The Citadel
Department of English
Guidelines for Tenure and Promotion
Approved by the Department, 22 September 2009
Approved by Academic Board, 20 October 2009
Preface
General Order 4 requires each department to articulate its "professional standards for each academic rank" and to assess these standards on a regular basis. Throughout AY 2008-09 the tenured members of the Department of English worked on a thorough revision of the departmental standards document. The untenured members of the department commented on drafts of the document, and their input was considered during the deliberations. On 22 September 2009, the entire department unanimously voted to approve these new guidelines for tenure and promotion. The Academic Board unanimously approved the document at its meeting on 20 October 2009.
A key goal of this revision has been to harmonize our departmental standards both with the language of the General Order and the current practice of the college's Faculty Tenure & Promotion Committee. As a result, the new departmental document relies heavily for its structure on the standard PDS form, which has served as the basis for each candidate's application for tenure and promotion for at least the past twenty years.
In the two categories of Scholarly and Professional Activities and Service, the department has made use of the headings from the standard college PDS to devise a point scheme that captures the distinction between assistant, associate, and full professor evident in the language of General Order 4.
Regarding the category of Teaching Effectiveness / Student Learning, the department notes that the General Order makes no distinctions based on rank. That is, the same language for teaching expectations appears for tenure at the levels of assistant professor, associate professor, and full professor. Therefore, instead of devising a point scheme that might enact an artificial distinction, the department presents two fundamental principles of effective teaching at any rank—commitment to the discipline and sensitivity to the needs of the students.
I. Teaching Effectiveness/Student Learning
To accept a position in the Department of English at The Citadel is to take part in a long tradition of commitment to teaching excellence. Faculty members in this department have worked tirelessly to help students become not only better writers and thinkers, but better persons. As we update these guidelines for tenure and promotion, we are mindful of this tradition and seek to promote a continued emphasis on teaching.
Faculty members in the Humanities in general, and in English perhaps most particularly, have traditionally seen a link between their own distinct identities and their own teaching styles. In outlining our departmental standards, we affirm that there are many different paths to success in teaching. For, after all, just as there are differences in teaching philosophies among us, so are there differences in learning styles and situations among our students.
Given the differing educational aspirations and capacities of our students and our own differing personalities and philosophies, two attributes nonetheless seem pivotally important for successful teaching at The Citadel at any rank, from adjunct to full professor—commitment to the discipline and sensitivity in addressing the needs of students.
As faculty members in the Department of English we demonstrate our commitment to the discipline in our ongoing engagement with the texts we teach. Among the criteria department members weigh when considering a new hire, the most important is surely the depth of understanding the candidate displays of the field for which he or she is being considered. Throughout the probationary period, the department follows the requirements of General Order 4 by measuring a candidate’s teaching effectiveness through classroom visits and through the careful scrutiny of the colleague’s teaching portfolio. Again, the single most important criterion in these measures is the intellectual depth the candidate displays during the class visits and in the supporting materials contained in the teaching portfolio. Materials such as assignments, PowerPoints, and web pages are excellent reflections of the thoughtful preparation the department expects from its faculty.
As a required component of the teaching portfolio, student evaluations are a very useful indicator of the faculty member’s commitment to the discipline. The department expects a consistently strong agreement rate (4.0 or better) on the following items in the evaluation instrument: “My professor displays a clear understanding of course topics”; and “This course has effectively challenged me to think.”
Regarding other required materials in the teaching portfolio, the department expects to find paper topics and tests that reflect an intellectual depth appropriate to the different levels of courses. Paper topics in an upper-level English class should call for a deeper sophistication on the part of the writer than do topics in, for instance, a 102 or 201 class. But topics in these lower level classes should do more than call simply for an ability to summarize what happened in the text under consideration. Nor should tests in these lower level classes be based on random facts; instead, tests should prompt students to write about the significant ideas and themes of the works they have been taught.
Another important sign of commitment to the discipline is found in an individual’s ability to develop new courses. The department is small enough that it is a reasonably frequent occurrence for a faculty member to be asked to develop a new course. Breadth of intellectual background is, therefore, an important criterion for success in teaching.
Along with one's commitment to the discipline, the ability to understand and respond to student needs is also fundamental to teaching success. While this attribute is not so readily apparent during the hiring process as is a person’s intellectual depth and breadth, the department looks for evidence of enthusiasm and engagement. During the probationary period, we seek such evidence of responsiveness in the classroom visits and the materials in the required teaching portfolios.
The way a faculty member grades written work provides the most important sign of how he or she responds to the needs of students. The teaching portfolio must contain some samples of graded tests and essays. When tenured faculty members review sample essays, they are looking not so much to see if the candidate has amply justified whatever grade he or she has assigned (although that is important). They are looking, instead, primarily at the guidance the faculty member has provided so that the student can develop as a writer. Samples that reflect the process of revision are therefore especially helpful to include in the portfolio because they clearly show how the faculty member has guided a student’s improvement. On the student evaluations, the department expects a consistently strong agreement rate (4.0 or better) on the item in the evaluation instrument having to do with returning graded work in a timely fashion: “My professor returns papers quickly enough to benefit me.” All core curriculum class syllabuses included in the teaching portfolio must also contain the departmental statement on timeliness in returning graded work.
