenure, or promotion shall be excellence in teaching.
For complete text, see http://senate.sdsu.edu/policy/policy_file.pdf
An Example of College-Level Policies
on Teaching Effectiveness:
The SDSU College of Education
University policy requires that "department or school personnel documents...provide clear standards by which faculty members may measure their performance in (a) teaching effectiveness, (b) professional growth, and (c) University service" (University Policy File, Promotion Procedures, 2.54).
College of Education faculty recently approved a policy on teaching effectiveness that serves as a model in three respects.
- It is non-normative and non-comparative, describing teaching effectiveness in terms of performance, competencies, and responsibilities rather than emphasizing ratings that compare individuals to college and department norms.
- It treats individual teaching effectiveness as a developmental process, anticipating progressive improvement in the individual's performance and progressive enlargement in the individual's range of competencies and the scope of responsibilities.
- It considers teaching effectiveness as a holistic concept, requiring contributions to program integrity that go beyond individual courses or classes--contributions such as curriculum development, program assessment, and acquisition of external funding for instructional development.
SDSU College
of Education
Policy File
FACULTY
[Excerpts]
EFFECTIVENESS OF TEACHING AND PERFORMANCE OF INSTRUCTIONALLY RELATED DUTIES TO
ENHANCE ACADEMIC ENVIRONMENT
The mission of the College of Education is to prepare teachers, other education professionals, and professionals in allied fields; this requires teaching effectiveness in the context of program integrity. The College endorses a broad conceptualization of the faculty as contributors to the academic environment in support of students’ overall development as professionals. Effective instruction in the classroom is necessary, but insufficient, to fulfill this mission. The College expects that faculty members will be effective instructors who contribute to the overall integrity of their programs and quality of the academic environment through effective performance of instructionally related duties. Effectiveness is developed over time, thus: (a) emerging proficiency as a classroom instructor is required for reappointment, (b) effectiveness in the classroom and emerging contributions to the academic environment is required for tenure and promotion to associate professor, and (c) effectiveness in the classroom and in performance of instructionally related duties is required for promotion to (full) professor.
Effective Instruction in the Classroom
(including Virtual Classroom)
The College conceives of effective instruction in terms of sound content and pedagogical processes, including activities that result in students’ attainment of learning outcomes. Candidates should demonstrate progress over time in:
-
Articulating a clear teaching philosophy, including how students learn;
-
Developing depth and command of the subject(s) taught, reflecting currency in the field;
-
Organizing and presenting material with presence, logic, insight, and responsiveness to diverse populations;
-
Developing courses and delivering instruction to enhance programmatic design and integrity;
-
Documenting students’ attainment of expected learning outcomes for courses; and
-
Enhancing students’ critical thinking, communication skills, and responsiveness to diversity.
Evaluation of the candidate’s instructional effectiveness shall be multifaceted and shall include review of all documentation in Category 1, as well as the candidate’s selected documentation in Category 2.
Category 1. Required Documentation
of Instructional Effectiveness
The following evidence shall be reviewed in context, including (a) a developmental context, with increasing quality over time and with experience; and (b) the context of assigned courses and workload.
-
Course syllabi are developed consistent with the candidate’s teaching-learning philosophy and in the context of program integrity. Syllabi reflect coherent connections between the purpose and scope of the course, expected student (learning) outcomes, procedures for assessment of outcomes, and grading policies/practices.
-
Assessment of learning outcomes (e.g., exams, rubrics) is consistent with the purpose and scope of the course, the candidate’s philosophy, and program integrity.
-
Peer reviews attesting to the candidate’s (a) command of content, (b) organization of material and experiences, and (c) effectiveness in delivery of instruction, consistent with the purpose of the course and the type of class taught. At least two tenured peer reviews must be conducted for tenure and/or promotion, one of which may be a description of development over time from the candidate’s teaching mentor.
-
Student evaluations of course and instructor reflect increased knowledge and skills, quality of instruction, and classroom climate conducive to learning.
