Faculty Senate
Resolution #03-40
Accepted by the Faculty Senate: September 16, 2003
As a document to be forwarded to the Chair of the Faculty to disseminate to the
Faculty Governance Committee to discuss in light of the University as a whole
and, if appropriate, to bring proposed revised documents to the Faculty Senate
for consideration at a later date.
Approved
by the Chancellor: not applicable
“At doctorate-granting
universities, a different approach to scholarship is needed. These institutions typically see themselves
as being ‘in transition,’ embracing to a very large degree the research
model. As an administrator at one such
campus expressed it, ‘Our goal is to be in the top twenty or certainly in the
top fifty.’ Surely, research is central for some professors, and
doctorate-granting institutions can take legitimate pride in the national and
international reputations of such scholars.
However, doctorate-granting institutions need also to recognize
professors who make exceptional contributions to other scholarly areas:
integration, application, and teaching.
At these institutions, perhaps more than any others, the mosaic of
talent should be carefully considered.”
Boyer, E. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate. Princeton, NJ: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, p. 58.
REPORT of the COMMISSION on
SCHOLARSHIP
Much national
attention has been focused on defining scholarship at the national level, followed
by local efforts on many campuses to translate those definitions into their
unique and mission-driven campus practices of defining faculty roles and
rewards. According to the American Association on Higher Education’s
2002 National Survey on Encouraging Multiple Forms of Scholarship, 68 percent
of the respondents from 1,452 non-profit four-year colleges and universities
surveyed indicated that “within the last 10 years, my institution has made
formal changes to mission, planning documents, and/or faculty evaluation policy
to encourage multiple forms of scholarship.”
East Carolina University has begun to examine these concepts as possible
points of discussion, but defining scholarship (or redefining scholarship) and
methods for assessing scholarship has not yet occurred in a formal manner.
Prior ECU taskforces put forward the following
suggestions with respect to roles and rewards of the “mosaic of talent”
represented in the faculty of East Carolina University:
·
revisit university
faculty roles and rewards policies to facilitate ECU's goal of becoming a
doctoral research-extensive university, and to support the differential
scholarly work of faculty;
·
use the Unit Codes as vehicles for clarifying
how units contribute differentially to the mission of the University;
·
use faculty workplans
as vehicles for clarifying how faculty contribute differentially to the work of
the unit; and
·
pursue the Community of
Scholars concept for as a way to maintain academic community in a decentralized
academic structure.
In Fall 2002 Provost
Bill Swart and Chair of the Faculty Bob Morrison formed the Commission on Scholarship to examine the
definitions of scholarship at East Carolina University. The charge of the committee was to discuss
new ways to understand, assess, and recognize faculty scholarship. The need for this effort on the ECU campus
was noted by the Education and Research Enhancement Committee in their report
to SACS (2002), “The university’s
transition to a research-intensive doctoral institution presents a rare
opportunity for a new definition and vision of the academic community. Once defined, the university will be able to
design and refine structures and processes necessary to support growth and
quality."
Informed by scholars
such as Ernest Boyer and Charles Glassick, and by colleagues at comparable
universities across the United States who are examining faculty scholarship,
the Commission on Scholarship submits this report and recommendations to the
campus community. It proposes a
more-inclusive definition of scholarship that we believe fits ECU's culture and
strategic plan and that encompasses the scholarships of discovery, teaching,
engagement, and integration. It
encourages the university community to incorporate the concept of a “community
of scholars” into its actions and activities.
And, finally, it offers recommendations that will help ECU faculty
achieve appropriate scholarship goals.
History
The report of this
Commission builds on suggestions made by two previous groups. In 2000 Vice Chancellor Richard Ringeisen
and Chair of the Faculty Brenda Killingsworth convened a faculty task force
that produced a "Report of the Academic Affairs Division Task Force on
Faculty Roles and Rewards" (2000).
One year later a consulting team met to help prepare ECU for the SACS
visitation, and the comments of that team that dealt with scholarship were
summarized in two sections titled "Education and Research" and
"Research Management" (Growth and Quality, 2002).
The SACS Education
and Research Committee developed four strategies for enhancing quality
undergraduate education given the expected growth in enrollment and in research
and doctoral programs. Strategy #2 stated: " The
faculty, administration, and students will engage in a continuing dialogue that
defines East Carolina University’s vision of itself as a Community of Scholars."
The purpose of Strategy #2 is
to support changing faculty workloads and to develop reward structures that
recognize the value of various roles and contributions.