In regard to grading, we should say, too, that faculty members reflect their responsiveness to the needs of their students by taking them seriously intellectually. The greatest measure of this attribute is found in the faculty member's refusal to be caught up in grade inflation. The department does not, of course, insist on an inflexible bell curve of grades for each section. We know that course sections vary in terms of talent level, and we are aware that students themselves do better or worse from semester to semester and from instructor to instructor. But each of us, regardless of how senior or junior, must guard against an indifference to student performance that treats strong and weak work as being the same.
Another way to take students seriously is to strive for an energetic and involving teaching approach. The manner of presentation is, therefore, of significant interest to colleagues who conduct class visits. On student evaluations, the department expects a consistently strong agreement rate (4.0 or better) on the following items having to do with classroom presentation: "My professor displays enthusiasm when teaching"; "My professor speaks audibly and clearly"; "My professor communicated the subject matter effectively"; and "My professor makes effective use of class time."
Faculty members also reflect their responsiveness to students by being forthcoming with them. The department expects every faculty member to keep at least one office hour per week per class, so a person teaching four classes would keep at least four office hours. If students have conflicts with posted office hours, faculty members are expected to make reasonable alternative arrangements. Given how crammed cadet schedules typically are, most contact outside of the class takes place electronically. It is important, therefore, for faculty to reply to e-mail in a timely fashion. On student evaluations, the department expects a consistently strong agreement rate (4.0 or better) on the following items having to do with the faculty member's responsiveness to students: "When I have a question or comment I know it will be respected"; "My professor is actively helpful when students have problems"; and "I feel free to ask questions in class."
II. Scholarly and Professional Activities
The department envisions that as faculty members develop through the course of their careers, they will participate in a range of scholarly and professional activities. In setting up the point system described below, we intend to give guidance and thereby remove as much uncertainty as we can from the tenure and promotion process. Each year during the probationary period, the department's tenure committee will review the candidate's PDS and award points for scholarly and professional activities according to the following scheme. During the colleague's time as an associate professor, the department head will consult with the department's full professors and maintain the colleague's running tally of points.
Twelve points in the category of scholarly and professional activities are required for promotion to associate professor. At least six of the required twelve must come from multi-point sources. Twenty-four more points are required for promotion to full professor. At least fourteen of these additional twenty-four points must come from multi-point sources.
While not the norm in our discipline, co-authorship of publications is quite common. A candidate receives full points for any item of which he or she is a co-author.
General Order 4 clearly states in the section on "General Eligibility for Tenure" that "evidence of the required professional qualifications [for tenure]…shall be based on the candidate's prior professional record as well as on his or her performance at The Citadel"; therefore, a candidate's scholarly work completed prior to his or her employment at The Citadel will earn points according to the scheme given below.
The department strongly encourages scholarly activity. No one would want an assistant professor in his or her last couple of probationary years to stop working on scholarly activities because he or she already has sufficient points for promotion. Therefore, it is reasonable for colleagues to “bank” or postpone for later consideration as many as six points that they may earn during their probationary period but that they do not need for promotion to associate professor. The department views such a procedure as in keeping with the practice of the college Tenure and Promotion Committee, which will not consider a candidate's research items for more than one promotion cycle.
Here is the list of activities and associated points:
Publications
Publishing a peer-reviewed scholarly and/or creative book
· 6 points
Publishing a peer-reviewed scholarly edition
· 5 points
Publishing a peer-reviewed collection of articles by other scholars, anthology, commercial edition, textbook, or bibliography
· 4 points
Editing a scholarly journal or newsletter
· 4 points (awarded one time for at least three years of service)
Publishing a scholarly article/chapter or publishing a long creative work (more than 3000 words of fiction or non-fiction creative prose or five or more pages of poetry) in a peer-reviewed journal, edited collection, or magazine
· 3 points
Publishing a brief article (i.e., fewer than 3000 words), a single short poem, a brief short story or piece of non-fiction prose (again, fewer than 3000 words) in a peer-reviewed journal, edited collection, or magazine
· 2 points
Publishing a review or other solicited, but otherwise un-refereed article
· 1 point
Presentations to Colleagues in Scholarly or Professional Forums
Making a scholarly presentation to peers at an academic conference or workshop
· 1 point
Presenting an invited poetry or fiction reading
· 1 point
Other Scholarly or Professional Activities
Obtaining an extramural research, pedagogical, or creative writing grant or fellowship
· Up to 3 points, depending on the nature of the grant
Receiving a peer-reviewed fellowship, award, or citation for one's scholarly or creative work
· Up to 3 points, depending on the nature of the award
Participating in a competitively selected seminar, such as an NEH Summer
Seminar, or teaching at a conference for creative writers, such as Breadloaf
· 1 point
Completing a scholarly or creative activity not otherwise listed
· Up to 3 points, depending on the nature of the activity
III. Service
Service is sometimes taken for granted, perhaps because it is so much a part of being a member of the Citadel faculty. The fact is that opportunities for important service exist virtually every day of our careers. The department is aware that these opportunities differ somewhat according to rank, experience, and the preferences and interests of each individual.
The college's PDS document requires disclosure regarding compensation paid for different service activities. The department, of course, fully cooperates with this requirement. But in allocating points, we make no distinction between whether an activity is compensated or not. This is so because, in our field, compensation for service activities is most typically nominal.
As was the case with Research, we have devised a point system to give guidance to candidates and, thereby, remove as much uncertainty as we can from the tenure and promotion process.
· Fifteen points in service are required for promotion from assistant to associate professor.
· An additional fifteen service points are required for promotion to full professor.
In both cases, at least five of the mandatory fifteen service points must come from annual customary service duties. More than twenty such customary duties are listed below, and this list is by no means complete.