These bylaws may be amended in accordance
with the collective bargaining agreement in place at the time of the amendment.
2.1 Membership
All full-time faculty members of Wright
State University with primary appointments in the Department of Electrical Engineering
are voting members of the Department.
2.2 Organization
The Department faculty will use Department
meetings to make recommendations and to inform the faculty of items of interest
occurring in the Department, the College, and the University. All recommendations
of the Department faculty shall be made by simple majority vote. Conduct of
the meetings of the Department, and those of its committees, may be informal,
but in case of dispute over procedure, Robert’s Rules of Order (revised) must
be followed.
A meeting of the Department faculty
shall be called at least once each term from September to June by the Department
chair. Additional meetings shall be called as necessary.
A meeting agenda shall be distributed
by the chair to all members of the Department at least two business days before
the meeting. Members should suggest items to the chair prior to this time. A
quorum for the meeting is defined as a majority of the bargaining unit faculty
in the Department. Written minutes of the meeting shall be kept.
2.3 Standing Committees
The Department of Electrical Engineering
faculty governance structure consists of four standing committees: the Undergraduate
Studies Committee, the Graduate Studies Committee, the Faculty Development Committee,
and the Laboratory Resources Committee. All committee appointments are effective
for at least one but not more than two academic years except as noted below.
New committee members will take office in the fall term.
2.4 Ad hoc Committees
The Department faculty, any standing
committee, or the Department chair may form ad hoc committees to undertake and
discharge specific tasks.
2.5 General Responsibility
It is expected that committees will
discharge their duties in a timely and professional manner, maintain a record
of significant activities, and report their progress and product to the appropriate
body or authority. It is expected that committees will occasionally establish
guidelines they view as helpful in the efficient execution of their duties.
A guideline may constitute a useful precedent and will be made available to
successive committees for their convenience. Guidelines are not binding on future
committees.
Committees may form subcommittees
to focus on certain specific issues within the committee’s general areas of
responsibility. Findings, reports, minutes of meetings, and correspondence shall
be maintained by the committee chair.
2.6 Undergraduate
Studies Committee
2.6.1 Purpose
The Committee has the responsibility
for evaluating and making recommendations on issues relating to the undergraduate
programs associated with the Department. In particular, the Committee shall
- Assist in obtaining and sustaining accreditation of eligible programs
in the Department.
- Make recommendations on all changes, additions, or deletions of undergraduate
courses offered by the Department of Electrical Engineering.
- Make recommendations on all changes in the requirements for degrees or
certificate programs in all undergraduate programs in the Department.
- Review materials used in courses to insure that course content is consistent
with the catalog descriptions and prerequisite material is covered in prerequisite
courses.
- Review student responses and summative reviews generated for ABET course
evaluations and assist in the preparation of materials for ABET reviews.
- Review and make recommendations on undergraduate petitions.
- Review and make recommendations for undergraduate awards and scholarships.
The Undergraduate Studies Committee
may delegate some of its curriculum development and maintenance tasks to “Area
Committees” concerned with courses clustered in sub-disciplines with membership
generally consisting of faculty with expertise in these areas and faculty
with teaching responsibilities in these areas.
2.6.2 Composition
The Committee shall be composed
of at least four BUFMs, appointed by the Department chair, and the Department
chair (non-voting). Prior to the end of the academic year, the members shall
elect the chair of the committee to serve the following academic year. Since
the evolution of curriculum matters can be a lengthy process and since continuity
of leadership is often critical in making real progress, the chair of the
undergraduate studies committee is not limited to a two-year term of service.
Prior to the end of the academic year, the committee will forward to the Department
chair the name of the member recommended to serve as the Departmental representative
to the College Curriculum Committee for the following academic year. Normally,
the incoming chair of this committee assumes this duty.
2.7 Graduate Studies
Committee
2.7.1 Purpose
The Committee has the responsibility
of evaluating and making recommendations on all issues relating to the graduate
programs of the Department. In particular, the Committee shall
- Make recommendations on all changes, additions, or deletions of graduate
courses offered by the Department of Electrical Engineering.
- Make recommendations on all changes in the requirements for degrees or
certificates in all graduate programs in the Department.
- Make recommendations on all variations and exceptions to the degree requirements.
This includes the evaluation of transfer courses and substitutions in the
degree program.
- Review and make recommendations on graduate petitions.
- Review and make recommendations on admission to graduate programs.
2.7.2 Composition
The Committee shall be composed
of at least four BUFMs, appointed by the Department chair, and the Department
chair (non-voting). The Department chair shall appoint the chair of the committee
who will also act as the Graduate Studies Director for the Department. The
graduate studies director appointment is not limited to two years. Prior to
the end of the academic year, the committee will forward to the Department
chair the name of the member recommended to serve as the Departmental representative
to the College Graduate Studies Committee.
2.8 Faculty Development
Committee
2.8.1 Purpose
To assist in establishing and maintaining
a faculty of excellence, that is, a faculty exhibiting superior performance
in teaching, research, and service. The specific responsibilities of the Committee
are as follows:
- To provide an annual evaluation of all untenured BUFMs summarizing their
progress toward tenure as discussed in Section 3.1.3.1.