The Education and
Research Committee reviewed current practices at the university and discussed
the potential challenges that will exist in the future. Subcommittee members reviewed and reported
on external activities in higher education relevant to faculty workloads,
roles, and rewards. This review
included activities reported in “Focus on Faculty” (2001), Ernest Boyer's Scholarship
Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate (1990), and Charles Glassick et al.’s Scholarship Assessed: Evaluation of the
Professoriate (1998). Committee members and university
constituents gained additional insights from a visit to the ECU campus by Dr.
Glassick in November 2001. The subcommittee consulted the work of other
ECU committees and task forces and reported its finding to the full committee
soon thereafter.
The Commission met
twice monthly to discuss scholarship with respect to faculty roles and
rewards. Initial discussions identified
faculty and administrator concerns with the current system. These concerns included differences between
disciplines and professions at the national level; differences peculiar to ECU
between academic units; administrative and faculty perspectives on review,
tenure, and promotion; and other concerns.
Members discussed the role of scholarship in the ECU Strategic Plan and
the Chancellor's vision of ECU's academic mission in the four areas of teacher
education, human health, the arts, and economic development. The nature of the university as it changes
from a comprehensive to what is hoped to be a doctoral extensive institution
was the central focus of discussion. We
agreed that the processes for defining faculty roles and rewards that were
appropriate for a comprehensive university will not serve a doctoral extensive
institution.
The Commission reviewed extensive
literature in its study of extended definitions of scholarship. Ernest Boyer proposed an expanded definition
of scholarship, including the scholarship of teaching, integration, and application
in addition to the traditional scholarship of discovery in Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate. Since its publication in 1990, much has been
written to interpret and refine his ideas; in particular, the scholarship of
application has become widely known as the scholarship of engagement. Charles Glassick et al. (1998) in Scholarship
Assessed: Evaluation of the Professoriate describe methods for documenting
and evaluating the newer forms of scholarship. These topics have been widely discussed, and a clearinghouse has
been established to facilitate the evaluation of the scholarship of engagement.
The Commission discovered that a wide
variety of universities have been influenced in some way by broader definitions
of scholarship. Many institutions are
encouraging their faculty to participate in the newer forms of scholarship,
revisiting their current definitions of scholarship, adopting broadened
definitions, and implementing those definitions to some degree for tenure and
promotion. The Commission decided to
investigate developments at some of these schools, both by reading relevant
documents and contacting professors and administrators to discern what, if any,
new policies were being employed and how these policies were actually working.
The Commission reviewed institutions
that were peers of ECU as well as
those
that were already doctoral extensive.
Peer institutions included Indiana University Purdue University
Indianapolis (IUPUI) and Oregon State University. At IUPUI, tenure and promotion can be obtained by excellence in
either teaching, research, or service combined with satisfactory performance in
the other two. Publication is required
to demonstrate satisfactory or excellent performance in any of these
areas. Faculty members are strongly
encouraged to participate in the scholarship of engagement. The promotion and tenure policies at Oregon
State were revised thoroughly in 1996 to allow scholarship to be demonstrated
by research, teaching, and community outreach.
The guidelines permit varied emphasis among the three areas for
professional advancement. Faculty
contacts at both schools believe that the faculty are, in general, happy with
their systems.
Commission members
also contacted doctoral extensive institutions, including the University of
Illinois at Champaign-Urbana, the University of California at Davis, the
University of Wisconsin-Madison, and the University of Georgia. While these universities generally support
community engagement, they have not made sweeping changes in policy to put the
newer forms of scholarship on par with traditional scholarship. The University of Illinois encourages its
faculty to be involved in public service, even publishing a faculty guide on
the relationship of service to promotion and tenure. At UC-Davis, four areas are recognized for promotional
advancement: teaching, research and
creative work, professional competence and activity, and university and public
service. However, a significant
publication record in the scholarship of discovery is still required for
promotion and tenure. This is also true
for the University of Wisconsin-Madison, although the university does support
several outreach projects that could lead to the scholarship of engagement. The University of Georgia has two tracks for
faculty: a traditional track and a
career track that is based on service.
Some faculty at Georgia report that this system is problematic because
the career track does not offer the same benefits as the traditional track.
Starting Points
The commission offers the following findings as
starting points for the discussion of the nature of scholarship at ECU:
Definition
of Scholarship
Scholarship can be defined as those activities that
systematically advance teaching, research, and practice through rigorous
inquiry that 1) is significant to the profession, 2) is creative, 3) can be
documented, 4) can be replicated, extended, or elaborated, and 5) can be
peer-reviewed through various methods. This definition is applied in the following
standards that describe the various types of scholarship.
Each of the four scholarship activities
described by Boyer takes place in varying degrees in various disciplines. The balance among these activities in
various disciplines should relate directly to its role and mission. Using Boyer's categories of scholarship as a
model, the following elements of scholarship should be considered in carrying
out the role and mission assigned to each unit.