Each of these indicators shall be considered in the
context of all of the above data and shall not weigh excessively in the overall
evaluation.
Category 2. Selected
Documentation of Instructional Effectiveness
Candidates should give careful attention to, and seek collegial consultation regarding, the development, selection, and presentation of Category 2 documentation. It is incumbent upon the candidates to provide coherent statements linking the exemplars with their teaching philosophies. Category 2 documentation may include, but is not limited to, the following examples:
-
Instructional support materials (for example: supplementary readers, handouts, study guides);
-
Using technology for instructional delivery and/or to support learning;
-
Narrative description of course development and revision (in content, structure, materials, delivery systems, assessment methods);
-
Documented student outcomes (for an assignment or full course) ranging from, for example, selected student products to analysis of student outcomes for a given class;
-
Documented responsiveness to previous evaluations (for example, analysis of feedback and links to course or instructional modifications, implementation of new approaches or skills attained through workshops on teaching);
-
Use of formative evaluation during a course to refine, for example, course structure, teaching methods, learning experiences;
-
Internal (college or university) funding directly related to courses or teaching assignments;
-
Honors or distinctions recognizing effectiveness in teaching; and/or
-
Externally funded attainment of instructional materials or resources.
Effectiveness in Performance of Instructionally Related Duties to Enhance Academic Environment
Teaching in the College of Education requires faculty contributions to the overall academic environment in support of program integrity, the offering and teaching of specific courses, and student outcomes. It is expected that candidates early in their careers will have limited duties beyond classroom instruction and that these duties will expand in depth and/or breadth over the years and with experience. Candidates for tenure must have at least one and candidates for full professor shall document at least two contributions (of the five maximum items) toward enhancement of the academic environment. It is in the candidate’s best interests: (a) to select carefully and/or develop documentation to inform evaluation of their effectiveness in this domain, and (b) to articulate the conceptual coherence between these activities and their teaching philosophies. This dimension is broadly conceived and may include, but is not limited to, the following activities and duties:
-
Supervision of students’ professional practice;
-
Recruiting and retaining diverse students and/or faculty;
-
Program evaluation, development, revision, accreditation and external reviews;
-
Research related to instruction and/or content (for example: internally-funded grants, conference presentations, publications);
-
Mentoring students’ research and/or professional development;
-
Mentoring colleagues’ teaching, research, and/or service;
-
Teaching beyond the university (for example: in-service workshops or consultation in the schools, public sector, community, or other universities);
-
Instructional leadership (for example: department chair, program director, cluster or team leader);
-
Externally-funded personnel preparation grants; and/or
-
Other assigned duties that serve the academic integrity of the program, department, college, and/or university.
The SDSU Teacher-Scholar Model
San Diego State University Policy File
MISSION AND GOALS
Section 3
We hope to create a Faculty of Teacher-Scholars: Every faculty member shall demonstrate excellence as a teacher-scholar. The faculty shall adopt and evaluate innovative teaching methods and shall incorporate active scholarship into teaching.
For complete text, see http://senate.sdsu.edu/policy/policy_file.pdf
Personnel committees and administrators often use the term "teacher-scholar model" to exhort faculty to pursue both teaching and scholarship as modes of academic life. Yet a skeptic might ask whether the relationship between teaching and scholarship is...
- additive -- implying that faculty should
strive to be both teachers and scholars, but not worry too much about how
the two modes might interact
- subtractive -- suggesting that faculty
should endeavor to prevent teaching responsibilities from detracting from
scholarship and research (or vice versa)
- synergistic -- implying effects in which teaching and scholarship are integrative and mutually beneficial
These issues are particularly important as research universities such as SDSU are challenged by various constituencies to improve the quality of undergraduate and graduate teaching.
Here is another mission statement that attempts to put these issues in context.
Mission Statement
The Research University Consortium for the Advancement of the Scholarship of Teaching
A Program of
The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching
Scholarly teaching focuses on student learning and "is well grounded in the sources and resources appropriate to the field."