- To provide an annual evaluation for all tenured Assistant and Associate
Professors summarizing their progress toward promotion unless the individual
requests that the evaluation be conducted once every three years.
- To provide for peer evaluation of teaching for faculty members. Details
concerning the process of peer evaluation are described in Section 3. A
report on the peer evaluations will be reviewed by the Faculty Development
Committee and submitted to the Department chair (copy to evaluee)
as resource material for preparing annual evaluations.
- To provide assistance, exhortation, or intervention for bargaining-unit
faculty who exhibit performance or behavior patterns below department standards.
- To review and make recommendations on tenure and promotion cases.
- To review and make recommendations for requests for Professional Development
or other leave.
- To arrange for colloquia and special lectures to support faculty areas
of interest.
- To appoint a mentor for each untenured BUFM.
2.8.2 Composition
The Committee shall be composed
of all tenured BUFMs in the Department and the Department Chair (non-voting).
If there is an insufficient number of members of the Committee, as required
by the collective bargaining agreement, the committee will consult with the
candidates and select tenured BUFMs from other Departments to bring the membership
to the minimum required. Prior to the end of the academic year, the members
shall elect the chair of the Committee to serve the following academic year.
Voting members of the Committee shall not participate in the evaluation of
members nor vote on recommendations for promotion to ranks higher than their
own.
2.8.3 Activities
The Faculty Development Committee
shall meet as needed to undertake such tasks as it may set for itself in achieving
the goals expressed above.
2.9. Laboratory Resources
Committee
2.9.1 Purpose
The Committee has the responsibility
of evaluating and making recommendations on certain issues relating to the
staffing, housing, and equipping the various laboratories of the Department.
In particular, the Committee shall
- Make recommendations on the selection of Departmentally-funded GTAs and
GRAs.
- Review and make recommendations on the utilization and expansion of laboratory
equipment and space.
2.9.2 Composition
The Committee shall be composed
of at least four BUFMs, appointed by the Department chair, and the Department
chair (non-voting). Normally, the committee shall consist of faculty members
who are actively involved in the development and maintenance of the department
laboratories.
The following general criteria apply
for the evaluation of BUFMs for annual reviews and for promotion and tenure.
More specific requirements for annual evaluation, and for promotion or tenure
to Associate Professor and to Professor are discussed in following sections.
The qualitative measures are defined in this section. It is the responsibility
of the faculty member to provide evidence of excellence as a scholar, as a teacher,
and as an effective service provider to the institution and to the academic
and professional communities. Letters of reference may be used as evidence of
strength or contributions. The criteria are grouped into three categories: Research,
Teaching, and Service.
3.1 Research
The most important components of a
faculty member’s research performance are the publication record, the record
of external funding, and the evaluation letters received from external referees.
While it is understood that faculty typically focus their research within their
own engineering discipline, it is acknowledged that engineering education is
a viable field for research endeavors.
3.1.1 Scholarship
A scholarship record consists of
monographs, textbooks, archival journal papers, patents, conference papers,
technical reports, and other published works.
3.1.1.1 Monographs, Textbooks, and Journal Papers
Monographs and textbooks are
considered of high scholarly value only if they are respected, peer-reviewed
technical contributions in the appropriate field.
Journal papers are considered
to be high quality only if they appear in archival, internationally-recognized,
technical journals that include a formal, rigorous review process and adhere
to an acceptance criteria comparable to that of IEEE transactions and journals.
3.1.1.2 Other Forms of Publications
A complete publication record
includes more than books and journal papers. Patents, papers appearing in
journals not meeting the criterion described in Section 3.1.1.1, conference
papers (both refereed and otherwise), books other than those qualifying
above, book chapters, magazine articles, and web-published works are all
worthy products of faculty scholarship. While these individual works are
generally of lesser scholarly value than the book or archival journal paper,
they may, in aggregate, represent significant scholarship value.
In particular, papers appearing
in highly-selective, conference proceedings with selections based on peer
review of the full paper, that have standards commensurate with those of
the various IEEE societies’ premier conferences are deemed as high-quality
and have scholarly value as discussed below. In order to have significant
impact, it is imperative that the conferences involved be widely recognized
as refereed, selective, and of the highest quality. The quality and visibility
of the conference as a focal point for research in the area must be clearly
evidenced by the candidate.
3.1.1.3 Quantitative Composition
and Relative Values of Scholarly Works
It is required that at least
one-half of the candidate’s required journal publications appear in high-quality
journals. The value of one awarded U.S. patent is equivalent to that of
one journal paper. The value of one high-quality conference paper is equivalent
to that of one-fifth of one journal paper with the limitation that at most
two conference papers may be so regarded per year of professional service
after receiving the terminal degree. Scholarship of other forms, as listed
in this section, can be considered as performance equivalents when equivalent
scholarship accomplishment is clearly evidenced. Additional limitations
affecting acceptable proportionalities in the scholarship record are noted
in the sections addressing specific expectations for promotion and tenure.
3.1.1.4 Authorship Considerations
A majority of the required publications,
especially the archival publications, should have the faculty member as
a primary contributor. Collaborative efforts are encouraged where appropriate
when resources can be obtained through teamwork that would not be available
to the single investigator. Nevertheless, a publication record in which
a disproportionate share of the papers are primarily authored by collaborators
is not appropriate in that it fails to document the establishment of an
independent research program.
