ÍÃ×ÓÏÈÉú

A candidate initially prepares a dossier, not to exceed twenty (20) pages, for review by the chair/program director, department promotion and tenure committee, divisional dean, and subsequent reviewers, if any. The candidate’s dossier should present in narrative and summary fashion the information he or she wants those making promotion and/or tenure decisions to know about the record of performance. It should make the case for tenure and/or promotion. The dossier should include the following items:

• A summary of the candidate’s educational and professional experience.
• The core of the dossier containing the information requested in Part 3 of this document.
  
  The outline presented in Part 3 represents the core of the dossier. The lettered and numbered headings in the outline should reflect the order of emphasis stipulated in the candidate’s appointment letter(s) of agreement or, in their absence, the order usual for that individual’s campus assignment.
  
  IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO HAVE ITEMS UNDER EVERY SECTION OF THE OUTLINE.
  
  The outline is intended solely as a guide and is not intended to supersede, supplement, elaborate upon, or otherwise alter the stipulations for promotion and tenure published in the ÍÃ×ÓÏÈÉú University Policy and Information Manual (MUPIM). In conformity with these stipulations, absent any appointment letters of understanding regarding the weighting of criteria for promotion and tenure, the order of emphasis of teaching/advising, scholarship, and service shall reflect the order indicated by the individual’s campus assignment. As specified in MUPIM: “The usual emphasis in descending order of significance for the above criteria shall be ‘teaching and academic advising,’ ‘research, scholarly and/or creative achievement,’ ‘professional service,’ and ‘professional collegiality.’ For regional campus faculty, the usual emphasis in descending order of significance shall be ‘teaching and academic advising,’ ‘professional service,’ ‘research, scholarly and/or creative achievement,’ and ‘professional collegiality.’”
• A brief description of the relationship of the candidate’s teaching, research, and service activities. (Note: It is recognized that in some cases faculty will be asked to teach outside their specializations because of the faculty vacancies or leaves or enrollment pressures.) This relationship may be position specific rather than specific to a particular discipline or sub-discipline.
• A reflective statement indicating how multiple indicators of teaching effectiveness are used to improve the quality of instruction.
• Other materials may be included in the dossier, provided that the dossier’s total number of pages does not exceed twenty (20).
• An index of supplemental materials assembled by the candidate. The following paragraph contains a description of possible supplemental materials.
  
  The candidate should also assemble supplemental materials, to be retained and made available by the department to all persons and bodies making promotion and tenure recommendations and decisions. Supplemental materials might include a teaching portfolio; student evaluations; peer reviews of teaching; evidence of service-learning activities, interdisciplinary work, or study abroad activities; and copies of publications, recordings, works of art, or other evidence of research, scholarship and creative achievement. Appeal requests, reconsiderations, or court challenges during the probationary period and the promotion and tenure review process may also be included in supplemental materials. All supplemental materials shall be returned to the faculty member after the promotion and tenure review process has completed.

