2007 Guidelines for Preparing a Case for Renewal/Tenure/Promotion
Notre Dame relies on a balanced assessment of a faculty member’s teaching and scholarly work to inform renewal, tenure and promotion decisions. Through the years, the University has adopted a systematic and widely accepted peer-review structure for evaluating a scholar’s research portfolio. Correspondingly, the Advisory Committee to the Provost on the Evaluation of Teaching (ACPET), in consultation with the Faculty Senate, the Faculty Affairs Committee of Academic Council, the Dean’s Cabinet and the Provost’s Advisory Committee, has developed a framework with which departments and schools can evaluate a faculty member’s teaching.
The ACPET Guidelines present a reliable, adaptable and comprehensive approach to evaluation, comprising (i) an assessment of the candidate’s TCE ratings over the entire review period, (ii) an in-depth review of select courses taught by the candidate, and (iii) an appraisal of the candidate’s additional contributions to student learning.
Teaching takes many forms; yet, the credit-bearing course remains the most typical way in which teaching is practiced within the academy. As a framework to help the department/school conduct its multifaceted review, the following four elements should be adequately addressed for each course the department/school chooses to evaluate in depth.
COURSE DESIGN |
IMPLEMENTATION |
EVALUATION OF STUDENT WORK |
STUDENT PERCEPTIONS |
Are the learning goals for the course meaningful and clearly articulated? |
Does the faculty member create a stimulating environment that is conducive to learning and effective in the use of students’ time? |
Does the faculty member employ reliable balanced approaches for assessing a student’s achievement of the course learning goals? |
Do the students perceive themselves to be well taught by the faculty member? |
Is the course design rigorous, current, relevant to students’ needs, and where appropriate, consonant with the program’s curricular requirements? |
Are students being inspired and encouraged to think analytically and creatively, and to develop knowledge, skills, and habits of mind appropriate to the discipline? |
Does the faculty member set high expectations for student performance, provide students with helpful feedback throughout the course, and apply appropriate standards when evaluating student work? |
Are the students more than satisfied with their learning experience in the course? |
Each department/school is encouraged to develop an evaluation process that is practical and reflects the distinctive characteristics of teaching within the discipline. When reviewing a candidate’s course, the department/school should formulate its response to each question by analyzing credible evidence gathered from appropriate sources, e.g., the faculty candidate, students in the selected courses, and faculty peers. Examples of the kinds of evidence that speak to each of the four sets of questions can be found at http://kaneb.nd.edu/evidence.
The Provost has asked that all cases for advancement be prepared in accord with the ACPET Guidelines beginning in Fall 2009.