3.1.1.5 Citation Records
While it is difficult to measure
the long-term impact of one’s scholarship, the record of citations of work
authored or coauthored by faculty members, as found in the Science Citation
Index is an indication of the significance of published works.
3.1.1.6 Consistency in the Publication
Record
The faculty member should be
able to show that the publication record has been built and sustained over
his or her time at Wright State University. It is natural that a transient
period may occur as faculty establish their own research program, or develop
new avenues of investigation. However, once a reasonable period of adjustment
expires, the research program of the faculty member should begin to grow
and produce in a fairly steady manner. To receive a favorable evaluation,
evidence of consistency must be present in the faculty member’s record.
3.1.2 Funding
Faculty members are expected to
contribute to the Departmental research mission not only through scholarly
publication, but also by obtaining resources to support research activities.
The primary objective of seeking funding is to aid in the production of high
quality scholarship and to allow a faculty member to build the infrastructure
to sustain such activities.
3.1.2.1 External Awards
The cornerstone of an active academic
research program and a priority in the Departmental research mission is
the sustained support of graduate students and building research infrastructure.
It is understood that funding from external awards is commonly used to support
research activities, facilities, and personnel in addition to graduate students.
While these expenditures may all be instrumental in establishing and maintaining
a research program, it is the sustained support of graduate students and
total research funding that will be used as primary measures of the research
value of external funding awards.
Along with refereed publications,
the success of reviewed proposals by private, government, and industrial
sources provides an additional external measure of the quality and contribution
of faculty research. Faculty members are expected to demonstrate success
in obtaining competitive funding in the role of principal or co-principal
investigators.
3.1.2.2 Internal and Targeted
Funding
Opportunities for “internal”
funding opportunities, i.e., those that limit the competition for the awards,
frequently exist within Wright State University and from targeted programs
such as those sponsored by DAGSI and the Ohio Board of Regents. Often, a
primary objective of these programs is to enhance the recipient’s ability
to competitively obtain additional external funding from other agencies.
Success of these programs should be directly reflected in the publications
generated and external funding obtained as a result of the internal support.
Consequently, internal funding has little bearing in an evaluation for promotion
or tenure.
3.2 Teaching
Faculty members are expected to demonstrate
excellence: in the classroom and in the laboratory; as a major advisor for Ph.D.
dissertations, M.S. theses, and M.S. research projects; as a supervisor for
senior design, honors, independent study, and summer projects; as a mentor of
students; and in curriculum and program development. Since both the practice
of engineering and methods of teaching are constantly changing, faculty members
are expected to implement innovations in curriculum content, delivery, and learning
environment. The Great emphasis is placed on meaningful laboratory experiences.
Faculty members are expected to create and maintain valuable and technologically
relevant learning experiences in the laboratory as well as in the classroom.
Evidence of excellence in the classroom
can be inferred from a variety of sources. These include: evaluations of classroom
instruction by students, alumni, and peers; the publication of textbooks, courseware,
web-based learning modules, or laboratory modules; substantive course development
or revision; and documented teaching innovations, curriculum development, external
support for curriculum development, teaching awards, and publications addressing
engineering education or courseware.
Evidence of excellence in laboratory
instruction includes evaluations of the laboratory experience by students, alumni,
peers, and GTA’s, published or distributed courseware, substantive lab creation
or enhancement, equipment innovations reflecting current technology, external
support for laboratory development or equipment, and publications addressing
engineering education or courseware.
Faculty members are expected to effectively
and creatively use available classroom and laboratory resources and administer
their classes and laboratories in a manner that is punctual, prepared, professional,
and personable. In addition, faculty members should be available, outside of
class, for a reasonable period of time each week, to meet with students from
class, from student organizations, or who are seeking advice on other academic
matters.
Faculty members are expected to treat
students with courtesy and respect and in a manner that affirms their professional
development. Each faculty member is expected to teach a variety of material
at both undergraduate and graduate levels subject to Department scheduling constraints.
Peer evaluation of teaching and student
evaluation of teaching are employed as processes for measuring teaching effectiveness.
In the implementation of these processes, it is important that the evaluation
results are interpreted with respect to faculty rank & experience, class
type, class level, and other factors that may influence the data but are not
necessarily relevant to measuring effectiveness.
3.2.1 Peer Evaluation of Teaching
Teaching represents a multifaceted
activity, which can be evaluated in many different ways. An important way
of evaluating teaching is the evaluation through peers. Such a peer evaluation
shall be an integral part of the evaluation provided by the department faculty
development committee to untenured faculty members on an annual basis and
to other faculty members as specified below. Evaluations should cover courses
at different levels and of different kinds to gain a composite view of teaching
effectiveness.
The peer evaluation procedure separately
addresses the evaluation of content and the evaluation of delivery.
Content is defined as the total production of faculty not directly
associated with student contact, e.g., syllabus, books, lab manuals, web resources,
notes, handouts, exams, presentations, demonstrations, homework, etc. Delivery
encompasses activities directly associated with student contact, e.g., classroom
and laboratory environment, lecture style, project team leadership, accessibility,
punctuality, congeniality, grading, promptness, GTA management, etc. Requirements
for and administration of peer teaching evaluations are discussed below.