• A. Materials the Chair/ Program Director appends to the Candidate's dossier
  • Copies of any letters of understanding regarding the weighting of the criteria for promotion and tenure. Absent any appointment letters of understanding regarding the weighting of criteria for promotion and tenure, the order of emphasis of teaching/advising, scholarship, and service shall reflect the order indicated by the individual’s campus assignment. As specified in MUPIM: “The usual emphasis in descending order of significance for the above criteria shall be ‘teaching and academic advising,’ ‘research, scholarly and/or creative achievement,’ ‘professional service,’ and ‘professional collegiality.’ For regional campus faculty, the usual emphasis in descending order of significance shall be ‘teaching and academic advising,’ ‘professional service,’ ‘research, scholarly and/or creative achievement,’ and ‘professional collegiality.’”
  • A statement comparing the individual’s responsibilities with those usual and customary within the department, including any contractual differentials in load for probationary faculty afforded individuals with Oxford Campus affiliation. The chair/program director should indicate the actual teaching load of the individual since coming to ÍÃ×ÓÏÈÉú.
  • A letter evaluating the quality of academic performance and effectiveness of the candidate in each of the defined areas of faculty responsibility: teaching and academic advising; research, scholarly and/or creative achievement; professional service; institutional service; and public service. This evaluation should highlight important accomplishments and interpret the value of significant contributions. More specifically, what are the quality indicators for each candidate? What is the role of the candidate in the department’s teaching program (e.g. expertise in teaching first-year courses, capstone courses, graduate courses)? If conducted, what do peer reviews of teaching show? What involvement did the candidate have in academic advising? What is the quality of the advising? What involvement did the candidate have with service-learning activities, interdisciplinary work, inquiry-based activities, or study abroad activities, if applicable? Are certain articles/exhibitions/performances especially important? Is publication in certain journals or participation in certain shows, etc., especially significant (e.g., what is the relative quality of the journals or presses in which publications appear and/or of the shows in which artistic works are exhibited or performed)? What are the candidate’s contributions to the field? What is the quality of the service rendered to the various constituencies?
  • Candidates are required to demonstrate productive professional service. The chair's, department's and dean's evaluation should focus on whether the service, even if quantitatively adequate, has in fact been productive and document's contributions to the operation and advancement of the department, division, campus, the University, scholarly and professional associations, and the educational enterprise.
  • There are obligations to promptly notify a faculty member of concerns about collegiality and University policy requires that notice of the uncollegial conduct be given in writing no later than the next annual evaluation after the occurrence of the behavior considered uncollegial. 
  • If departmental governance indicates, a separate letter from the department promotion and tenure committee.
  • Copies of annual chair/program director evaluations and/or departmental committee evaluations as departmental and University governance require. In the case of an individual assigned to a regional campus, the chair/program director will also consult with the regional campus dean and include his or her evaluation and that of the appropriate regional campus chair.
  • Copies of peer and external letters of evaluation with copies of the chair’s/program director’s letters outlining the realm of the review and the specific criteria to be applied. Requirements for the external letters of evaluation are described in Part 2.
  • Chairs, deans and other reviewers may consider documents not contained in the candidate's dossier that otherwise pertinent to the tenure/promotion consideration. This includes but is not limited to: documented complaints about the quality of instruction, formal academic grievances of violations of Good Teaching Practices, Grade Complaints, Misconduct in Research, and violations of University policy (e.g. Harassment and Discrimination and Violations of Professional Ethics)
• B. Materials forwarded by the Chair to the division after the Department Tenure and Promotion Committee and Chair have made a recommendation
  • Recommendation from the Chair/Program Director
  • Departmental P&T Committee's letter
  • Dean of the Regional Campuses' letter (if applicable)
  • The candidate's dossier (Limit 20 pages formatted as described in Guidelines)
  • A sample copy of the letter to external reviewers.
  • A summary of external reviewers' CVs limited to a total of two (2) pages
  • The letters from the external reviewers

Teaching and academic advising are multifaceted activities that include but are not limited to the components shown below. The difficulties associated with determining quality in teaching and advising have long been recognized.

Several measures, many of them suggested below, are currently used. All departments are required to have a plan for the evaluation of teaching. The plan must reflect the complexity of teaching by including multiple methods and sources of evaluation data, including both quantitative and qualitative assessment measures. Candidates for promotion or tenure and department chairs/program directors may feel free to provide additional ways to evaluate quality in teaching and advising. All dossiers must include multiple sources of teaching evaluations, both quantitative and qualitative, and may include but not rely solely on student evaluations of teaching. 

Perhaps ideally, high quality teaching could most appropriately be recognized in terms that measure the learning that occurred, the success of students, and the long-term impact of a faculty member on the subsequent behavior of his or her students. In any case, evaluators of candidates for promotion or tenure at all levels are obliged to give first consideration to an assessment of quality in teaching and advising, both at the undergraduate and graduate levels.

To be evaluated favorably, an individual should contribute to the accomplishment of the mission of the University in several components of teaching, with contributions in the area of classroom teaching given greatest weight. Multiple measures over time of teaching quality should be provided as well as a statement indicating how these multiple measures of evaluation are used to improve the quality of instruction.

Academic advising encompasses a variety of activities including service as chief departmental advisor, advisor to an assigned group of students, and career counseling. 