The scholarship of
discovery is inquiry that produces the
disciplinary and professional knowledge that is at the very heart of
academic pursuits (Boyer, 1990). The
scholarship of discovery takes the form of primary research and creative
activity that advances the knowledge of the discipline. It increasingly is
interdisciplinary and collaborative in nature, across professional groups and
within professional disciplines.
·
peer-reviewed
publications of research, theory, or philosophical essays;
·
presentations of
research, theory, or philosophical essays;
·
performances;
·
exhibitions;
·
grant awards in support
of research;
·
mentorship of junior
colleagues in research or scholarship;
·
state, regional,
national, or international recognition as a scholar within a specific
discipline; and
·
positive peer
evaluations of the body of work.
The scholarship of teaching is inquiry that produces knowledge to support the transfer
of disciplinary skills and information from the expert to the novice,
building bridges between the teacher's understanding and the student's learning
(Boyer, 1990). This scholarly activity supports the development of educational
environments that embrace diverse learning styles, and increasingly, places the
focus of education on the learner (Edgerton, 1997). The scholarship of teaching
increases the effectiveness of the transfer of discipline-specific knowledge,
and adds to deeper understanding of both the discipline and pedagogy. The scholarship
of teaching is conducted through application of knowledge of the discipline or
specialty area in the teaching-learning process, the development of innovative
teaching and evaluation methods, program development, learning outcome
evaluation, and professional role modeling.
Knowledge of the discipline or specialty applied in
teaching-learning includes innovations that demonstrate the knowledge of the
faculty member in relation to teaching (such as authorship of textbooks or other
learning aids), technology application, and theory building in the
teaching-learning assessment context.
Development of innovative teaching and evaluation
methods includes research in teaching strategies, course development and
outcome evaluation, curricular and faculty evaluation innovations, research
related to the knowledge and pedagogy of the discipline, and creation of
innovative learning environments that support diverse groups of students.
Program development and learning outcome evaluation include the development of
outcomes assessment programs, accreditation reports, grant proposals for
educational programs, disciplinary and interdisciplinary programs, and
educational evaluation models. Professional role modeling includes the
mentoring of students and novice faculty, leadership roles in curriculum and
instruction, development of programs for lifelong learning, and leadership in
shaping educational policy.
·
peer-reviewed publications
of research related to teaching methodology or learning outcomes, case studies
related to teaching-learning, learning theory development, and development or
testing of educational models or theories;
·
accreditation or other
comprehensive program reports;
·
successful,
peer-reviewed, applications of technology to teaching and learning;
·
positive peer
assessments of innovations in teaching;
·
state, regional,
national, or international recognition as a master teacher;
·
published textbooks or
other learning aids;
·
grant awards in support
of teaching and learning;
·
design of outcome
studies or evaluation/assessment programs;
·
presentations related
to teaching and learning; and
·
positive peer
evaluations of the body of work.
Scholarship of
engagement is the interaction of theory
and practice that results in the creation of new knowledge and/or the
innovative application of disciplinary knowledge to specific problems. It engages faculty in academically relevant
work (including applied research and outreach to businesses, communities, and
individuals) that simultaneously meets the mission of the campus and the needs
of the community. In essence, it is a
scholarly agenda that integrates community issues. In this definition, community is broadly defined to include
audiences external to the campus that are part of a collaborative process to
contribute to the public good.
Examples of Documentation
of the Quality of Scholarship of Engagement
·
peer-reviewed
publications of research, policy analysis, case studies, and others;
·
copyrights, licenses,
patents, or products for sale;
·
published books;
·
positive peer
evaluations of contributions to the scholarship of engagement, including review
by the National Review Board for the Scholarship of Engagement;
·
grant awards for
outreach and community engagement;
·
presentations and
policy papers designed to influence organizations or governments; and
·
positive peer
evaluations of the body of work.
Scholarship
of Integration
The scholarship of
integration refers to writings and other products that use concepts and
original works from other disciplines in creating
new patterns, placing knowledge in a larger context, or illuminating data in a
more meaningful way. The
scholarship of integration emphasizes the interconnection of ideas and brings
new insight to bear on original concepts and research. Critical analysis and interpretation are two
common methodologies, but interdisciplinary work may take place through any
medium for scholarship such as those described as discovery, teaching, or
practice (Boyer, 1990). Original work
in the scholarship of integration takes place at the margins, or interface,
between two or more disciplines. It
serves to respond to both intellectual questions and pressing human problems by
creating knowledge or combining knowledge in applications that offer new
paradigms and insights.