3.2.1.1 Evaluation Administration
The department bargaining unit
faculty shall annually elect one tenured BUFM as the coordinator for peer
teaching evaluation. Peer teaching evaluation shall be performed by an ad-hoc
committee of at least three tenured BUFMs appointed by the department chair
with input from the teaching evaluation coordinator. One committee member
shall be appointed as the chair, who shall draft the necessary reports for
review of the whole committee.
Untenured faculty are evaluated
with regard to content for at least one course annually. Untenured faculty
are evaluated with regard to delivery for at least one course annually.
Tenured associate professors
are evaluated with regard to content for at least one course annually. Tenured
associate professors are evaluated with regard to delivery for at least
one course annually.
Tenured full professors are evaluated
with regard to content for at least one course annually. Tenured full professors
are evaluated with regard to delivery at the request of the individual faculty
member.
Individual faculty members can
request additional content or delivery evaluations whenever desired. Additional
evaluations may also be suggested by the faculty development committee or
by the chair when warranted.
3.2.1.2 Evaluation of Content
For the evaluation of content,
the teaching evaluation committee may recommend the formation of a committee
consisting of tenured BUFMs teaching in similar course areas as the assessee.
The committee will review the syllabus, books, lab manuals, web resources,
notes, handouts, exams, presentations, demonstrations, homework, etc. The
committee will write a report evaluating the faculty member’s teaching content,
based on its review.
3.2.1.3 Evaluation of Delivery
For the assessment of delivery,
the evaluation committee chair shall obtain from the faculty member to be
evaluated a list of all class meetings for the current quarter indicating
those classes not conducive to a classroom evaluation. Each committee member
will choose one visit date, not coinciding with another member’s visit date.
Peer visits are to be unannounced and extend through the whole class period.
When all visits are completed,
the committee shall meet and discuss observations. The committee chair shall
then set up a meeting with the faculty member who was evaluated and convey
the assessment of the committee. After receiving the written report from
the committee chair, the assessee may ask for clarifications or submit a
rebuttal within two weeks, which must be attached to the teaching evaluation
report.
3.2.1.4 Peer Evaluation Reports
All reports from the evaluation
of content and the evaluation of delivery will be conveyed to the evaluee,
the FDC, and the Department Chair.
3.2.2 Student Evaluation of
Instruction
Bargaining-unit faculty are required
to participate in the student evaluation of instruction process as prescribed
by the CBA. The results of these evaluations, in whatever form available,
will be used as one of the measures of teaching effectiveness.
3.2.3 Consistency in Teaching
Consistency is a key aspect of the
candidate’s evaluation with respect to teaching. Generally poor teaching evaluations
punctuated by the occasional good or excellent responses are not considered
sufficient for promotion and tenure.
3.2.4 Symptoms of Unsatisfactory
Teaching
While it may be difficult to define
acceptable teaching, the symptoms of unsatisfactory teaching tend to be more
obvious. These include (but are not limited to):
- Missed classes (without informing the Department or without adequate
explanation)
- Missed advising appointments
- Persistent, legitimate student complaints
- Erratic classroom behavior
- Failure to keep appropriate office hours or otherwise be available to
students and advisees
- Failure to respond appropriately to reasonable student questions or complaints
- Irresponsible or unprofessional conduct with students
- Failure to provide the chair the documentation required for evaluation
of teaching
- Refusal to teach assigned courses
3.3 Service
Faculty members are expected to contribute
to efforts that advance the Department, the academic community and its professional
activities. The very nature of service, which often involves behind-the-scenes
contributions, makes it difficult to measure. At the same time, much of the
growth and progress of the Department is directly related to the service offered
by faculty. The value of service is difficult to overstate. In order to facilitate
evaluation of the significance of a service activity, the faculty member should
describe the nature, time-investment, and impact of their contribution to that
endeavor or committee.
Examples of valued service at the
Department and College level include active participation in recruiting and
retaining students, serving as a reviewer for the purpose of peer evaluation
of teaching, technical and developmental interaction with government and industry,
and advising students participating in defense or industry-sponsored design
projects. This is in addition to actively and responsibly participating in Department,
College, and University committees. When serving in these latter roles, faculty
members should consistently attend assigned committee and other Departmental
meetings and complete the work necessary for the committees to fulfill their
responsibilities.
Examples of service to the professional
and scholarly communities include holding leadership roles in professional societies
and organizations, holding editorships of journals and other widely-disseminated
technical publications, serving on conference organization and technical committees,
organizing and chairing tracts or sessions at conferences, reviewing papers,
books, and proposals and participating in review panels.
4.1 Criteria for
Promotion to Associate Professor with Tenure
In this section we outline specific
quantitative requirements for promotion to Associate Professor with tenure
and for awarding tenure to an untenured Associate Professor. Levels of performance
are described in terms of “strong,” “expected,” “competent,” and “unacceptable”
using the evaluation criteria and qualitative measures for the components in
the areas of research, teaching, and service described in Section 3 above. An
unacceptable” rating is assigned to any of the components below when the candidate’s
record fails to meet the criteria for “competent.”