High Quality/Excellence in teaching must be clearly demonstrated, rigorously evaluation and goes beyond mere measures of classroom performance and includes matters such as:

A. Classroom teaching. Examples of student work; formal student evaluations of teaching; peer evaluations; nominations for teaching awards; receipt of teaching awards.

B. One-on-one or small group teaching (includes independent studies). List of students’ names and titles of their projects, theses, dissertations; examples of student work; indication of quality of projects.

C. Teaching in continuing education programs. (Some departments or divisions may describe these activities as professional service; regular courses taught using a workshop format [such as during the summer] will be considered as teaching). Examples of course materials (e.g., syllabi; handouts; examples of student work; participant evaluations; letters from chairs; letters from participants).

D. Development of teaching materials and making presentations related to the teaching process. Publications related to the teaching process will usually be listed in Part 2, Section II. Examples of innovative materials (e.g., creation, adoption and adaptation of affordable and open educational resources); evidence of acceptance of materials beyond the candidate's own classes (e.g., inclusions of materials in books, adoptions of texts, requests for use by other faculty); descriptions of presentations; letters from participants and/or reviewers.

E. Development of courses and curricula. Syllabi, proposals, outlines, with evidence of effectiveness including letters from chairs/program directors, peer evaluation, etc.

F. Embedding experiential-learning activities, service-learning, civic education, interdisciplinary work, inquiry-based activities, or study abroad activities into a course of study. Syllabi, student projects, student outcomes and reflections, community partners' evaluations, etc.

G. Academic advising. The number of advisees served per semester; hours per week spent in advising; evaluative statements by colleagues, the department chair/program director, advisees, and the regional campus chair as appropriate.

While both the quality and the quantity of the candidate’s research, scholarship, and creative achievement are evaluated, quality is of premier importance.

For purposes of this analysis, quality is defined in terms of the importance of the work toward progress of the discipline or for the improvement of practitioner performance, and of the creativity of the thought processes and methods behind it and the impact in the field. Original breakthroughs in conceptual frameworks, conclusions, and methods are considered to be of higher quality than works making minor variations in or repeating familiar themes in the literature of the candidate’s previous work.

The determination of quality is obviously difficult and involves substantial judgment. Those charged with this evaluation must synthesize information from: (a) their own reading or observation of the key works of the candidate; (b) evaluations obtained from widely known and respected scholars and/or critics; (c) knowledge of the quality of the outlet (e.g., books, chapters in books, journals, monographs, sponsored research reports, exhibitions, performances) in which the work appears; and (d) extramural funding (e.g., NSF, NEH) achieved through a peer review process.

The most difficult phase of the evaluation of research, scholarship, and creative achievement is the weighting of quality in terms of quantity. How, for example, does one equate two first-rate and one mediocre journal articles on the one hand, and a monograph and a proceedings piece on the other? Clearly, this activity requires the highest level of professional judgment on the part of evaluators, not only because of the difficulty of the judgments involved, but because (especially when tenure is under consideration) the judgment being made concerns not only the contribution per se, but the candidate’s future research, scholarship, or creative achievements while working at ÍÃ×ÓÏÈÉú. For candidates who come with one or more years credited to the six-year probationary period, the accomplishments they bring relevant to ÍÃ×ÓÏÈÉú’s tenure criteria are fully credited. Nonetheless, research, scholarly, or creative activity during the remaining years of the probationary period must provide persuasive evidence of its “prospective continuation” at ÍÃ×ÓÏÈÉú. The appropriate weight must be afforded to publications based on work done elsewhere, does not lend itself to strict quantitative analysis. That work must be viewed in the context of the candidate's achievements while at ÍÃ×ÓÏÈÉú. While scholarly work done elsewhere contributes to the candidate's record of scholarly accomplishments, the record at ÍÃ×ÓÏÈÉú provides essential evidence of the prospective continuation of high quality scholarly activity. 