Integrative scholarship requires participation from
two or more disciplines in inquiry that advances knowledge across a wide range of
techniques and methodologies. Works
that would be recognized in the scholarship of integration include interfaces
between a variety of disciplines. Integrative reviews of the literature,
analysis of policy, development of interdisciplinary educational programs and
service projects, studies of systems, original interdisciplinary research, and
integrative models or paradigms across disciplines are examples of the
scholarship of integration.
·
peer-reviewed
publications of research, policy analysis, case studies, integrative reviews of
the literature, and others;
·
copyrights, licenses,
patents, or products for sale;
·
published books;
·
positive peer
evaluations of contributions to integrative scholarship;
·
reports of
interdisciplinary programs or service projects;
·
interdisciplinary grant
awards;
·
presentations and
policy papers designed to influence organizations or governments; and
·
positive peer
evaluations of the body of work.
While the mission of
institutions of higher learning is unique in each setting, the commitment to
scholarly approaches to education, research, integration, and engagement
creates common bonds across the academic community. There are two common
elements in all types of scholarship in institutions of higher learning: the creation of new knowledge
(fundamental disciplinary knowledge; knowledge to support the teaching process;
knowledge created by the innovative application of disciplinary knowledge to
specific problems; or new patterns of knowledge, placed in a larger context or
illuminated in a more meaningful way) and the dissemination of that
knowledge in peer-reviewed forums.
Community of Scholars
With this expanded
definition of scholarship, the University community can begin to incorporate
the concept of a Community of Scholars into its actions and
activities. Scholarship, particularly
the scholarship of discovery, is often thought of as a solitary pursuit: a scientist working in a lab, a history
professor writing a book in his or her office, a teacher trying a new idea in a
classroom, or a musician sitting at the keyboard working to get the score just
right. These images illuminate only
fragments of scholarship.
Scholarship is
really a collective activity. It is
sharing ideas between like-minded researchers, participation in conference
activities, public musical performances and gallery shows, peer review of
papers, and similar activities.
Although the creation of all scholarship encompasses periods of solitary
reflection and individual work, real scholarship is only fully formed and
disseminated through interaction with others.
It is often thought
that the interaction – the collective, community activity – occurs between
scholars in the same discipline, often at different institutions. While a significant component of the
scholarship of discovery is discipline-specific, components of the scholarships
of teaching, engagement, and integration are discipline neutral. We suggest that all scholarship,
particularly in teaching, engagement, and integration, only reaches high
quality when it is shared, critiqued, and molded by input from those across a
wide range of disciplines. Fundamentally,
as scholars, we exist collectively, not in isolation.
While all members of
the University have a responsibility to participate in its intellectual life,
the faculty and administration have a central responsibility to foster the
intellectual collaboration essential for a vital and vibrant Community of
Scholars. Central to this
responsibility are core issues including:
respect for the scholarship of others, active engagement in the
Community, and appreciation for the efforts and results of others.
One of the Commission’s
most important findings is that there is little agreement about the standards
for evaluation of faculty scholarship at ECU.
The following recommendations represent an effort to articulate these
standards. We view this effort as
essential to the fundamental redefinition of scholarship at ECU.
In implementing
these recommendations, the commission urges the university community to avoid
two problems identified in the most recent national survey:
1.
“The problem of the
overload plate” – that is, interpreting the broader definition of scholarship
to mean that the faculty must contribute and exhibit strength in all four areas
at one time. The purpose of redefining scholarship is not to add additional
responsibilities, but to value all forms of scholarly activity.
2.
“The tension between
the complete scholar and differentiated staffing” – that is, staffing practices
that isolate scholars in any one sphere of activity. During a professional career, scholars move through the different
ways of knowing. In the words of Dr.
Eugene Rice, “universities need faculty who are developing different parts of
their scholarly selves, not those permanently fixed in any one sphere.”
Recommendation
1: Recognizing Various Types of
Scholarship at ECU
Language should be placed in the Faculty
Manual that acknowledges that there are multiple types of scholarship in
which faculty can engage, and that the types of scholarship begin with, but are
not limited to, those developed by Boyer in Scholarship
Reconsidered (1990). The changes
to the Faculty Manual should spell out the definitions of types of scholarship
recognized by ECU and the standards of excellence used to evaluate the
scholarship.
Implementation:
To implement this recommendation, the Commission proposes
revisions to Appendix C of the Faculty
Manual. The proposed revisions are
included in this document as Appendix A.
The committee requests that the appropriate faculty committees review
the suggested changes and present them to the Faculty Senate for approval.
Recommendation 2:
Clarification of Standards
Each unit should
include within its Code a statement of the nature of scholarship within its
academic discipline and its own criteria and standards for evaluation of
faculty scholarship. The goal of this exercise is to articulate unit standards
so that both candidates and persons evaluating the candidates will have a clear
understanding of performance expectations in the area of scholarship.
