1. Proposed Revisions to Appendix J Areas of Performance Section IX April 26 and 27, 2007

2. Faculty Affairs Committee Sue MacConnie, Kinesiology & Recreation Administration Sue MacConnie, Kinesiology & Recreation Administration Diane Benson, Nursing Diane Benson, Nursing Sharon Chadwick, Library Sharon Chadwick, Library Bernadette Cheyne, Theatre, Film, & Dance Bernadette Cheyne, Theatre, Film, & Dance Colleen Mullery, AVP Faculty Affairs Colleen Mullery, AVP Faculty Affairs

3. Thanks! Diane Benson Sharon Chadwick Bernadette Cheyne Simon Green Ken Fulgham Mary Kay TK Koesterer Robin Meiggs Colleen Mullery Scott Paynton John Travis Armeda Reitzel/Michael Bauer (proxy) Betsy Watson

4. Evolution of Appendix J Review AY 02/03 AY 02/03 Beginning discussions of RTP revisions Beginning discussions of RTP revisions AY 03/04 AY 03/04 RTP process revised and approved by general faculty RTP process revised and approved by general faculty AY 04/05 AY 04/05 Review of CSU RTP policies, best practices Review of CSU RTP policies, best practices Forum to discuss criteria for evaluation Forum to discuss criteria for evaluation Criteria for early tenure and promotion approved by general faculty Criteria for early tenure and promotion approved by general faculty AY 05/06 AY 05/06 Survey to faculty Survey to faculty Attend CSU workshop on RTP Best Practices Attend CSU workshop on RTP Best Practices Forum to discuss survey results Forum to discuss survey results AY 06/07 AY 06/07 Areas of Performance Areas of Performance

5. Key Forum Results (March ‘05) Consider 3 areas of review Consider 3 areas of review Define some broad criteria and expectations for each ancillary area…making it clear that some contribution is required in each area.. Define some broad criteria and expectations for each ancillary area…making it clear that some contribution is required in each area.. Departments should expand on the criteria and expectations in a manner consistent with their discipline Departments should expand on the criteria and expectations in a manner consistent with their discipline Encourage departments to include external review, based upon defined criteria of how the candidate’s relevant activities contribute to the profession Encourage departments to include external review, based upon defined criteria of how the candidate’s relevant activities contribute to the profession Create standards of performance Create standards of performance

6. Key survey results (AY 05/06) Reduce number of ancillary areas from 3 to 2 (66:17) Reduce number of ancillary areas from 3 to 2 (66:17) Require each department to develop its own definition (criteria) of scholarship and creative activities (58:19) Require each department to develop its own definition (criteria) of scholarship and creative activities (58:19) Define some broad criteria and expectations for each ancillary area making it clear that some contribution is required in each area (56:16) Define some broad criteria and expectations for each ancillary area making it clear that some contribution is required in each area (56:16) Create standards of performance such as “excellent”, etc. and describe how these standards translate into the decision-making process (45:14) Create standards of performance such as “excellent”, etc. and describe how these standards translate into the decision-making process (45:14)

7. Key forum results (April 18, 2006) Develop 2 categories Develop 2 categories Combine service categories Combine service categories Standards of performance Standards of performance Develop proposal for Appendix J revisions Develop proposal for Appendix J revisions

8. Proposed Revisions to Areas of Performance Key changes: Key changes: Number of ancillary areas reduced to two Number of ancillary areas reduced to two Teaching effectiveness expanded (IX.B.1) Teaching effectiveness expanded (IX.B.1) Advising emphasis increased (IX.B.1.a.6) Advising emphasis increased (IX.B.1.a.6) Scholarship definition expanded and clarified using Boyer’s model (IX.B.2) Scholarship definition expanded and clarified using Boyer’s model (IX.B.2) Departmental criteria and evaluation standards be developed and approved (IX.A.1) Departmental criteria and evaluation standards be developed and approved (IX.A.1)

9. Proposed Revision #1 Area IX.A.1 – Development of department/unit criteria and standards Area IX.A.1 – Development of department/unit criteria and standards Area IX.B – Assessment of Areas of Performance for RTP (three areas) Area IX.B – Assessment of Areas of Performance for RTP (three areas) Expanded teaching effectiveness Expanded teaching effectiveness Scholarly/Creative Activities – Ernst Boyer’s Scholarship Reconsidered Scholarly/Creative Activities – Ernst Boyer’s Scholarship Reconsidered Service – university, profession, community Service – university, profession, community

10. Boyer: Scholarship Reconsidered Scholarship of: Scholarship of: Discovery (research) Discovery (research) Integration (synthesis) Integration (synthesis) Application (practice) Application (practice) Teaching (learning) Teaching (learning) Community engagement (connections) Community engagement (connections) Boyer, E. Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professorate

11. Assessing Scholarship* Clear goals Clear goals Adequate preparation Adequate preparation Appropriate methods Appropriate methods Significant results Significant results Effective presentation Effective presentation Reflective critique Reflective critique *Glassick, C.E., M.T. Huber, & G.I. Meaeroff. Scholarship Assessed.