Evaluation of a research record is not the simple counting of publications done here and there, but a peer review of the scholarly record as a whole, and the trajectory of that record, to determine whether that record provides sufficient evidence of high quality scholarship and its prospective continuation. ÍÃ×ÓÏÈÉú uses the probationary period to determine how a faculty member performs in the areas of teaching, research, and service while at ÍÃ×ÓÏÈÉú precisely because this is the work environment in which the person is expected to perform throughout his or her professional life. While the candidate's record must be viewed as a whole and not based on some arbitrary parsing of the record, the record of work while at ÍÃ×ÓÏÈÉú can reasonably be judged as more essential simply because it is the most accurate predictor of future performance. Thus, insisting that prior work be considered on par with work at ÍÃ×ÓÏÈÉú is an unreasonable restraint to the evaluation of the candidate's record. 

Evidence of Research and Scholarship: Completed and published or in-press works which have undergone peer review represent the primary evidence of the candidate’s research and scholarly contributions. Presentations at professional meetings are another outlet for dissemination of research results. In the case of work disseminated through channels where evaluators are unlikely to know the quality of the outlets, the candidate and chair/program director should provide evidence of the stature of the outlet and the nature and importance of the contribution. It is the responsibility of the candidate to provide a description of his or her contribution to the research or scholarly work cited in the dossier. In the case of work with multiple authors, it is the candidate’s responsibility to explain the ordering of authors listed on a publication or research grant and the nature of the contribution by the candidate.

Evidence of Creative Achievement: Candidate’s works which have been exhibited or performed and juried or reviewed, candidate performances, competitions entered and/or won, and commissioned works completed represent the primary evidence of the candidate’s creative achievement. As above, in the case of works or outlets with which the evaluators might not be familiar or which might be outside the area of the evaluators’ expertise, the candidate and chair/program director should provide evidence of the stature of the outlet and the nature and importance of the contribution.

Faculty members are expected by the University and the public-at-large to make their professional knowledge and skills available in ways beyond those discussed in the previous sections. In addition, as professionals committed to governance by peers, there are many internal activities that must be performed to maintain the operations of the institution. Thus, service to the University and the community at large, as well as to academic and professional organizations, is an important component of the faculty member’s obligation. Candidates are required to demonstrate productive professional service. Service includes, but shall not be limited to, activities which contribute to the University’s and/or the campus’s mission. The dossier should document such contributions. Service includes, but is not limited to, the following activities:

• A. Service to the profession (includes for example):
  • Serving as an appointed or elected officer of an academic or professional association.
  • Serving as an organizer or leader of workshops, panels, or meetings in areas of professional competence.
  • Refereeing manuscripts or grant proposals submitted to journals, professional meeting program committees, funding organizations, and the like.
• B. Service to the University (includes for example):
  • Serving as an appointed or elected administrator or head of any academic group at the department, division, or University levels.
  • Serving as a leader or member of task forces or committees providing service to the department, the division, or the University.
  • In some divisions or departments, providing intramural continuing education programs if these are not accounted for in the category of teaching.
  • Serving as a member of University Senate or of one of its governing committees.
• C. Service to students (includes for example):
  • Contributing to student welfare through service on the student-faculty committees or as advisor to student organization, and the like.
• D. Service to the Community (includes for example):
  • Serving as a leader or member of a task force, committee, board or commission providing service to local, state, regional, national, or international organizations.
  • Serving as professional consultant to public or private organizations.
  • Serving to meet community needs by supervising or mentoring service-learning activities.
  • In some divisions or departments, providing extramural continuing education programs, if these are not already accounted for in the category of teaching.

Selection of the external reviewers is the responsibility of the chair/program director and divisional dean. Of the reviewers, only one (1) may be emeritus and only one (1) may have served as an external reviewer for the candidate in any prior promotion and tenure decision. A list of eight (8) to ten (10) potential reviewers should be developed in consultation with the candidate. The candidate shall describe, in writing, the nature of the relationship the candidate has with each of the potential reviewers.

A minimum of four (4) letters from appropriate external reviewers should be included in the candidate’s dossier. These letters are to be considered by relevant bodies at all levels of the decision-making process. They should evaluate the research, scholarly and/or creative achievements of the candidate. The letters are to be accompanied by a summary statement, limited to two (2) pages, prepared by the department identifying the professional/academic stature of the individuals from whom the letters were sought, why they were selected as reviewers, and describing their relationship with the candidate. In addition, the summary statement should:

• Identify the institution (including department) of affiliation.
• Give the rank or other title of the reviewer within the organization.
• Describe the reviewer’s academic specialization.
• Provide other relevant information about the reviewers that may be useful to those unfamiliar with the field.