This recommendation
is a response to faculty concerns that standards for advancement are unclear
and that expectations have changed quickly and with little notice as a result
of ECU’s recent change to a research institution. To address these concerns, it is essential that clarification
begin at the unit level, that it receive appropriate higher-level review, and
that the resulting expectations be published and readily available to all
faculty and administrative officers.
Implementation:
We propose that the each unit re-examine its
evaluation criteria and provide a brief written summary of its standards for
evaluation of faculty scholarship. This
re-examination should take the following form:
·
Each unit
should write a statement that clearly identifies the types of faculty
scholarship (the scholarship of discovery, the scholarship of teaching, the
scholarship of engagement, and/or the scholarship of integration) it recognizes
and the criteria it uses to evaluate that scholarship.
·
The
statement should reflect the highest standards of the academic discipline, as well
as the types of scholarship, standards of excellence, and flexibility mandated
by the Faculty Manual.
·
The revised
unit criteria for the evaluation of faculty scholarship should be included in
unit codes. Review and approval of
revisions to unit codes should follow the established university process and
the recognized principles of academic freedom.
Recommendation
3: Workshops on the Academic Personnel Review Process
The Office of the
Provost, in cooperation with the Faculty Senate and the Office of the Vice
Chancellor for Health Sciences, should organize an annual workshop on the
academic personnel review process for chairs, deans, and members of unit
personnel committees so that those who participate in the decision-making
process have consistent information.
The goals of this recommendation are to educate the
principals who participate in the review process, to discuss problems that have
arisen, to enhance mutual understanding of the different perspectives that
arise at each level of review, and to work toward common solutions. Such
communication between the Faculty Senate and the administration is essential to
maintaining and improving faculty confidence in the personnel process.
Recommendation
4: Dissemination of Information
Sources of information regarding alternative means of
assessing scholarship should be made available, and maintained, in a central
location such as the Faculty Senate office, library, and on the Faculty Senate
web page. This information should
include a copy of this report and any subsequent related reports, as well as
reference materials and notable examples of the various types of scholarship.
Implementation:
The Faculty Senate Office should take the lead in
this important step of making educational materials on the new definitions of
scholarship and various means of evaluating that scholarship available to the
faculty.
Recommendation
5: Enhancement of the ECU Community of
Scholars
The ECU Community
of Scholars should work to foster a greater understanding of university scholarship
among faculty of disparate disciplines by encouraging collective scholarly
activity within the institution.
This task will
require the work of many and will be accomplished only by diligent effort over
time. It will require the continued commitment
of the institution and its component members to support scholarship of high
quality and to promote a dynamic relationship between and among the four forms
of scholarship and among the faculty, students, staff, alumni, parents,
friends, and supporters of the University
Implementation:
Several concrete steps
can be taken to strengthen our collective scholarship and highlight the value
of a strong Community of Scholars:
·
the university should
stimulate and support cross-disciplinary collaboration within and among the
four forms of scholarship,
·
the Chancellor should
appoint a group to promote, in formal and informal ways, the strength of our
collective scholarship, and
·
Edge Magazine should regularily include articles that
highlight multidisciplinary efforts by campus faculty.
References
Cited
(2000).
Report of the Academic Affairs Division Task Force on Faculty Roles and
Rewards.
(2001). Focus
on faculty. Change: the Magazine of
Higher Learning (July/August). Get pp.
(2002).
Growth and quality: Excelling as
an emerging doctoral university. Report
of the Consulting Team Prepared for East Carolina University's Southern
Association of Colleges and Schools Alternative Self-Study.
Boyer, E. (1990).
Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. Princeton, NJ: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
Edgerton, R. (1997). Higher education white paper. Washington, DC: Pew Charitable
Trusts.
Glassick, C., et
al. (1998). Scholarship assessed.Evaluation of the professoriate.
Special Report of the Carnegie Foundatin for the Advancement of
Teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Wright, B The
Syracuse transformation on becoming a student-centered research university. Change,
Vol. 33, p. 38.
Bellah, N., Madsen, R., Sullivan, W.,
& Tipton, S. (1996). Habits of the
heart: Individualism and commitment in American life. New York: Harper
& Row.
Boyer, Ernest.
(1996). The scholarship of engagement. Journal
of Public Outreach 1,1,11-20.
Bringle, R. G., Games, R., & Malloy,
E.A. (Eds.). (1990). Colleges and
universities as citizens. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Chibucos, T. R. & Lerner, R. M.
(Eds.). (1999). Serving children and
families through community-university partnerships: Success stories.
Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Driscoll, A. & Lynton, E. A. (1999). Making outreach visible: A guide to
documenting professional service and outreach. Washington, DC: American
Association for Higher Education.
