Section III: Documentation of Quality

III. A.: Candidate Statements

In a memo dated April 21 1998, SVCAA Edwards wrote that "assessing the quality and impact of the candidate's research or creative activity is of much greater importance than is listing the quantity of pieces with little assessment of their value." He asks every candidate to write a statement that identifies the portion of his or her work that is most important, explains why it is significant, and indicates what its impact has been or will be. These statements will be used throughout the tenure and promotion processes, including by external reviewers, to assess the candidate's work (see "Procedures" section).

III. B.: External Reviews

The use of external reviews has become expected practice in the College in considering tenure-track candidacies for promotion and for tenure. The UNL Guidelines note that the University has confidence in the professionalism of those whose judgments are sought. The Guidelines add that faculty and administrators must assess and weigh the content of reviews in the context in which they are provided, a context "that includes the extent to which those reviews are confidential." However, reviews may not "be routinely or automatically discounted simply because a candidate chooses not to waive the right to access... reviews or the right to know the identity of the reviewers." (V.D.4. & VI.D.5) Anonymous contributions should not be solicited and unsolicited anonymous contributions should not be included in any file for review with two exceptions: student evaluations collected as part of a unit's regular student evaluation process and evaluations of administrative performance (e.g., as a department chair). (Handbook, p. 32)
For promotions to Associate Professor of Practice outside reviews are not required. For promotion to full Professor of Practice outside reviews are required.

In a memo dated April 24, 2008, Dean Manderscheid wrote: "Qualifications of Reviewers: To quote from Barbara Couture's letter of April 22, 2008, 'Generally external reviewers should have the full professorial rank, but they must at least occupy a rank equal to or above that being considered for the candidate. Reviewers must be chosen who are qualified to judge the quality of the candidate's work because of their own knowledge of the field. Generally we would expect reviewers to hold positions at institutions comparable to or more highly ranked than UNL.' This letter was sent to all Chairs who the Office of the SVCAA knows to have candidates coming up for promotion or tenure.

"We should present the best possible cases to Dr. Couture. Strive to choose reviewers who are full professors at RU/VH: Research Universities (very high research activity) in the Carnegie Classification or who have similar credentials. RU/VH is the Carnegie classification of UNL and is the highest Carnegie classification. You can find the Carnegie Classification of an institution at http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/classifications/sub.asp?key=782.

"I understand that sometimes it best to use a reviewer who has similar credentials to a full professor at a RU/VH institution. For example, you might want to solicit the review of someone at a foreign institution, at a government lab, or who is well qualified but at a lesser ranked institution. Also, on occasion, you might want to solicit an associate professor. In these cases, before you contact the potential reviewer, please send a brief note to Dean Schmidt requesting approval. In your note indicate the qualifications of the individual and why you would like to use his or her review."

III. C.: Teaching

According to the Handbook, evidence in teaching "must include student evaluations of teaching effectiveness and might include evidence of successful employment of new teaching techniques, development of new courses, etc." (p. 26) Memos from the SVCAA and the Dean clarify the kinds of evidence required for teaching. A memo dated October 31 1996 from Dean Foster calls for two non-negotiable items for every candidate's teaching portfolio:

1. Analysis and assessment of each candidate's student evaluations.

a. Don't send us unanalyzed quantifiable data or the answer sheets that contain these data. We need analyses (e.g., using frequency distributions) of evaluations from more than one year by you and/or by the appropriate committees of faculty in your department. These analyses should summarize and assess the evaluations by comparing them to those of other instructors who have taught the class and/or a comparable class (e.g., of the same size and at the same level). It would be helpful to know whether particular circumstances may have affected student evaluations in certain classes.

b. We also want to see student responses, by course, to open-ended questions. Responses from the two years preceding a tenure and promotion consideration are sufficient. You may send us Xerox copies of the pages containing the responses to avoid typing them out.

2. Peer review of performance over time. This must include:

a. Evaluation of instruction - e.g., class visitations or assessments of faculty, a thoughtful self-evaluation (of the candidate's instructional goals and possibly including the candidate's reflections about student evaluations of his/her teaching; candidate statements are of particular value when candidacies rely heavily on teaching performance), work with the Teaching and Learning Center, and/or other appropriate measures; outcomes such as student exams and term papers are appropriate too.

b.Evaluation of teaching material - e.g., syllabi, handouts, exams, reading lists, and other items prepared for class use. Each unit must evaluate the materials that the candidate uses in class as part of its assessment of the quality of his or her instruction.

Dean Foster also wrote that it would be helpful to know about a candidate's teaching activities related to attendance at or participation in conferences or seminars, committee memberships, external grant proposal submissions and funding, initiatives, purchases of instructional materials, and the design and implementation of learning outcomes assessment plans.

A memo dated September 12 1997 from SVCAA Edwards requested much the same information: an analysis of "the quality of teaching performance" and a description and analysis of the "raw materials" measuring teaching effectiveness. He added that the analysis of how these materials should be interpreted and your judgment about the quality of the candidate's performance and potential should be clearly presented. Ordinarily, both student evaluations and faculty peer assessments, as well as other materials, should be used in your evaluation. Your analysis could include, for example, assessments of the appropriateness of course design, the quality of course materials and examinations, the level of student performance, advising of graduate students, and information from graduates. If a formal peer review process is in place, please include a description of that process.

In a memo dated April 24, 2008, Dean Manderscheid wrote: "Evaluation of Teaching: Units in the college evaluate teaching in various ways, and the college and the university appreciate this. With these differences, however, it is often difficult for faculty from other units, such as members of the college promotion and tenure committee, to evaluate teaching. Thus it is essential that an analysis of the teaching material is provided.

"In general, units in the college have done an excellent job of presenting the teaching portion of cases. The Office of the SVCAA has indicated, however, that it will be paying careful attention to the teaching section of cases and thus I urge you to do the same."

III. D.: Service

SVCAA Edwards notes that "service" can usually be separated into outreach or landgrant service, professional or disciplinary service, and institutional service. All three are important, he writes, but public expectations for service focus primarily on the first type. We should assess the quality and significance of all areas of service as well as its extent; we must also indicate the bases for our evaluations. (Memo of September 12 1997, p. 3) Candidate statements identifying the most important portion (s) of their service, why it is significant, and what its impact has been or will be should be included in candidate files to facilitate making these evaluations.