Letters from external reviewers are intended to be unbiased evaluations from recognized scholars, artists, other professionals in the field, and (when relevant) community partners. External reviewers for candidates for promotion to full professor should hold the rank of full professor or professional equivalent; external reviewers for candidates for tenure should hold the rank of associate or full professor, or professional equivalent. These letters should not be solicited from individuals with whom a close personal or professional relationship exists, such as the candidate’s former teachers, dissertation director, co-author(s), co-worker(s), or former co-worker(s). All letters received are part of the file and must be forwarded with the dossier. All letters are subject to the Ohio Public Records Act.

All the candidate's scholarly work/publications should be made available to external reviewers for evaluation. If the record is voluminous, a representative sample should be provided but all work done while at ÍÃ×ÓÏÈÉú must be made available. External reviewers are expected to evaluate the candidates dossier against national standards for tenure in the field. External reviewers for candidates being considered for tenure should receive published materials or documentation of scholarly and creative works, including work conducted at ÍÃ×ÓÏÈÉú University. External reviewers may also receive materials that are documented as in press or in review. External reviewers for candidates being considered for promotion to professor should receive copies of those scholarly and/or creative works that the candidate and his or her department chair/program director have agreed upon sending. Evaluations rests on an active research profile normally including recent projects produced at ÍÃ×ÓÏÈÉú University, while at ÍÃ×ÓÏÈÉú, or since promotion. If additional letters are requested from external reviewers to evaluate service-related achievements, these same criteria should apply.

• Summary of your education and professional experience
• Brief description of the relationship of your teaching, research, and service activities

Detailed Format is described in Section 3.3

I. Teaching and academic advising

• Classroom teaching
• One-on-one/Small Group Teaching, Independent Studies
• Non-Credit workshops and Continuing Education instruction
• Development of teaching materials
• Curriculum development
• Service-learning, interdisciplinary activities, inquiry-based activities, or study abroad activities
• Academic advising
• Instructional currency and growth as teacher or advisor
• Professional development

II. Research, scholarship and creative achievement

• Publications, presentations, performances, etc.
• Editorships
• Sponsored research and scholarly activities
• Research and scholarship agenda
• Professional development

III. Service

• Service to the profession
• Service to the University
• Service to students
• Service to the Community
• Student recruitment and retention
• Community engagement
• Community outreach
• Awards and recognition for service
• Professional Development

I. Teaching and Academic Advising

A. Classroom Teaching

1. Undergraduate and Graduate Courses Taught

List each course taught since your last promotion or date of hire. Include: courses taught in chronological order by semester and year; course number, title, and number of credit hours; official course enrollment; percentage of course you taught based on proportion of total student contact hours in course; brief explanation of your role, if not solely responsible for course, including TA supervision, course management, team teaching, etc. Do not include in this list independent studies, credit workshops, continuing education, or other non-credit courses.

2. Evaluation of Teaching

Describe carefully how the quality of your teaching has been evaluated (e.g., student evaluation of teaching, peer review, departmental surveys of former students) and how you have used these multiple measures of evaluation to improve the quality of instruction.

A report of the completed evaluation forms for classes evaluated by students should be provided. Indicate, at a minimum, a summary of responses from the six university wide common questions. The summary for each course evaluation should specify the course number, title, date, and response rate for the evaluations.

Other evaluations of teaching, such as peer evaluations; exit interviews; critiques of syllabi; self-evaluations; or reports or evaluations by service-learning, interdisciplinary, study abroad, or assessment partners may be included.

3. Awards and Formal Recognition for Teaching

Identify commendations you have received for recognized excellence in teaching. These awards may include citations from academic or professional units (department, division, university, professional association) which have formal procedures and stated criteria for outstanding teaching performance.

