| 
Return to the Faculty/Lecturer Online Resource Guide
Note: the policies of the College of Arts and Sciences do not supersede the policies of the university, which are found in the University Faculty Handbook and in the University Rank and Tenure File Preparation Guidelines.
Annual Professional Review
FORM: Annual Professional Review for Tenure Track Faculty
FORM: Annual Professional Review for Non-Tenure Track Faculty
Exceptions to January Timeline
Formal Reviews of Progress Toward Tenure
Year One
Year Two
Year Three
Year Four
Year Five
Year Six
Year Seven
Peer Reviews of Teaching
FORM: Peer Review Form
Arts and Sciences Form for Student Assessment
External Review for Associate Professor
External Review for Full Professor
Templates for File Preparation
FORM: Outside Cover and Spine Label
FORM: Table of Contents
FORM: Section One Title Page
FORM: Section Two Title Page
FORM: Section Three Title Page
FORM: Section Four Title Page
FORM: Section Five Title Page
FORM: Section Six Title Page
FORM: Section Seven Title Page
FORM: Tabs for Section Dividers
FORM: Tabs for Course Dividers
FORM: Title Page for Courses
FORM: Blank Tabs for Additional Sections
Annual Professional Review
All full time faculty participate in a yearly process of review conducted by the Chairs of their departments. The process requires that faculty use the Annual Professional Review form. The forms for the use of tenured or tenure-track and full-time non tenure-track faculty are available from the Dean’s office or at the following link: .
Annual Professional Review for Tenure Track Faculty
Annual Professional Review for Non-Tenure Track Faculty
Due dates for the APRs for academic year 2007-2008 are:
For full time tenure-track faculty: February 15, 2008
For department chairs: February 22, 2008
For full time non-tenure-track faculty: April 25, 2008
Please note that these are the dates for APRs to be turned in to the Associate Dean for Academic Affairs. Due dates to department chairs are set by individual chairs.
Syllabi, course materials, and, where appropriate or required, the conducting of classes, should be peer-reviewed by methods approved in the College. The Arts and Sciences student evaluations, which are required for all classes, should also be reviewed. The professional review must include the teaching of Core classes for those faculty teaching in the Core, and these classes must be reviewed according to Core as well as departmental criteria.
In the course of reviewing their performance for the past calendar year, faculty should also discuss their plans for scholarly development or research, the development of new courses, needs for institutional support and the like. Based on these meetings, the Chair will inform the Dean of the state of the department and the faculty and will make requests for institutional support.
NOTE: Only those faculty who participate in the process of the annual review will be eligible to receive an increase in salary. The Faculty professional review form is also used for the purpose of allocating performance-based salary increases.
Exceptions to January Timeline
The review of faculty in the first year toward tenure replaces the process of the annual review for that year. NOTE: the Annual Professional Review form is included with all materials required for the second and the fourth year files.
Faculty on a full year’s sabbatical will report on their sabbatical in the Fall quarter of their return to the Dean and the Provost, as required by the Faculty Handbook (11.4.e,). This report replaces the Annual Professional Review for the calendar year during which two or more quarters of the sabbatical occurred. For example, a report on a sabbatical taken for a full year in AY 2005-2006 will count as the Annual Professional Review in January, 2007. Faculty who take only a one-quarter’s sabbatical in any given year will complete the Annual Professional Review as usual.
Formal Reviews of Progress Toward Tenure
The timeline to be followed for formal reviews of progress toward tenure, including the conducting of Peer Reviews of teaching, is as follows:
YEAR ONE:
New Faculty are reviewed by means of a letter from the Chair at the end of the academic year. The chairperson’s letter should be submitted to the Associate Dean for Academic Affairs by June 30. In preparation for the chair’s review, faculty are asked to submit only a one- to two-page list of teaching, scholarly, and service activities performed during the year. The list should include: for teaching, courses taught, along with mean and median student evaluation scores for the first five items; for scholarship, a list of projects completed or in progress, and for service, a list of service commitments. Chairs are encouraged to help new faculty to keep service commitments, including academic advising, to a minimum during the first year. No summative peer reviews of teaching are mandated, but formative reviews are strongly encouraged. In the years when there is performance-based pay, new faculty are awarded an across the board amount to be determined by consultation with the Executive Committee. The chair’s first year letter should be included in the faculty member’s file at the time of the second year review.
YEAR TWO:
At least one summative peer review is required. Faculty are reviewed in January for the purpose of determining salary increments. In addition to the APR, the faculty member submits a file for review by the College Rank and Tenure Committee and the Dean. By the first Monday in April, the candidate’s file and the department’s evaluation are submitted by the faculty member using the University Guidelines for File Preparation. The Rank and Tenure Committee reviews the file to assess the faculty member’s teaching, scholarship, and service. The Dean and faculty member meet to discuss the Committee's comments sometime in late May or early June.
YEAR THREE:
At least two summative peer reviews are required. Faculty are reviewed in January as usual.