To be promoted to associate professor
and/or tenured, a candidate must demonstrate a level of performance that is
“competent” in service, that averages to a composite level of no less than “expected”
in teaching, and that averages to a composite level of no less than “expected”
in research.
An “expected” rating for teaching
can be obtained with any of the following combinations:
| INSTRUCTION |
GRADUATE ADVISING |
| Expected |
Expected |
| Strong |
Competent |
| Competent |
Strong |
An “expected” rating for research
can be obtained with any of the following combinations:
| SCHOLARSHIP |
FUNDING |
| Expected |
Expected |
| Strong |
Competent |
| Competent |
Strong |
4.1.1 Time of Consideration
It is normally expected that an
Assistant Professor will be considered for promotion to Associate Professor
with tenure during the sixth year at Wright State University, or the final
probationary year. Consideration for the award of tenure to an untenured Associate
Professor will generally occur during his or her third year at Wright State
University. The criteria below refer to the candidate’s record with emphasis
on the immediately preceding five years, which may include time prior to the
candidate’s joining the faculty at Wright State University.
4.1.2 Early Consideration
A candidate may be
considered for promotion to Associate Professor or for tenure prior to the
normal time when a candidate’s performance is uniformly rated “strong” in
research and teaching or when a candidate has experience as a tenure track
faculty member at other institutions. In this case, the candidate’s performance
must be of the level and duration at Wright State University for the Faculty
Development Committee to be confident of its recommendation.
4.1.3 Research
Faculty research is evaluated in
terms of scholarship and funding. In the evaluation of a faculty member’s
contribution, these two components are assigned equivalent weights. The composite
evaluation for research is the average of the two components. An “unacceptable”
rating is assigned to any candidate who fails to meet the “competent” criteria
in either component.
4.1.3.1 Scholarship
A strong scholarship record
includes twelve or more journal papers in addition to publications of other
form (see Section 3). An expected scholarship record includes at
least nine journal papers in addition to publications of other form. A record
that is just competent includes at least seven journal papers and
evidence of activity in generating publications of other form.
4.1.3.2 Funding
A strong funding record
includes total funding of at least $300,000.00, and 16 quarters of graduate
student support. An expected funding record includes at least $150,000.00
in total funding, and 8 quarters of graduate student support. A record that
is just competent includes at least $100,000.00 in total funding,
and 6 quarters of graduate student support.
.1.4 Teaching
Faculty teaching is evaluated
in terms of instruction and graduate advising. In the evaluation of a faculty
member’s contribution, the components are assigned equivalent weight. An
“unacceptable” rating is assigned to any candidate that fails to meet the
“competent” criteria in either component.
4.1.4.1 Instruction
A strong evaluation in
instruction requires: consistently excellent student and peer evaluations
along with evidence of teaching awards or other evidence of exemplary teaching
performance; and demonstrated participation in curriculum development, laboratory
development, instructional innovation, course oversight, and student advising
beyond that expected of a typical faculty member. An expected evaluation
in instruction requires: consistently-favorable student and peer evaluations;
and demonstrated participation in curriculum development, laboratory development,
instructional innovation, course oversight, and student advising. Performance
is competent if the faculty member’s most recent student and peer
evaluations are favorable with performance improving with experience; and
if the faculty member demonstrates competence with classroom and laboratory
instruction, is well prepared for their teaching assignment, communicates
the material effectively, administers classrooms and laboratories punctually
and consistently, and is available to students. Competent performance
requires student and peer evaluation measures that are absent a clear pattern
of the symptoms of unsatisfactory teaching outlined in Section 3.1.3.2.
4.1.4.2 Graduate Advising
A strong record includes
the successful advising to completion of nine graduate student units, where
a unit is measured in terms of M.S. and Ph.D. students with one M.S. student
representing one unit and one Ph.D. student representing three units. An
expected record includes the successful advising to completion of
six graduate student units. A competent record includes the successful
advising to completion of at least three graduate student units.
4.1.5 Service
A competent rating requires
that the candidate compile a record of regularly and effectively serving the
needs of the Department, College, or University through participation in Department,
College, and University committees as assigned or as opportunities arise.
In addition, a competent record includes evidence of willingness to
serve the professional community by reviewing manuscripts, or reviewing grant
proposals, or serving on conference committees or performing other service.
4.2 Criteria for
Promotion to Professor
The career accomplishments of the
candidate for promotion to professor should show clear evidence of nationally
or internationally recognized contributions to the discipline. Moreover, evidence
of continuing and consistent scholarship is required to ensure that the candidate’s
contributions represent the current state of the discipline and an appropriate
level of scholarly activity.
Levels of performance are described
in terms of “superior,” “strong,” and “expected.” A candidate whose record is
“expected” in teaching or service must demonstrate “superior” performance in
a second area and no less than “strong” in the third area to receive a favorable
recommendation for promotion. A less than “expected” rating in any area is sufficient
for an unfavorable recommendation for promotion.
To be promoted to professor a candidate
must demonstrate a level of performance that averages no less than “strong”
in research, that averages no less than “strong” across teaching and service,
and does not fall below “expected” in any component.