Edgerton, R. (1997). Higher education white paper.
Washington, DC: Pew Charitable Trusts.
Ehrlich, T. (1995). The Courage to inquire: Ideals and realities in higher education.
Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press.
Fairweather, S.
(1996). Faculty work and public trust.
Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Harkavy, I & Benson, L. (1998).
De-Platonizing and democratizing education as the bases of service learning. In
R.A. Rhoads & J. Howard (Eds.), Service
learning: Pedagogy and research (pp. 11-19). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kellogg Commission on the Future of State
and Land Grant Universities. (1999). Returning
to our roots: The engaged institution. Washington, DC: National Association
of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges.
Lazerson, M, Wagener, U., & Shumanis,
N. What makes a revolution? Change, May/June (2000) p. 12.
Lynton, E. (1995). Making the case for professional service. Washington, DC: American
Association for Higher Education.
Michigan State University. (1996). Points of distinction: A guidebook
forplanning & evaluating quality outreach (Revised). East Lansing, MI:
Michigan State University Board of Trustees.
Palmer, J. (1998). The courage to teach. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Sandmann, L. R., Foster-Fishman, P.G.,
Lloyd, J., Rauhe, W., and Rosaen, C. (2000). Managing critical tensions: How to
strengthen the scholarship component of outreach. Change 32,1, 44-52.
Schon, D.A. (1995). The new scholarship
requires a new epistemology. Change,
November/December, 27-34.
http://www.aacn.nche.edu/Publications/positions/scholar.htm
(American
Association of Colleges of Nursing)
http://www.scholarshipofengagement.org/
http://www.outreach.psu.edu/News/Pubs/Monograph/eval.html
http://www.outreach.psu.edu/News/Pubs/Monograph/science.html
http://www.nasulgc.org/publications/Kellogg/execsum.pdf
http://www.aahe.org/FFRR/preview/emphasis2.htm
http://www1.uwex.edu/secretary/$WPM79FB/
http://www.cidd.gwu.edu/research/teach.html
http://php.indiana.edu/%7Enelson1/SOTLGenres.html
http://www.upenn.edu/ccp/Bibliography/Service_Learning.html
http://www.gsu.edu/~wwwctl/programs/scholarship.htm
http://www.tltgroup.org/resources/Flashlight/Scholarship_What.html
http://www.personal.psu.edu/faculty/t/r/tra2/EngagedUniversity.htm
http://www.uic.edu/depts/oaa/TFSEreport.pdf
http://www.nasulgc.org/publications/Kellogg/execsum.pdf
http://www.lincoln.ac.nz/tis/talc
Commission Members
Anderson, Patricia J.
Elementary
Education
Dorsey, Michael A.
Art
Estes, Steven G.
Exercise and
Sports Science
Horns, Phyllis N. (co-chair)
Nursing
Morrison, Robert C. (co-chair)
Chemistry
Moskop, John C.
Medical
Humanities
Niswander, Fredrick
Business
Reaves, Rita R.
Academic Affairs
Ries, Heather L.
Mathematics
Rigsby, Catherine A.
Geology
Sheerer, Marilyn
Education
Swart, William W.
Provost
Taggart, Mark A.
Music
Appendix A – Recommended revisions
to Appendix C of the ECU Faculty Manual
APPENDIX C.
PERSONNEL POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR THE FACULTY
OF EAST CAROLINA UNIVERSITY
[1]
IV. Professional Advancement
Promotion is a means through
which professional achievement is encouraged, recognized, and rewarded by the
university. Evaluation of faculty for
purposes of promotion shall accord with the regulations established in
accordance with the unit code and shall employ the criteria contained in the
unit code approved by the chancellor (ECU Faculty Manual, Appendix L).
Departments in professional
schools may also establish guidelines for evaluation of faculty for promotion
consistent with the criteria in their school’s unit code. Specific regulations and criteria governing
evaluation of faculty for purposes of promotion may vary from unit to unit. As
a minimum each unit shall:
·
apply published
criteria in teaching, and the various forms of scholarshipresearch/creative
activity, and service for evaluating faculty for promotion;
·
make available
procedures which will permit each faculty member to report achievements
annually or on a more frequent basis;
·
assure each faculty
member the right to discuss one's candidacy with the unit administrator and/or
the personnel committee at any time; and
·
notify each faculty
member within four days of receipt of the administration's call for promotion
recommendations.
Upon request by the faculty
member, the unit administrator and the unit personnel committee shall evaluate
the faculty member for promotion. Following such evaluation, the unit
administrator and the personnel committee shall inform the faculty member of
their respective recommendations.