Lee Shulman,
President,
Carnegie Foundation for the
Advancement of Teaching
The scholarship of teaching and learning ultimately improves student learning and occurs when "our work as teachers becomes public, peer-reviewed and critiqued, and exchanged with other members of our professional communities so they, in turn, can build on our work. These are the qualities of all scholarship."
Lee Shulman
Consistent with the longstanding mission of research universities, the scholarship of teaching and learning offers far-reaching possibilities for integrating discovery, learning, and public engagement. An international AAHE-Carnegie consortium of major research universities and disciplinary societies has formed to further the emerging recognition of the scholarship of teaching and learning as a powerful and integral component of the research university"s mission and identity. The scholarship of teaching and learning must be held to the same standards of rigor, relevance, peer review, and dissemination as other forms of disciplinary research and creative activity. It also must bring the same levels of rewards. We intend to make a significant contribution toward the transformation of the academy through the advancement of the scholarship of teaching and learning.
The Scholarship of Teaching and Learning:
Three Broad Rationales for Advocating a Serious Investment
As more individual faculty and their institutions become engaged in the scholarship of teaching and learning, we often find ourselves discussing the history of the phenomenon, the precise definitions of "scholarship," "teaching," and "learning," and some of the methodological and technical standards for conducting such research. Periodically, it is worthwhile to step back and ask: Why are we doing this? What are the reasons we are committed to such work? I'd like to suggest that there are three broad rationales for advocating a serious investment in the scholarship of teaching and learning: Professionalism, Pragmatism, and Policy.
- By professionalism I mean the inherent obligations and opportunities
associated with becoming a professional scholar/educator, and especially
with the responsibilities to one's discipline symbolized by the Ph.D.
Each of us in higher education is a member of at least two professions:
that of our discipline, interdiscipline or professional field (e.g.,
history, women's studies, accounting) and that of our profession as
educator. One of the ways we fulfill our obligations as members of our
dual professions is by approaching our teaching and our students'
learning with the same spirit and habits of disciplined inquiry with
which we approach other aspects of our scholarly work. The scholarship
of teaching is thus one of the ways we fulfill our responsibilities to
our professional peers to "pass on" what we experience, discover and
discern in working with our students.
- The pragmatic rationale for the scholarship of teaching and learning is
that such work helps guide our efforts in the design and adaptation of
teaching to meet the needs of learners; it's one of the ways we
continuously seek to improve what we do as teachers. Moreover, by
engaging in purposive reflection, documentation, assessment and analysis
of teaching and learning---and by doing so in a more public and
accessible manner--we support not only the improvement of our own
teaching. We also raise the likelihood that our work will be built on by
colleagues who design and instruct many of the same students in the same
or related programs.
- Policy, the third rationale, refers to the capacity to respond to the legitimate questions of legislatures and boards and to the increasingly robust demands of a developing market for higher education. Our institutions are enmeshed in webs of national, state and local policy; accountability and assessment have become central themes of the emerging movements toward reform in higher education. These are not bad ideas. They only become problems when the wrong indicators are used to assess the quality of our efforts, or when the metrics employed are chosen because of convenience or economy of use, rather than because they serve as authentic proxies for the learning and development we seek to foster. I believe that a vigorous scholarship of teaching and learning engaged by discipline and field-specific scholars of teaching, and supported by institutions, can and must respond to policy needs and issues.
These three rationales guide the work of the Carnegie Academy for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, through which we will, over time, learn more about the impact and benefits of this important work.
Used with permission. For a more complete discussion of these ideas, see Shulman, L. (2000). From Minsk to Pinsk: Why a scholarship of teaching and learning? Journal of Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (JoSoTL), Volume 1, Number 1 (2000), pp. 48-53
© 2003-2009, SDSU unless otherwise indicated | Last Updated August 2009
For webmaster support email: LWortman@mail.sdsu.edu