CklstFullProCan

Governance

University of Wisconsin - Parkside
Personnel Review Committee

Dossier and File of Supporting Materials

Checklist for Full ProfessorCandidates

This checklist was developed to assist candidates for promotion to the rank of Professor and their departmental (or augmented) full professor subcommittees in preparing dossiers and files of supporting material. It is expected that each candidate and full professor subcommittee will follow this checklist precisely and comply with its requirements without deviation or exception. Please refer also to the PRC guidelines, which may be found at the following URL and provide more detailed descriptions of the items in the checklist.

http://www.uwp.edu/departments/governance/faculty/committee/prc/prcadvice.cfm

Criteria for promotion to the rank of Professor may be found in UWPF Chapter 6.

ttp://www.uwp.edu/departments/governance/faculty/policy/chap6new.cfm#Chp611

Effective for the academic year 2012-13, the term “dossier” refers to the electronic document housed in Sharepoint containing the materials listed in the left hand column of the checklist. The term “file” refers to the collection of materials that add support to the items in the dossier. Items to be placed in the file are listed in the right hand column. All materials submitted in the file must be mentioned in the dossier. The actual file is typically a box containing file folders arranged in the order in which the items appear in the checklist. Use labeled tabs to divide the major sections of the file.

The teaching and service related items in sections 2 and 4 will represent the most recent five years of teaching and service. The Curriculum Vitae is expected to contain a list of all scholarly/research/creative work. The scholarship items in section 3 will be limited to the candidate’s work since appointment to the rank of Associate Professor.

If necessary, consult the AACSU document, “The Core of Academe” for assistance in categorizing the candidate’s activities as teaching, research or service. This document is available at

http://uwp.edu/staff/gov/faccom/prc/AASCU.cfm

The chair of the full professor subcommittee must verify and indicate with a checkmark that each item or category on the checklist has been included in the dossier or file and completed per PRC guidelines, and must sign in the space provided at the bottom of the document. The completed checklist, each item checked off, and signed by the committee chair, will be uploaded by the chair to the Sharepoint site that houses the dossier.

Section 1. OVERVIEW

Dossier	Check Mark	File
1.1 Departmental policy on full professor promotion criteria
1.2 Candidate narrative. The candidate will write an extended narrative, explaining and detailing his/her career path since appointment to the rank of associate professor. It is intended that this piece be integrative and that it will pull together the candidate’s teaching, creative/scholarly work, and service. It should also include philosophies of teaching, research/creativity, and service. The candidate should understand this as an opportunity to make the case for where that colleague is in her/his career, the direction that took them there, and how their body of work - teaching, scholarship/creative activity, and service - merits promotion. The prescription of a minimum/maximum length has been avoided to encourage candidates to write reflectively, expansively, and adequately, with a focus on the substance of their narrative.
1.3 Cover letter from the full professor subcommittee recommending promotion. (normally composed by the chair but approved by the committee) The letter will include: names of faculty present at the full professor subcommittee meeting and the numeric vote. a summary of the candidate’s record in teaching, scholarly/creative activity, and service, and the subcommittee’s evaluation of the candidate’s work in each area. the area or areas in which the subcommittee finds that the candidate has achieved distinction as noted in UWPF 6.11 In composing the letter, keep in mind that it will be reviewed by faculty and administrators who are not experts in the candidate’s field.
1.31 Optional: Dissent letter/candidate rebuttal. In cases where the vote is split or the full professor subcommittee is not unanimous in backing the support letter as written by the chair, letters from other members of the committee may also be submitted. Each member has the right to submit a separate filing, but the candidate has the right to respond to any negative filing. The PRC full professor subcommittee will set a cut-off date for submission of these letters.
1.4 A complete curriculum vita. This CV should: summarize the candidate’s formal education (undergraduate, graduate, post-graduate, etc.) include institutions attended, locations, dates of attendance list degrees or other certification received and dates of receipt of degrees list employment history (in reverse chronological order), including employers, locations, dates, titles and responsibilities courses taught research/creative activity, chronologically and by category service list awards and honors received a more circumscribed listing of teaching, scholarship/creativity, and service will be required in sections 2,3 & 4 of the dossier respectively.
1.5 Candidate’s merit ratings. This section should: show the most recent five years of merit ratings in each category (teaching, research/creative activity, service & overall rating) if available for each rating (teaching, research/creative activity, service, and overall rating), include the department’s low and high scores and the departmental mean. include actual merit review forms for each year merit was done The full professor subcommittee will include: a statement on how often the department conducts merit reviews an explanation of how the scores are determined a narrative summary of the candidate’s scores, including how they compare to those of departmental colleagues and how they align with departmental expectations. The executive committee will also explain any unusually high or low scores and trends over time.