Promotion shall be based primarily upon the faculty member's total
demonstrated professional competence and achievement. Procedures to be followed
for promotion are found in ECU Faculty Manual, Appendix D. Among the many qualifications which may be
considered when making recommendations for promotion, the following are
essential:
Assistant Professor -
Qualifications necessary to be appointed to the rank of instructor, an
appropriate terminal degree, as evaluated by the academic unit and affirmed by
the appropriate administrative officer and the profession concerned; a record
of progress toward teaching effectiveness; and evidence of a potential for
continued professional growth which shall, in part, be measured by scholarship/creative activity/research and
membership in professional organizations.
Associate Professor -
Qualifications of the previous rank; evidence of teaching effectiveness; a
record of scholarship or creative or research activity
resulting in publication or comparable productivity; a record of participation
in professional organizations; effective service on academic and/or
administrative committees, and a record of effective service to the profession.
Professor - Qualifications
of the previous ranks; an established record of excellence in teaching; a
record of significant scholarship or creative
activity,
or research activity; a record of significant service to the
profession, such as contributions to the development of public forums,
institutes, continuing education projects, and patients services; consulting in
the private and public sectors; and a record of significant contribution as a
member of academic and/or administrative committees. (Faculty Senate Resolution #99-7, March 1999)
Promotion usually should be
accompanied by a salary increment which shall be separate from any and all
other increments to
which the individual may be entitled.
Notwithstanding any previous statement that has appeared herein,
competence for promotion to a specific rank may be attested to by advanced
study, culminating in appropriate graduate degrees, or by extensive work
experience in the teaching fields or in a professional practice which is
demonstrably of highest quality.
[1] For policies and procedures dealing with persons on
fixed term appointment, ECU Faculty Manual, Appendix D.
East Carolina University Faculty Manual
APPENDIX C.
PERSONNEL POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR THE FACULTY
OF EAST CAROLINA UNIVERSITY [1]
III. Evaluation
Each faculty member with a
probationary term appointment and each permanently tenured faculty member shall
receive annually an evaluation of his/her performance from the unit
administrator which shall be based upon current academic year data, except that
data from the previous year's spring semester survey of student opinion of
teaching may be utilized when current spring semester survey data are
unavailable [2]. This annual evaluation shall:
·
be in writing;
·
state the percentage of
salary increment available to the unit to be recommended by the unit
administrator for the faculty being evaluated;
·
be discussed with the
faculty member prior to being sent to any other administrator or placed in the
faculty member's personnel file; in the case of faculty members with
probationary period appointments, a record of this discussion shall be placed
in the faculty member's personnel file; and
·
shall be signed and
dated by the unit administrator and the faculty member, who may attach to the
evaluation a concise comment regarding the evaluation. The signature of the
faculty member signifies that the faculty member has read, but does not
necessarily concur in, the evaluation.
The unit administrator shall
forward to each faculty member a copy of that member's annual evaluation within
ten days after completing the evaluations of unit members.
The unit administrator's
annual performance evaluation of faculty members shall employ the criteria
contained in the unit code approved by the chancellor (ECU Faculty Manual,
Appendix L). The evaluation shall be
based upon that year's assigned duties and responsibilities (except, as earlier
noted, for the previous year's Spring semester survey of student opinion) and
shall consider:
1. teaching
The quality of teaching must
be evaluated by means of
2. scholarship and creative activities;
Faculty
scholarship may include the following categories:
a.
scholarship of
discovery—research or creative activity that advances the knowledge of an
academic discipline;
b.
scholarship of
teaching—research or creative activity that improves the quality of instruction
in an academic discipline;
c.
scholarship of engagement—research or
creative activity that uses the knowledge of an academic discipline to solve
social or community problems or to achieve social or community goals.
d.
scholarship of
integration—research or creative activity that links knowledge from two or more
academic disciplines to address intellectual or social questions.
3. patient care;
4. services rendered on department, school, college, and
university committees, councils, and senates; service to professional
organizations; service local, state and national governments; contributions to
the development of public forums, institutes, continuing education projects,
patients services and consulting in the private and public sectors; and
5. other responsibilities as may be appropriate to the
assignment.
The relative weight given to
teaching, researchscholarship/creative activity, and service in personnel
decisions shall be determined by each unit code. In no case, however, shall
service be weighed more heavily than either teaching or researchscholarship/creative activity. (Faculty Senate Resolution
#97-43, December 1997)
[1] For policies and procedures dealing with persons on
fixed term appointment, ECU Faculty Manual, Appendix D.