A “strong” rating for research can
be obtained with any of the following combinations:
| SCHOLARSHIP |
FUNDING |
| Strong |
Strong |
| Superior |
Expected |
| Expected |
Superior |
A “strong” rating for teaching and
service combined can be obtained with any of the following combinations:
| INSTRUCTION |
GRADUATE ADVISING |
SERVICE |
| Strong |
Strong |
Strong |
| Superior |
Expected |
Strong |
| Superior |
Strong |
Expected |
| Strong |
Superior |
Expected |
| Strong |
Expected |
Superior |
| Expected |
Superior |
Strong |
| Expected |
Strong |
Superior |
4.2.1 Time of Consideration
To provide sufficient time to establish
a continuous record of research at the level expected for promotion to Professor,
a candidate normally will have completed at least five years at the rank of
Associate Professor. In exceptional cases, a candidate may be considered for
promotion to Professor prior to the completion of five years at the rank of
Associate Professor. A candidate may be considered exceptional when the record
for research, teaching, and service is uniformly rated “superior” and when
this level of performance has been of sufficient duration for the Faculty
Development Committee to be confident of its recommendation.
4.2.2 Research
Faculty research is evaluated in
terms of scholarship and funding. In the evaluation of a faculty member’s
contribution, these two components are assigned equivalent weights. The composite
evaluation for research is the average of the scholarship and funding components.
An “unacceptable” rating is assigned to any candidate record that fails to
meet the “expected” criteria in either scholarship or funding.
4.2.2.1 Scholarship
A superior scholarship
record includes 24 or more journal papers (12 or more occurring since the
last promotion) in addition to publications of other form (see Section 3).
A strong scholarship record includes at least 21 journal papers (10
or more occurring since the last promotion) in addition to publications
of other form. A record that is just expected includes at least 18
journal papers (9 or more occurring since the last promotion) in addition
to publications of other form. While scholarship of several forms may, in
aggregate, satisfy the expectations described here (see section 3.1.1.3),
at least three-fourths of the requirement must be satisfied by archival
journal papers.
4.2.2.2Funding
A superior funding record
includes total funding of at least $1,000,000.00 (with at least $500,000.00
occurring since the last promotion), and 40 quarters of graduate student
support (with at least 20 occurring since the last promotion). A strong
record includes funding of at least $750,000.00 (with at least $325,000.00
occurring since the last promotion), and 30 quarters of graduate student
support (with at least 15 occurring since the last promotion). A record
that is just expected includes funding of at least $500,000.00 (with
at least $250,000.00 occurring since the last promotion), and 20 quarters
of graduate student support (with at least 10 occurring since last promotion).
4.2.3 Teaching
Faculty teaching is evaluated in
terms of instruction and graduate advising. In the evaluation of a faculty
member’s contribution, the instruction and graduate advising components are
assigned the same weight. An “unacceptable” rating is assigned to any candidate
record that fails to meet the “expected” criteria in either instruction or
graduate advising.
4.2.3.1 Instruction
A superior evaluation
in instruction requires: consistently excellent student and peer evaluations
along with teaching awards or other evidence of exemplary teaching performance;
and demonstrated consistent leadership and participation in curriculum development,
laboratory development, instructional innovation, course oversight, and
student advising beyond that expected of a typical faculty member. A strong
evaluation in instruction requires: consistently-favorable student and peer
evaluations desirably with performance improving with experience; and demonstrated
consistent participation in curriculum development, laboratory development,
instructional innovation, course oversight, and student advising. Performance
is expected if the faculty member’s most recent student and peer
evaluations are favorable with performance improving with experience; and
if the faculty member exhibits commitment to curriculum development, laboratory
development, instructional innovation, course oversight, and student advising;
demonstrates competence with classroom and laboratory instruction, is well
prepared for their teaching assignment, communicates the material effectively,
administers classrooms and laboratories punctually and consistently, and
is available to students. Expected performance requires student and
peer evaluation measures that are absent a clear pattern of the symptoms
of unsatisfactory teaching outlined in Section 3.1.3.2.
4.2.3.2 Graduate Advising
A superior record includes
the successful advising to completion of 18 graduate student units including
at least 2 Ph.D. students, where a unit is measured in terms of M.S. and
Ph.D. students with one M.S. student representing one unit and one Ph.D.
student representing three units. A strong record includes the successful
advising to completion of 9 graduate student units including at least 1
Ph.D. student. An expected record includes the successful advising
of at least 6 graduate student units including at least 1 Ph.D. student.
4.2.4 Service
The service contribution of a faculty
member is generally measured with regard to activities described in Section
3.1.4.
A superior rating in service
requires substantial service to professional and scholarly communities outside
the University and demonstrated leadership and commitment in service to the
Department, College, or University. Substantial service implies leadership
or accomplishments that confirm that the individual is nationally or internationally
acknowledged for his or her service accomplishments. A superior rating
indicates the candidate’s contribution to be well beyond that expected of
a typical faculty member.
A strong rating in service
requires that the candidate compile a record of regularly and effectively
serving the needs of the Department and also the College or University through
participation in recruiting and retaining students, through professional interaction
with local government and industry, and through leadership of and regular
participation in Department and either College or University committees. Evidence
of significant service leadership at Wright State or in professional societies
is required. In addition, a strong rating requires that the candidate
show evidence of involvement on the national level by reviewing manuscripts,
reviewing grant proposals, serving on conference committees or performing
other service to the professional community.
