1. Gerard L. Hanley, Ph.D. Executive Director, MERLOT Senior Director, California State University Using MERLOT To Support Retention, Tenure, and Promotion Reviews MERLOT International Conference August 8, 2003

2. Technology and Tenure/Promotion Policies Guidelines for evaluating technology in instruction are being published –Modern Language Association, American Association for History and Computing –University of Michigan, Duquesne University, Peer evaluation & testimony by experts in field to verify quality & importance to discipline Making digital scholarship “visible” Electronic portfolios vs. Evidence files of the crime of doing good work Evaluate materials in the medium in which the scholarship was created Jessica Somers

3. Tenure & Promotion with MERLOT MERLOT provides QUALITY REVIEWS –Standards-based evaluation –Independent panel of experts –Training for the reliable application of standards MERLOT provides DOCUMENTATION –Documentation for Authors, Contributors, Reviewers, and Users –An electronic portfolio can be created within MERLOT Teaching and Course Portfolios

4. MERLOT’s Value to Faculty Authors Visibility of their Scholarship of Teaching through MERLOT website Peer Review of their scholarship –Evaluation of quality, effectiveness, and usability –Feedback for improvements Recognition and documentation –MERLOT publicly posts review on website –MERLOT Awards – Classics and Editors’ Choice –MERLOT citations in other’s Personal Collections –MERLOT sends two letters summarizing the review procedure and evaluation report to two of author’s designees –Document can become part of author’s tenure and promotion portfolio

5. MERLOT’s Value to Faculty Contributors & Users Visibility of curriculum development & pedagogical innovations through MERLOT –Adding Materials –Adding Member Comments/Reviews –Adding Assignments –Creating Personal Collections Recognition and documentation –MERLOT creates an ePortfolio of its members’ Special Benefits for Adjunct Faculty –Document can become part of Contributor’s Tenure and Promotion Portfolio

6. MERLOT’s Value to Editorial Board Members Visibility of their expertise and authority through MERLOT website –Performing and publishing peer reviews Recognition and documentation –MERLOT creates an ePortfolio of its Editorial Board’s peer reviews of materials within MERLOT –MERLOT provides “letter of appointment” describing qualifications and responsibilities –Documents can become part of Editorial Board member’s Tenure and Promotion Portfolio

7. Counter Forces Creating new and unique scholarship, curriculum and pedagogy is valued –Reusing other’s ideas is not valued How do you change the fundamental criteria for professional excellence? –Student learning outcomes by best means, even if you didn’t develop them –Excellent implementation of sound curriculum and pedagogy

8. Institutional Application of MERLOT’s Peer Review Process

9. Case Study in Progress CSU, Long Beach campus –Passed Academic Senate policy recognizing value of effective and creative teaching with technology –Question of implementation of policy in retention, tenure, and promotion (RTP) evaluations Evaluations standards –Valid? –Reliable? Training of evaluation committee? Placement of reviews in candidate’s portfolio?

10. Institutionalizing Peer Review Create College-Level academic technology peer review committees that are independent of RTP committees Training peer review committee in MERLOT’s peer review processes –Use training process, evaluation standards, & tutorial –Customize evaluation standards for campus –Practice to achieve some level of inter-rater reliability Candidate can choose to submit materials to college academic technology review committee Academic technology review committee functions like an external reviewer RTP committee learns to respond to evidence of good work