[2] With respect to Appendix C, Section III. Evaluation, “academic
units” are defined as: departments described in the codes of operation of
professional schools, the departments in the College of Arts and Sciences,
professional schools without departments, Academic Library Services, Health
Sciences Library, and any other units in which faculty evaluations are
made. In the College of Arts and
Sciences and in professional schools whose unit codes describe departmental
structures, departmental chairs are the unit administrators. In schools that do
not have departments described in their unit codes, the dean of the school is
the unit administrator.
East Carolina University Faculty Manual
APPENDIX C.
PERSONNEL POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR THE FACULTY
OF EAST CAROLINA UNIVERSITY
[1]
IV. Professional Advancement
Promotion is a means through
which professional achievement is encouraged, recognized, and rewarded by the
university. Evaluation of faculty for
purposes of promotion shall accord with the regulations established in
accordance with the unit code and shall employ the criteria contained in the
unit code approved by the chancellor (ECU Faculty Manual, Appendix L).
Departments in professional
schools may also establish guidelines for evaluation of faculty for promotion
consistent with the criteria in their school’s unit code. Specific regulations and criteria governing
evaluation of faculty for purposes of promotion may vary from unit to unit. As
a minimum each unit shall:
·
apply published
criteria in the teaching, and the
various forms of scholarship, and service for evaluating faculty for
promotion;
·
make available
procedures which will permit each faculty member to report achievements
annually or on a more frequent basis;
·
assure each faculty
member the right to discuss one's candidacy with the unit administrator and/or
the personnel committee at any time; and
·
notify each faculty
member within four days of receipt of the administration's call for promotion
recommendations.
Upon request by the faculty
member, the unit administrator and the unit personnel committee shall evaluate
the faculty member for promotion. Following such evaluation, the unit
administrator and the personnel committee shall inform the faculty member of
their respective recommendations.
Promotion shall be based primarily upon the faculty member's total
demonstrated professional competence and achievement. Procedures to be followed
for promotion are found in ECU Faculty Manual, Appendix D. Among the many qualifications which may be
considered when making recommendations for promotion, the following are
essential:
Assistant Professor -
Qualifications necessary to be appointed to the rank of instructor, an
appropriate terminal degree, as evaluated by the academic unit and affirmed by
the appropriate administrative officer and the profession concerned; a record
of progress toward teaching effectiveness; and evidence of a potential for
continued professional growth which shall, in part, be measured by scholarship/creative activity,/research
Associate Professor -
Qualifications of the previous rank; evidence of teaching effectiveness; a
record of scholarship or creative or research activity
resulting in publication or comparable productivity; a record of participation in
professional organizations; effective service on academic and/or administrative
committees, and a record of effective service to the profession.
Professor - Qualifications
of the previous ranks; an established record of excellence in teaching; a record
of significant scholarship or creative activity, or research
activity; a record of significant service to the profession, such
as contributions to the development of public forums, institutes, continuing
education projects, and patients services; consulting in the private and public
sectors; and a record of significant contribution as a member of academic
and/or administrative committees.
(Faculty Senate Resolution #99-7, March 1999)
Promotion usually should be
accompanied by a salary increment which shall be separate from any and all
other increments to
which the individual may be entitled.
Notwithstanding any previous statement that has appeared herein,
competence for promotion to a specific rank may be attested to by advanced
study, culminating in appropriate graduate degrees, or by extensive work
experience in the teaching fields or in a professional practice which is
demonstrably of highest quality.
[1] For policies and procedures dealing with persons on
fixed term appointment, ECU Faculty Manual, Appendix D.
East Carolina University Faculty Manual
APPENDIX C.
PERSONNEL POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR THE FACULTY
OF EAST CAROLINA UNIVERSITY [1]
V. Salary
A. Initial Salary
Initial salary shall be based on degree attainment, pertinent
experience, professional activity, scholarly publication or
its equivalent, and level of responsibility, consideration
being given to the salaries of personnel presently in the unit
and salaries within the discipline in comparable
institutions.
B. Determination of
Annual Salary Increments
The unit administrator shall recommend annual salary
increments to appropriate administrative officials in accordance with requirements
imposed by the North Carolina General Assembly, The University of North
Carolina Board of Governors, and the university administration, and shall
employ any additional criteria that have been established in this appendix, in
units codes, or in policies required by unit codes. Basic criteria for assessing merit shall include the degree of
teaching excellence; scholarship/creative
activity
and research; service to local, state, and national governments; as
well as contributions to the development of public forums, institutes,
continuing education projects, and patients' services. The unit administrator shall report annually
to the unit, in dollar amounts and percentages, the total increment allotted,
mean salary increment, and range in salary increments for the unit. Each faculty member shall be informed by the
unit administrator of any salary increment recommendations made on behalf of
the faculty member by the unit administrator.
[1] For policies and procedures dealing with persons on
fixed term appointment, ECU Faculty Manual, Appendix D.