YEAR FOUR:
At least one summative peer review is conducted. Faculty are reviewed in January for the purpose of determining salary increments. In addition, the faculty member’s work is reviewed by the College Rank and Tenure Committee and by the Dean. By the first Monday in April, the candidate’s file together with the department’s evaluation are submitted, using the University's guidelines for compiling a tenure file. The Rank and Tenure Committee reviews the file to assess the faculty member’s teaching, scholarship, and service. The Dean and faculty member meet to discuss the Committee's comments sometime in late May or early June.
YEAR FIVE:
At least two summative peer reviews are conducted. Faculty are reviewed in January as usual. External reviews of scholarship are arranged by the Associate Dean for Academic Affairs in Spring Quarter of the fifth year.
YEAR SIX:
The faculty member's file should be prepared according to the University's criteria and ready for review by the department at the latest by September 15th, the first contract day of Fall quarter. (Some departments hold their review at the end of Spring quarter in year five.) After the Chair and the tenured members of the department determine their recommendation concerning tenure, the Chair should summarize the department's recommendation in a letter to the College Rank and Tenure Committee and must also include his or her own letter. The file should then be brought to the Dean's office by the first Monday in October. The reason for this deadline is that the College's Rank and Tenure Committee must review many files and make recommendations by Thanksgiving to the Dean who, in turn, must submit the files to the Provost's office by December 1st. In year six, faculty are reviewed in January as usual.
YEAR SEVEN:
Depending on the decision of the Board of Trustees, this is the faculty member's first year of tenure or the last year of service at Seattle University. Tenured faculty are evaluated as usual in January; those in their last year may be evaluated at their option.
Peer Reviews of Teaching:
Summative Peer Reviews of classes are especially important for providing a perspective on a teacher's competence not available from the Student Assessment forms. The Executive Committee and the Dean have approved a form to be used for summative peer reviews, available at the following link:
Peer Review Form
Classes must be peer reviewed according to the guidelines of the College's Peer Review form and the procedures of one's department.
NOTE: Peer reviews that are to be part of the record must be authorized by the chair, whose signature on the peer review indicates that it has been accepted as part of the record.
College of Arts and Sciences Schedule of Peer Reviews for tenure track faculty:
Year One: no summative reviews required (formative reviews encouraged).
Year Two: one summative review required
Year Three: two summative reviews required
Year Four: one summative review required
Year Five: two summative reviews required
For Promotion only: at least three peer evaluations from the two years preceding the application.
Arts and Sciences Form for Student Assessment
All courses in the College of Arts and Sciences are to be evaluated using the standard student assessment form for the College. Toward the end of the quarter, the Dean's office distributes forms to each faculty member who designates a student both to administer the form and to return it to the Dean's office immediately after class. Students who administer the evaluation form for classes that meet in the evening should deposit the envelope immediately into the secured mailbox designated for that purpose outside the Dean's office. After the evaluations have been tabulated by the Dean’s office the Chair receives the entire evaluation (both the numerical summary and written comments) for distribution to the faculty and a summary for the departmental record.
College of Arts and Sciences Policy for External Review of Scholarship and
Creative Work for Tenure and/or Promotion to Associate Professor
In the College of Arts and Sciences, candidates for tenure and/or promotion to associate professor are required by the College to provide two evaluations from peers outside the university which can speak to the quality and significance of the candidate’s scholarly/creative work.
If the nature of the work is scholarship:
Candidates for tenure and/or promotion to Associate Professor are asked to submit a list of at least five names of potential external reviewers to their department chairpersons. For each name, the candidate should indicate briefly the professional qualifications of the potential reviewer and describe any personal or professional relationship between the reviewer and the candidate. Candidates may indicate their initial top two preferences from this list. The chairperson may consult with other tenured members of the department concerning the list of reviewers, and may propose additional names. The final list of two or more reviewers will be selected by the chairperson. The faculty member will be informed of the names of the two reviewers; if he or she does not accept the list of reviewers, the Dean will be informed and will make the final decision.
When the list of external reviewers has been chosen, the Associate Dean for Academic Affairs will write to request their services. External reviewers will be offered an honorarium for their assistance, and it will be explained that the letter of review is confidential to the fullest extent permitted by law. When the external reviewers have agreed to participate, they will be sent copies of the candidate’s scholarly work (a representative selection of work made jointly by the candidate and the department chairperson), along with a copy of the University and College written standards of scholarship for tenure and promotion to associate professor.
Reviewers will be asked to evaluate the “the quality and significance of the candidate’s scholarly work” in the context of Seattle University’s mission. The reviewer will also be asked to comment on whether both peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed works, taken as a whole, meet the Faculty Handbook standards for tenure and/or promotion to associate professor (“evidence of scholarly achievement and professional activity, as well as promise of continued scholarly development”), as well as meeting any written standards developed for the College.
Timetable for External Review of Scholarship:
April 15 Faculty nominate external reviewers to department chairperson.
May 15 List of external reviewers submitted to Associate Dean.
May-June Associate Dean solicits external reviewers.
Dean’s office orders copies of candidates’ books, if needed.