B. One-on-one/Small Group Teaching, Independent studies

• • Independent studies, directed studies, tutorials, practicum, or other major projects
  • Involvement in undergraduate research, scholarship, or creative activities
  • Graduate/professional exams, theses, and dissertations (if appropriate)
  • Graduate Level Status (date ranges)
  • Number of completed and number current doctoral students as dissertation advisor
  • Number of completed and number current master's students as thesis advisor
  • Number of completed and number current doctoral students as committee member
  • Number of completed and number current master's students as committee member

C. Non-Credit Workshops and Continuing Education Instruction

(Some departments or divisions may describe these activities as professional service.)

Summarize the major instructional activities (workshops, non-credit course, etc.) which you have conducted since your last promotion or date of hire. Identify your role in the instruction and the number of participants. Provide participant evaluations if available.

D. Development of Teaching Materials

Give specific examples of new teaching methods materials (e.g., web-based, open or more affordable educational resources), or course delivery mechanisms (e.g. on-line or hybrid) you developed. A summary evaluation of these activities should be included in the chair’s/program director’s letter.

E. Curriculum Development

Give specific examples of your involvement in curriculum development and/or assessment (e.g., your role in the design and implementation of new or revised courses; creation of new programs; your role in assessment data collection or analysis and how it was used to document or improve student learning). A summary evaluation of these activities should be included in the chair’s/program director’s letter.

List and describe efforts to enhance diversity or cultural awareness in courses you teach. Include descriptions of new course materials and/or approaches.

F. Service-learning, ÍÃ×ÓÏÈÉú Activities, Inquiry-based Activities, or Study Abroad Activities

Give specific examples of the incorporation of service-learning activities, interdisciplinary activities, inquiry-based activities, or study abroad activities into your courses. List courses developed or taught that have any special designation in one or more of these categories.

G. Academic Advising

Describe specific responsibilities in advising. Identify number and level of advisees seen on a regular basis. Include an estimate of the approximate time spent per week. If applicable, provide a summary of advising evaluations. Include a description of any advisor training you have undergone.

H. Instructional Currency and Professional Growth as a Teacher or Advisor

Describe your goals for engagement in any teaching and advising improvement activities. List participation in workshops, symposia, professional conferences, CTE (Center for Teaching Excellence) or other ÍÃ×ÓÏÈÉú faculty development programs, one-on-one mentoring activities that were geared to developing expertise in teaching and advising. Identify certificates earned, if any. Discuss how new ideas/insights gained were implemented into your pedagogical and advising practices.

I. Professional Development

Describe and reflect on previous activities and strategies used, as well as plans for the future, to develop and maintain effective teaching and academic advising skills.

II. Research, Scholarship, and Creative Achievement

A. Publications, Presentations, Performances, etc.

Provide a chronological listing of publications, papers, exhibitions, performances, and other creative or scholarly works. Be sure citations are complete and that authorship and the ordering of authors is as listed on the publication. Indicate whether the work was refereed or peer reviewed. Indicate the status of the work (e.g. in review, in press, published). Indicate the quality of the publication by noting the impact rating and/or acceptance rate. Describe your contribution to the research or scholarly work cited in the dossier including, but not limited to, how authors/contributors are listed on the publication or work and the nature of your contribution. Indicate which authors are ÍÃ×ÓÏÈÉú University undergraduate or graduate students. Include as separate categories:

• • books, chapters
  • monographs, bulletins
  • articles, notes
  • reviews, abstracts
  • presentations at meetings of learned societies
  • performances
  • exhibitions
  • commissioned works
  • other creative or scholarly works

B. Editorships

Indicate editorship of journals or other learned publications.

C. Sponsored Research and Scholarly Activities

• Identify sponsored research and scholarly activities in which you are or have been involved, and specify the period.
• Indicate proposals submitted,
  • status of proposals (in review, funded, not funded), source and amount of funding (proposed or received),
  • funding rates for agency/program, and
  • whether funding is in the form of a contract, research grant, training grant, or commission. List internal and external proposals separately.
• Include cooperative or interdisciplinary research projects, educational or curriculum development projects, and service-learning/community-based projects.
  • For each project, list your degree of involvement and the degree of involvement by undergraduate or graduate students.
  • Cite prizes and awards where appropriate.

D. Research Agenda

Describe briefly your research agenda for the next three (3) to five (5) years.

