Senate unit proposes larger role for teaching effort in promotion process

A report outlining the committee's recommendations-which advocate a personal statement and teaching portfolio as part of the promotion dossier-was forwarded on Nov. 6 by the Senate's Executive Committee to the full Faculty Senate, which will consider it at its Nov. 19 meeting.

Margaret Acara, professor of pharmacology and toxicology and chair of the Tenure and Privileges Committee, noted that the current promotion criteria as stated in the 1993-94 Faculty/Staff Handbook "give exceptional weight to research. These criteria have not been addressed in many years, and the times are changing."

The committee is not about to degrade research, Acara said. "But we believe it's important to recognize those other scholarly contributions which faculty make to our mission. Outstanding efforts in teaching, as well as in service, should be an important part of the promotion and tenure process at this institution."

Although the committee originally thought of proposing a two-track system of appointment-one emphasizing research, the other teaching-it felt "the teaching track would be interpreted by all as one for second-class citizens," she said.

Since the committee did not want to leave that impression, it instead decided to propose a process of placing increased weight on teaching criteria, she said.

The committee, which, Acara noted, did not reach consensus on all recommendations, urged that:

· The provost instruct the President's Review Board (PRB), deans and department chairs about the importance of teaching in cases of promotion and require that dossiers include documentation of teaching activities.

This documentation may include personal statements prepared by the candidates describing how their teaching, research and service activities interact in their careers and contribute to the progress of the university; teaching portfolios; evidence of educational leadership in articles and conference presentations on teaching, and where appropriate, external letters of peer evaluation of teaching.

· The university designate a modest but consistent amount of funds to reward excellence in teaching.

· The university make a budgetary commitment providing funds to assist faculty in the improvement of teaching.

Acara said all members of her committee thought the personal statement would be "a worthwhile addition to the dossier and bring together in a more meaningful way the activities of the candidate."

As for the portfolio, she noted that since each school has different techniques and types of teaching, the portfolio might best be developed in a school-specific manner.

She said that since the Faculty/Staff Handbook is under revision, the committee did not try to put its recommendations into that form. But, she said, it would urge its recommendations "be knit into the handbook" if they are accepted by the Faculty Senate and the administration.

William Fischer, vice provost for faculty development, pointed out that the personal statement already is being included in dossiers. "The PRB expects this personal statement to be included. It's an opportunity for the candidate, not to describe how good he or she is, but to characterize the evolution of the work and perhaps provide a context for the assessment process."

"The personal statement is really an opportunity for candidates to say whatever they want to say about who they are and what they're doing," said Bernice Noble, professor of microbiology. "It's the last thing I'd like to see eliminated. There's no way in which the personal statement is anything but to the advantage of the candidate and allows him to even introduce issues that might not be dealt with fairly or appropriately..."

James Faran, associate professor of mathematics, wondered about the types of materials that might be included in a teaching portfolio.

"My dean isn't going to be able to take a look at one of my exams and tell one way or the other about whether I'm a good teacher, much less anyone on the committee except the guys who are recusing themselves because they're in my department," Faran said. As for grade distribution, "does a good teacher give all 'A's?" he asked. "There's very little here, it seems to me, that can be properly evaluated outside a department."

It's for that reason, Acara replied, that the portfolio might best be school-specific.

Faran also questioned whether, in light of the university's heavy emphasis on research, it should set aside money for teaching excellence or to develop teaching and "mislead our (untenured) junior faculty into believing that they ought to spend their timeŠ improving their teaching when what they ought to be doing is concentrating on their research because it doesn't matter what they've done with teaching." He wondered if, instead, that recommendation shouldn't limit money to improve teaching to tenured professors.

Fischer noted that faculty, under the present promotion-and-tenure criteria, already experience tension among their tripartite responsibilities, particularly between teaching and research.

"The whole point of this (recommendations) is to try to shift the cultural perceptions about the weight and value of teaching in our entire enterprise," he said, adding that he considers the documentation process to be of utmost importance because it "can play a role in raising people's awareness and consciousness about teaching."

Having a framework that clearly shows the ways a candidate's research, teaching and service are all connected "will do a lot to really help people feel it's not a Hobson's Choice," noted Michael Frisch, professor of American studies. He related what he called a "worse-case model" in which a junior faculty member he knew asked not to be nominated for a Chancellor's Award for Excellence in Teaching because "she was afraid, given a tough case on her scholarship, she would be marked as 'bad researcher-good teacher' and carry, in effect, a kind of stigma of simply being a good teacher and therefore vulnerable on her research."

The personal statement and making a more sophisticated case about teaching excellence can only help candidates, he said.

Maureen Jameson, associate professor of modern languages and literatures, expressed concern that the university doesn't have the same strict standards for teaching as it does for research. While outside referees for research review must come from the most prestigious universities, letters endorsing teaching proficiency may come from inside the university, she pointed out. "This is clearly a second, a lower caste" she said. "I'm just suggesting that we move in the direction of pushing these teaching criteria up to a level of rigor where people would respect it and it would be taken more seriously."

Fischer said UB does not have a peer-review process for teaching that is the equivalent to that for scholarship. "But I think we can move toward it and put some pieces in placeŠI agree; until we have some kind of credible peer review, it's (teaching) not going to occupy an equal status."

George D'Elia, professor of information and library studies, agreed, noting that peer review of teaching would eliminate what he called a "check-list mentality" and "the inane set of so-called empirical data by which we attempt to demonstrate that we're good teachers." It also would get senior faculty involved in mentoring junior faculty and would reinforce to junior faculty the message that teaching is important because it is built into the ongoing review process.

"I just want to second the notion that the sooner we move to peer-review of teaching, the better off we'll be," he said.