July 1 Reviewers confirmed.
Faculty submit copies of research materials.
Materials mailed to reviewers by dean’s office.
September 1 Reviews due.
If the nature of the work is creative (e.g., in the visual or performing arts):
Candidate must document evidence of creative achievement and professional activity as well as promise of continued creative development. This work must include at least one presentation or performance for a recognized arts organization (theatre, gallery) off campus. Two types of review are required:
1. Individual creative works. The candidate’s work must be evaluated at the time of performance or public presentation; therefore he/she will accumulate external reviews over an extended period of time. These reviews may include, but are not limited to: solicited external reviews by professionals in the artist’s field, newspaper or magazine reviews, letters of acceptance for juried exhibits or productions. These reviews will be kept on file until the time of the candidate’s application for promotion.
2. Portfolio of creative work. The portfolio will include an artist’s statement, representations of work, and the reviews of individual creative works compiled at the time of performance or presentation. Two reviewers having academic positions outside Seattle University will be asked to review this portfolio of materials submitted by the faculty member. The selection of outside reviewers will follow the process and timeline outlined above for scholarly work. The reviewers of the portfolio will be asked to evaluate the faculty member’s overall achievement and development as a creative artist based on the evidence of the faculty member’s total body of work and in the context of Seattle University’s mission.
College of Arts and Sciences Policy for External Review of Scholarship and
Creative Work for Promotion to Full Professor
Candidates for promotion to full professor are required by university policy to provide “at least three evaluations from peers outside the university which can speak to the quality and significance of the candidate’s scholarly work.”
If the nature of the work is scholarship:
Candidates for promotion to full professor are asked to submit a list of at least five names of potential external reviewers to their department chairpersons. For each name, the candidate should indicate briefly the professional qualifications of the potential reviewer and describe any personal or professional relationship between the reviewer and the candidate. Candidates may indicate their initial top two preferences from this list. The chairperson may consult with other tenured members of the department concerning the list of reviewers, and may propose additional names. The final list of three or more reviewers will be selected by the chairperson. The faculty member will be informed of the names of the three reviewers; if he or she does not accept the list of reviewers, the Dean will be informed and will make the final decision.
When the list of external reviewers has been chosen, the Associate Dean for Academic Affairs will write to request their services. External reviewers will be offered an honorarium for their assistance, and it will be explained that the letter of review is confidential to the fullest extent permitted by law. When the external reviewers have agreed to participate, they will be sent copies of the candidate’s scholarly work (a representative selection of work made jointly by the candidate and the department chairperson), along with a copy of the University and College written standards of scholarship for promotion to full professor.
Reviewers will be asked to evaluate the “the quality and significance of the candidate’s scholarly work” in the context of Seattle University’s mission. The reviewer will also be asked to comment on whether both peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed works, taken as a whole, meet the Faculty Handbook standards for promotion to full professor (“a sustained record of significant scholarly and professional activity”), as well as meeting any written standards developed for the College.
Timetable for External Reviews of Scholarship:
April 15 Faculty indicate their intention to apply for promotion to full professor.
Faculty nominate external reviewers to department chairperson.
May 15 List of external reviewers submitted to Associate Dean.
May-June Associate Dean solicits external reviewers.
Dean’s office orders copies of candidates’ books, if needed.
July 1 Reviewers confirmed.
Faculty submit copies of research materials.
Materials mailed to reviewers by dean’s office.
September 1 Reviews due.
If the nature of the work is creative (e.g., in the visual or performing arts):
Candidate must document evidence of creative achievement and professional activity as well as promise of continued creative development. This work must include at least one presentation or performance for a recognized arts organization (theatre, gallery) off campus. Two types of review are required:
1. Individual creative works. The candidate’s work must be evaluated at the time of performance or public presentation; therefore he/she will accumulate external reviews over an extended period of time. These reviews may include, but are not limited to: solicited external reviews by professionals in the artist’s field, newspaper or magazine reviews, letters of acceptance for juried exhibits or productions. These reviews will be kept on file until the time of the candidate’s application for promotion.
2. Portfolio of creative work. The portfolio will include an artist’s statement, representations of work, and the reviews of individual creative works compiled at the time of performance or presentation. Three reviewers having academic positions outside Seattle University will be asked to review this portfolio of materials submitted by the faculty member. The selection of outside reviewers will follow the process and timeline outlined above for scholarly work. The reviewers of the portfolio will be asked to evaluate the faculty member’s overall achievement and development as a creative artist based on the evidence of the faculty member’s total body of work and in the context of Seattle University’s mission.
Templates for File Preparation:
These templates are provided as a convenience for faculty preparing promotion and tenure files. The use of these templates is not required.
Outside Cover and Spine Label
Table of Contents
Section One Title Page
Section Two Title Page
Section Three Title Page
Section Four Title Page
Section Five Title Page
Section Six Title Page
Section Seven Title Page
Tabs for Section Dividers
Tabs for Course Dividers
Title Page for Courses
Blank Tabs for Additional Sections
|