E. Professional Development

Describe and reflect on previous activities and strategies used, as well as plans for the future, to develop and maintain a productive research and scholarship program.

III. Service

For significant service activities, please describe the service, its impact, your involvement or contribution, and indicate how the quality of the service can be assessed.

A. Service to the Profession

• • Offices held in professional societies. List organization in which office was held or service performed and dates of service. Describe the nature of the organization: i.e., open or elected membership, honorary, etc. Indicate awards received.
  • Participation in state or regional, national or international programs or special assignments. List specific activities (e.g., panel discussant, session chair, respondent). Include brief description.
  • Continuing education instruction, if not included under teaching. See Part 3, I.C for details.
  • Other professional service, if not included elsewhere, such as reviewer of proposals or manuscripts, or external examiner.
  • Service or initiatives related to the enhancement of diversity or cultural awareness in the profession.

B. Service to the University

Indicate dates and degree of responsibility. Include brief description.

• • departmental committees
  • division or University committees
  • administrative positions held
  • other administrative services to/for the university
  • other special assignments
  • Committees or initiatives related to the enhancement of diversity or cultural awareness at the university.

C. Service to Students

• • advisor to student groups and organizations.
    Identify name of group or organization and specific responsibilities as advisor. Include estimate of approximate time spent per week in such advising.
  • Assisting students in gaining admission to graduate or professional schools or gaining employment

• • Other student services
    Summarize participation in student affairs programs such as fireside discussion, lectures to student groups outside your department, addresses or participation at student orientation. Identify other involvements with or services to students not covered in the above categories.
  • Awards or formal recognition for service to students
    Cite commendations received as recognition for contributions to student affairs, such as election to student honoraries.

D. Student Recruitment and Retention

• • Identify time and effort spent in new student recruitment, including development of materials, phone and email contact, on-campus meetings, portfolio review, auditions, etc.
  • Describe activities or efforts related to retention of students or student success.
  • Describe special activities related to student recruitment contributing to the diversity of the student body.

E. Community Engagement

Community engagement involves activities that contribute to the public welfare beyond the university community and call upon the faculty member’s expertise as scholar, teacher, or administrator.  Community engagement demonstrates the principals of reciprocity and mutuality; it meets a need defined by the community, not merely created out of the interests of the faculty member.  Note outcomes as a result of your participation, efforts, and involvement within relevant categories.

Collaborative efforts with schools, industry, or civic agencies

Consulting with private or public, profit or non-profit organizations where your expertise has enhanced the efficiency or effectiveness of the organization served

• • Efforts to assist the public through a university clinic, hospital, laboratory, or clinic
  • Efforts to make research understandable and usable in specific professional and applied settings, including any research presentations or workshops in nonacademic contexts
  • Public scholarship, such as blog posts related to your expertise, newspaper op-eds, media interviews (radio, television, magazine), etc.
  • Efforts to test concepts and processes in real-world situations
  • Evaluating programs, policies, and personnel for agencies
  • Involvement in seminars and conferences that address public interest problems, issues, and concerns and that are aimed at either general or specialized audiences such as trace, commodity, practitioner, or occupational groups
  • Participation on government or social service review panels
  • Involvement in economic or community development activities
  • Engagement activities related to the enhancement of diversity or cultural awareness in the community

F. Community Outreach

Community outreach involves fulfilling a role in the wider community as an active representative of the campus or university. Volunteerism and acts of good citizenship do not in themselves constitute community outreach unless they are undertaken as part of one’s professional responsibilities to the institution.  The distinction between engagement and outreach has primarily to do with the extent to which the activity involves disciplinary expertise applied to real-world issues (engagement) versus serving as the institution’s representative in a community setting (outreach).

• • Involvement in recruitment or informational visits to area high schools
  • Participation or membership on civic boards where your membership specifically represents university participation in the organization
  • Work in creating or maintaining specific and directed community outreach efforts
  • Outreach activities related to the enhancement of diversity or cultural awareness in the community.

G. Awards and Recognition for Service

List here even if they are repeated in another section

• • Internal
  • External

H. Professional Development

Describe and reflect on previous activities and strategies used, as well as plans for the future, to develop and maintain meaningful service.