An expected record must
demonstrate that the candidate consistently serves the needs of the Department
and also the College or University through participation in recruiting and
retaining students and through regularly and effectively serving on Department,
College, or University committees. In addition, an expected record
includes evidence of serving the professional community by reviewing manuscripts,
reviewing grant proposals, serving on conference committees or performing
other service to the professional community.
4.3 Criteria for
Award of Tenure to an Untenured Professor
Consideration for the award of tenure
to an untenured Professor will occur during his or her second year at Wright
State University. To ensure that the candidate’s contributions represent the
current state of the discipline and to provide confidence that an appropriate
level of scholarly activity will be sustained in the future, the candidate’s
record must roughly satisfy the criteria for promotion to Professor listed above.
4.4 Criteria for
Initial Appointment with Tenure
Occasionally an award of tenure is
made with an initial appointment to the rank of Associate Professor or Professor.
When this is considered, it is expected that the candidate currently has tenure
at an academic institution whose stature and expectations are comparable with
those of Wright State University. The career accomplishments of the candidate
should provide clear and compelling evidence of a nationally recognized contributor
to the discipline. To ensure that the candidate’s contributions represent the
current state of the discipline and to provide confidence that an appropriate
level of scholarly activity has been attained, the specific criteria, discussed
above, for promotion to the rank being considered must be satisfied.
5. ANNUAL EVALUATION
The annual performance evaluation
of BUFMs by the department chair assesses contributions in the categories of
research, teaching, and service in terms of 4 = “extraordinary,” 3 = “outstanding,”
2 = “meritorious,” 1 = “adequate,” and 0 = “unsatisfactory.” The numerical scores
summarizing these evaluations are assigned based on the qualitative measures
discussed in Section 3 and the quantitative measures discussed below. In order
to aid the equity and understanding of this process, the Department chair will
compile and distribute to faculty a summary of the prior year’s evaluation statistics
on an annual basis.
Each category is evaluated in terms
of an integer from 0 to 4, with 4 representing “extraordinary,” following the
procedures described below. The overall BUFM performance evaluation is computed
as a convex sum ( rT * wT + rR * wR+ rS * wS ), where the numerical ratings
for teaching, research, and service are denoted by rT, rR, and rS, respectively
and where the weight factors: (wT, wR, wS) are constrained according to BUFM
academic rank (shown below). The weights must add to 1 and are chosen to maximize
the sum within these constraints. The resulting weighted sum is the overall
numerical rating for an individual.
Weight Factor Ranges by BUFM Academic
Rank
| Weight Category |
Assistant Professor |
Associate Professor |
Professor |
| Teaching: wT |
0.4 – 0.5 |
0.3 – 0.6 |
0.3 – 0.6 |
| Research: wR |
0.4 – 0.5 |
0.2 – 0.6 |
0.2 – 0.6 |
| Service: wS |
0.0 – 0.1 |
0.1 – 0.3 |
0.1 – 0.3 |
The Department chair may assign weightings
different from those defined above in any of the following situations:
- To accommodate the faculty member’s unique work assignment
- To impose discipline pursuant to the CBA.
- To correct a pattern of substandard performance extending for more than
one year.>
5.1 Specific Evaluation
Assignments
In the following subsections, criteria
for the annual evaluation of research, teaching, and service are discussed.
An evaluation of “unsatisfactory” in any area indicates that the faculty member
has not demonstrated adequate production in that area. Substantial and immediate
improvement is imperative.
Objective interpolation and extrapolation
will be used to evaluate cases not falling directly into the categories described
below. Further, since academic and scholarly products are often accomplished
over the course of multiple years, performance in recent years, as well as performance
in the current evaluation year will be considered so as to mitigate misrepresentations
caused by temporal quantization.
5.2 Research
Measures for productivity in research
include: Awards for research or scholarship; publication of journal papers,
books, or other forms of research; acceptance of journal papers, books, or other
forms of scholarship; submission of journal papers, books, or other forms of
scholarship; quarters of graduate student support; total funding expenditures;
new proposals awarded; new proposals submitted; and award or submission of patents.
Notice that, while research performance
is divided into scholarship and funding, the composite sum of these activities
are used to measure research performance, with compensatory allowances permitted
between the categories.
5.2.1 Performance at the Extraordinary (= 4) level
Scholarship: Two or more
journal papers or books published, with several journal papers or books accepted
or submitted, and some production of other forms of scholarship.
Funding: Eight quarters
of graduate student support, $75k or more research expenditures, with evidence
of continuing external funding awards or submissions.
5.2.2 Performance at the Outstanding
(= 3) level
Scholarship: One or more
journal papers or books published, with at least one journal paper or book
accepted or submitted, and some production of other forms of scholarship.
Funding: Four quarters of
graduate student support, $50k or more research expenditures, with evidence
of continuing external funding awards or submissions.
5.2.3 Performance at the Meritorious
(= 2) level
Scholarship: Production
of at least three forms of scholarship published, accepted, or submitted.