Section 2. TEACHING

Dossier	Check Mark	File
2.1 A chronological listing of courses taught in the most recent five years, including enrollments. Indicate which courses, if any, carried community based learning credit. Also highlight DV courses.		Syllabi. One syllabus for each course taught in the past five years, unless the candidate desires to highlight changes in the syllabus over time.) Other items that may be placed in the file include: documentation of community based learning activities, if any other supporting documentation such as assignments, exams, examples of student work, or anything else the candidate wishes to supply that will provide evidence of teaching strengths.
2.2 A sample of the student course evaluation form.
2.3 A summary of the student course evaluation scores for each course taught during the most recent five years of teaching. The full professor subcommittee will provide: a narrative summary of the scores, including their alignment with departmental expectations comparisons where appropriate (for example, comparisons between two faculty who teach the same course.) an explanation of any unusually low scores.		All written student comments on teaching from past five years, if these are collected.
2.4 Peer evaluations and results from other measures of teaching effectiveness from the most recent five years. (Optional) Annual narrative reflections on teaching can be included.		Letters of support from students or alumni. These may be solicited by the candidate or by other department members. Also teaching portfolios if any
2.5 Other Teaching Outcomes in last five years. Include evidence that shows results of teaching, such as student performance on standardized exams or in competition with students from other institutions, former students’ graduate education, career successes, etc.		Documentation. Especially documentation not easily included in the dossier.
2.6 Professional development. Describe and summarize all teaching improvement and professional development activities engaged in most recent five years.
2.7 A summary of the candidate’s advising activity in the most recent five years. This section should give some context, such as the candidate’s advising load compared to others in the department. Candidate may also include cross-disciplinary advising, as well as advising of students not officially assigned that is of a primarily academic nature.
2.8 Grant activity. description of any teaching-related grant proposals, if any whether funded or not amount of funding
2.81		Grant proposals and documentation of funding.
2.9 Honors and other special recognition. description of honors or recognition related to teaching, if any nominations for such honors, if any.
2.91		Documentation related to honors and special recognition received.
2.10 A list of miscellaneous items contained in the file		Miscellaneous. Any information, materials, documents, etc., that are germane to teaching, but not appropriate to include in any other category

Section 3. RESEARCH, SCHOLARSHIP, AND CREATIVE ACTIVITY

Dossier	Check Mark	File
3.1 Chronological listing of all research or other scholarly or creative activities done since appointment to rank of associate professor. Full bibliographic information on publications, including: author(s) name of journal/title of book volume, issue, year, and page numbers/book publisher equivalent information for shows performances, or media products. In the case of joint publications, the percent authorship of the candidate should be stated. Note student co-authors and community based projects. If the majority of the candidate’s work is collaborative, the full professor subcommittee should comment on how it values collaborative work vs. single authored works. Faculty whose work cannot be well presented in this standard format (fine arts faculty, for example) may use a more appropriate method for summarizing their scholarship and creative work. All work in this section must be chronologically listed within appropriate sub-categories (e.g., all refereed articles together, all other articles together, all book chapters together, all presentations together, etc.)		Single copies of all works listed. Please provide hard copies of standard materials such as articles, books and manuscripts. Audio and visual materials may be provided on digital media.
3.2 Stature of journals. This section will include: statement on the rejection/acceptance rates for each journal whether or not the journal is peer reviewed the stature of the journal in the field. impact factors, if known If rejection rates are not available, please provide whatever information is available about the nature and rigor of the peer review process. For book chapters or books, explain the selection process. For shows, performances or other ways of presenting scholarly or creative work, please provide similar information about the nature and rigor of the invitation, selection and review process, significance of venue, etc.		Reviews of published books.
3.3 Works in press and in progress. For works in press, give bibliographic information, list the number of manuscript pages, and give information on the status of the work. For works in progress give as much information as possible. (Works “in press” are actually accepted and slated for publication or the equivalent; works “in progress” are in the process of being completed, but not yet accepted for publication or equivalent.)		Document works in press. For works listed as accepted, include letters confirming this status and page proofs, if available. If work appears in published form or new work is accepted for publication or equivalent after initial submission of the file (i.e., moves from “in progress” to “in press” status), please send this information to the Secretary of the Faculty.
3.4 External review letters. Three or more letters from outside evaluators not closely connected to the candidate (not dissertation committee members, collaborators, co-authors, or departmental colleagues). All evaluators: should have the opportunity to review a substantial portion of the candidate’s work should only be sent candidate’s work since the time of appointment to the rank of associate professor. should also be sent a CV of the candidate. should specify in their letter what work has been reviewed. are also required to say explicitly what their relationship is to the candidate. The full professor subcommittee will: explain how the outside evaluators were chosen include a copy of the letter sent from the executive committee chair to the outside evaluators requesting their review of the candidate’s work explicitly instruct each outside evaluator to comment on the nature of his or her relationship with the candidate.		Additional letters of support from collaborators, external colleagues who know the candidate’s work, community or business representatives who have been affected by the candidate’s work, students and former students, etc.
3.5 Biographical sketch or brief curriculum vita for each evaluator. One paragraph for each is sufficient.		Complete CV for each evaluator.
3.6 Grant activity. description of any research/creative activity-related grant proposals, if any whether funded or not amount of funding		Grant proposals and documentation of funding.
3.7 Honors and other special recognition. description of honors or recognition related to research or creative activity, if any nominations for such honors, if any.		Documentation related to honors and special recognition received.
3.8 A list of miscellaneous items contained in the file		Miscellaneous. Any information, materials, documents, etc., that are germane to research, scholarship, and creative activity, but not appropriate to include in any other category

Section 4. SERVICE

Dossier	Check Mark	File
4.1 Chronological listing of all activities relating to service and leadership in the most recent five years. These should include the following categories where appropriate or relevant: department/academic program/center, etc. school or college university community profession other (specify) This listing should also include specific dates of service, office or position or special role played, etc.		Support letters from persons on or off campus who can offer thoughtful appraisals of the candidate’s contributions in any of the areas listed (e.g., committee chairs, professional society leaders, community leaders).
4.2 Grant activity. description of any service-related grant proposals, if any whether funded or not amount of funding		Grant proposals and documentation of funding.
4.3 Honors and other special recognition. description of honors or recognition related to service, if any nominations for such honors, if any		Documentation related to honors and special recognition received.
4.4 A list of miscellaneous items contained in the file		Miscellaneous. Any information, materials, documents, etc., that are germane to service, but not appropriate to include in any other category

I have reviewed the contents of this dossier and verify that it is complete.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

Signature of Full Professor Subcommittee Chair Date

University of Wisconsin - Parkside Personnel Review Committee

Dossier and File of Supporting Materials

Checklist for Full ProfessorCandidates

University of Wisconsin - Parkside
Personnel Review Committee