12. Sample Ballot Revision #1 REVISION TO APPENDIX J, “Faculty Personnel Policies and Procedures for Retention, Tenure and Promotion,” HSU Faculty Handbook – Section IX.A.1 and Section IX.B (Areas of Performance for RTP and Assessment of the Areas of Performance for RTP) Resolution #19-06/07-FA (Revised), passed by the Academic Senate at its meeting of March 27, 2007, recommends that the General Faculty vote on whether to accept or reject the attached proposed changes to Sections IX.A.1 and IX.B of Appendix J. (If this proposal were passed, Appendix J would require every department/unit to develop and submit criteria and standards, consistent with Appendix J language, by which faculty in their discipline should be evaluated. Furthermore, it would reduce the non-teaching areas of performance from three to two and expand the Scholarly/Creative Activities section to reflect what today's faculty do, using the model from Boyer's Scholarship Reconsidered.) REVISION TO APPENDIX J, “Faculty Personnel Policies and Procedures for Retention, Tenure and Promotion,” HSU Faculty Handbook – Section IX.A.1 and Section IX.B (Areas of Performance for RTP and Assessment of the Areas of Performance for RTP) Resolution #19-06/07-FA (Revised), passed by the Academic Senate at its meeting of March 27, 2007, recommends that the General Faculty vote on whether to accept or reject the attached proposed changes to Sections IX.A.1 and IX.B of Appendix J. (If this proposal were passed, Appendix J would require every department/unit to develop and submit criteria and standards, consistent with Appendix J language, by which faculty in their discipline should be evaluated. Furthermore, it would reduce the non-teaching areas of performance from three to two and expand the Scholarly/Creative Activities section to reflect what today's faculty do, using the model from Boyer's Scholarship Reconsidered.) Yes, I Approve Yes, I Approve No, I Do Not Approve No, I Do Not Approve

13. Proposed Revision #2* IX.A.2: Evaluation IX.A.2: Evaluation Assessment of non-teaching areas Assessment of non-teaching areas Recognizes equal importance of both scholarly/creative activity and service in evaluation Recognizes equal importance of both scholarly/creative activity and service in evaluation Recognizes diverse roles and responsibilities of faculty with expectations of some contribution in each area. Recognizes diverse roles and responsibilities of faculty with expectations of some contribution in each area. Acceptable level of performance defined in department/unit criteria and standards Acceptable level of performance defined in department/unit criteria and standards Consistent evaluative terms: excellent, good, minimum essential Consistent evaluative terms: excellent, good, minimum essential Sample combinations consistent with an acceptable outcome Sample combinations consistent with an acceptable outcome * Implementation contingent upon acceptance of Revision #1

14. Sample Ballot Revision #2 REVISION TO APPENDIX J, “Faculty Personnel Policies and Procedures for Retention, Tenure and Promotion,” HSU Faculty Handbook – Section IX.A.2 (Areas of Performance for RTP) – NOTE: If approved, implementation of this revision is contingent upon approval of Ballot Item I. REVISION TO APPENDIX J, “Faculty Personnel Policies and Procedures for Retention, Tenure and Promotion,” HSU Faculty Handbook – Section IX.A.2 (Areas of Performance for RTP) – NOTE: If approved, implementation of this revision is contingent upon approval of Ballot Item I. Resolution #19A-06/07-FA, passed by the Academic Senate at its meeting of April 10, 2007, recommends that the General Faculty vote on whether to accept or reject the attached proposed changes to Section IX.A.2 of Appendix J. (If this proposal were passed, it would change the current wording of “compensatory in combination” as a way of weighting Scholarship/creative activities and Service to a criterion-based chart of possible combinations of acceptable performance in those two areas.) Resolution #19A-06/07-FA, passed by the Academic Senate at its meeting of April 10, 2007, recommends that the General Faculty vote on whether to accept or reject the attached proposed changes to Section IX.A.2 of Appendix J. (If this proposal were passed, it would change the current wording of “compensatory in combination” as a way of weighting Scholarship/creative activities and Service to a criterion-based chart of possible combinations of acceptable performance in those two areas.) Yes, I Approve Yes, I Approve No, I Do Not Approve No, I Do Not Approve

15. Timeline for Implementation Fall 2007 – Template Development Fall 2007 – Template Development Fall 2007 – Faculty Training Fall 2007 – Faculty Training Fall 2007 – Department/unit criteria & standards developed Fall 2007 – Department/unit criteria & standards developed Fall 2007 – Formation Ad Hoc Review Committee Fall 2007 – Formation Ad Hoc Review Committee Spring 2008 - Criteria & Standards review by Ad Hoc Review Committee Spring 2008 - Criteria & Standards review by Ad Hoc Review Committee Fall 2008 – Implementation of Appendix J revisions Fall 2008 – Implementation of Appendix J revisions

16. Transition Period Exceptions Those faculty who will be evaluated for promotion and/or tenure during AY 2008- 09 or AY 2009-10 may use either the current Appendix J or the new Appendix J Those faculty who will be evaluated for promotion and/or tenure during AY 2008- 09 or AY 2009-10 may use either the current Appendix J or the new Appendix J

17. Questions? Vote on May 1-2, 2007 Discussion/feedback

19. What is “Acceptable” Performance ?* Scholarly/creative activities ServiceOutcome Excellent or Good Acceptable ExcellentMinimum EssentialAcceptable Minimum EssentialExcellentAcceptable GoodMinimum EssentialUnacceptable Minimum EssentialGoodUnacceptable *in ancillary areas as defined by department criteria/standards

20. Future Issues to be Addressed Standards for academic rank Standards for academic rank Consistency of language reflecting past changes to Appendix J Consistency of language reflecting past changes to Appendix J