Funding: Three quarters
of graduate student support, $25k or more research expenditures, with evidence
of continuing external funding awards or submissions.
5.2.4 Performance at the Adequate
(= 1) level
Scholarship: Production
of at least one form of scholarship published, accepted, or submitted.
Funding: Evidence of continuing
external funding awards or submissions. If the faculty member has had no external
research support during the year, there must be documentation about submission
of a research proposal to an external agency.
5.2.5 Performance at the Unsatisfactory
(=0) level
Performance measures are less than
adequate.
5.3 Teaching
Factors used in rating teaching performance
include effectiveness of in-class teaching; teaching of workshops and continuing
education courses; student advising; serving as major advisor for Ph.D. dissertations
and M.S. theses; serving on thesis and dissertation committees; supervising
senior design, honors and independent study projects; supervising postdoctoral
fellows; developing new courses and laboratories, integrating new technologies
in courses and attracting funds for laboratory equipment to support teaching.
5.3.1 Performance at the Extraordinary (= 4) level
The faculty member must demonstrate
teaching activities that exceed expectations for outstanding and make major
contributions to department and college which are recognized outside the university.
5.3.2 Performance at the Outstanding
(= 3) level
Assuming the faculty member has
met the requirements for meritorious performance, at least two measures such
as those listed below can be used as evidence for outstanding teaching:
- co-authoring at least one journal article with students;
- attracting funds for laboratory equipment to support teaching;
- serving as a major advisor for a completed master’s thesis or doctoral
dissertation.
5.3.3 Performance at the Meritorious
(= 2) level
Assuming the faculty member has
met the requirements for adequate performance, at least two measures such
as those listed below can be used as evidence of meritorious teaching:
- preparing a course that the faculty member is teaching for the first
time;
- making major modifications to a course;
- serving on master’s thesis and dissertation committees of students graduating
during that year;
- effectively supervising independent study projects and honors thesis
students;
- effectively integrating new technologies into classroom instruction.
5.3.4 Performance at the Adequate
(= 1) level
The faculty member in this category
performs satisfactorily based on student evaluations and review of the relevant
teaching materials. Adequate performance in teaching is represented by only
few negative comments by students and, if available, an overall positive assessment
by peers. Performance at an adequate level of teaching is typically demonstrated
through:
- meeting with the class at scheduled times unless there are extenuating
circumstances;
- being available during posted office hours unless there is an unavoidable
conflict;
- being prepared for the classroom;
- keeping course content current.
5.3.5 Performance at the Unsatisfactory
(= 0) level
The faculty member does not meet
the requirements of an adequate level of in-class teaching performance. Unsatisfactory
performance often leads to a significant number of student complaints. Examples
of in-class teaching problems include:
- the faculty member does not seem prepared for classroom activities;
- the faculty member does not return examinations and assignments in a
timely manner, does not manage the classroom well or is not available to
students;
- on a regular basis, the faculty member shows up late for class, dismisses
class early or does not show up for class at all;
- on a regular basis, the faculty member is not available during office
hours.
5.4 Service
Measures for productivity in service
include awards for service along with the following.
At the professional level: memberships
on boards of directors, editorships, conference chairs, technical program committee
memberships and paper and proposal reviews.
At the University, College, or Community
levels: faculty governance positions, committee chairs and memberships, and
memberships in community educational or student organizations, development activities.
At the Department level: directing
academic programs, leading research teams, developing new academic or research
programs, developing and participating in recruiting & retention programs,
committee chairs and memberships, and advising student groups and students.
Occasionally, faculty members devote
themselves to causes that further the goals of the department in ways not immediately
obvious in the activity report record. Examples of these instances include championing
a particular committee action or accepting personal responsibility for the execution
of some committee charge. In these cases, the chair is given latitude to appreciate
the evaluation of the service component accordingly.
Notice that, while service is divided
into three levels: professional; University, College, or community; and Department.
The composite sum of these activities are used to measure service performance,
with compensatory allowances permitted between the categories.
5.4.1 Performance at the Extraordinary (= 4) leve
Professional level: at least
one board membership or editorship or program committee membership along with
reviewer activity.
University, College, or Community
level: at least two chairmanships.
Department level: at least
one directorship or team leader or significant chairmanship (not sub-committee),
and strong participation in recruiting and retention efforts.
5.4.2 Performance at the Outstanding
(= 3) level
Professional level: at least
one board membership or editorship or program committee membership along with
reviewer activity.
University, College, or Community
level: at least one chairmanship or two memberships.
Department level: at least
one directorship or team leader or significant chairmanship (not sub-committee),
or at least three significant memberships (not sub-committee), and
strong participation in recruiting and retention efforts.
5.4.3 Performance at the Meritorious
(= 2) level
Professional level: reviewer
activity.
University, College, or Community
level: at least one membership.
Department level: at least
two significant memberships, and participation in recruiting and retention
efforts.
5.4.4 Performance at the Adequate
(= 1) level
Professional level: reviewer
activity. or University, College, or Community level: at least
one chairmanship or membership.
Department level: at least
two significant memberships, and participation in recruiting and retention
efforts.
5.4.5 Performance at the Unsatisfactory
(=0) level
Performance measures are less than
adequate.
