The Dumke College of Health Professions
Tenure Document

The purpose of this document is to outline the criteria and the procedures used to evaluate faculty members for tenure in the Dumke College of Health Professions. Standards have been set to assure that only those faculty who exhibit high performance levels receive a positive recommendation. Diversity within the standards accommodates faculty members from different departments with a variety of backgrounds, talents, and professional interests. Each department has a written set of standards which is congruent with the college and University documents and provides specific departmental criteria and methods for measuring performance with respect to the criteria. Departmental standards must be approved by a 2/3 vote of the department faculty and the College of Health Professions Tenure Standards Committee.

Although a candidate's total professional career will be considered, including performance at Weber State University and other institutions of higher education, it is incumbent upon the candidate to provide evidence of continued professional growth throughout the probationary period.

To be eligible for a recommendation for tenure in the Dumke College of Health Professions, candidates must:

1. have attained the earned doctorate or masters in the field or related discipline, plus current professional certification, license or equivalent within the candidate’s primary area of responsibility; (See PPM 8-11)
2. hold the rank of instructor_specialist, assistant professor, associate professor, or full professor (See PPM 8-1) and
3. have satisfied the normal probationary period of six years. If at the time of initial academic appointment, a faculty member has less than a Master’s degree, the time served prior to achieving the Master’s degree could be considered as fulfilling part of the normal six_year probationary period. Tenure may not be granted to anyone who has held a tenure track appointment (at Weber State University or other accredited institutions of higher education) for less than three (3) years.

Faculty members are reviewed formally in the third and sixth years of their probationary period.

In the second year of a candidate’s progress toward tenure, the program director/ department chair will complete an assessment of the candidate’s progress which will include specific feedback on the candidate’s progress in relationship to program/ departmental and college expectations relative to the categories, criteria, and ratings identified in this document. This assessment may be done with or without the assistance of a program/department committee at the sole discretion of the director/chair. The candidate’s teaching, scholarship, and service shall be evaluated. The director/chair shall send a written assessment to the candidate and the candidate’s dean and shall submit the report for inclusion in the candidate’s professional file. If desired, the candidate may submit a letter of clarification to his/her professional file.

The second year evaluation process does not progress beyond the program/department level. When candidates in the second year of progress toward tenure are either to be evaluated in that year for promotion or have requested an additional review, the director/chair may choose to use the above mentioned evaluation in place of the second year assessment of progress toward tenure. (See PPM 8-11)

In the third and sixth year of the probationary period candidates must be reviewed at all levels as outlined in the Weber State University Policy and Procedures Manual. (See PPM 8-11)

The candidate is responsible for updating the professional file and reviewing policies related to the process prior to the initiation of the review. In the third and sixth year of review, the candidate is required to place in the professional file a brief report which includes a statement of teaching philosophy and a summary of scholarship, professional, and service activities. A separate file containing supporting documentation should be maintained by the candidate and made available to peer and review committees. (See PPM 8_13)

It is clear that no document of criteria and procedures can substitute for professional evaluations by one's peers, guided by common sense in the process. It is incumbent upon the candidate to provide evidence of appropriate performance. During the process, the reviewers may seek clarification, including but not limited to requesting the candidate to appear before the committee.

The candidate also has the right to request an appearance before the committee.

To be recommended for tenure, a candidate must satisfy and provide evidence of appropriate performance in one of the following channels.

A candidate’s evaluation in each category must meet or exceed standards in any one channel to meet the requirements for tenure; a candidate may not meet the requirements by fulfilling parts of more than one channel. The candidate need not select any specific channel.

Teaching: Teaching is defined as the processes or behaviors related to organizing and delivering knowledge; evaluating and facilitating learning; and in general, transmitting content to students. This category includes formal classroom, clinic or laboratory instruction, and student activities directly related to classroom, clinic, or laboratory instruction. (See PPM 8-11)

To be evaluated in the teaching category and to have the year count towards the probationary period, a faculty member must teach a minimum of 12 credit hours or its equivalent as determined by the director/chair and the dean.

The faculty member will be evaluated in each of the following areas:

1. Subject matter mastery, e.g., content areas, comprehensiveness of content, currency of content, and objectivity of coverage.
2. Curriculum development, e.g., courses' fit with other courses, course revisions, and new courses developed.
3. Course design, e.g., instructional goals and objectives, content coverage, appropriate teaching methods, and appropriate assessment methods.
4. Delivery of teaching, e.g., methods (lecture, discussion, labs, distance learning, etc.), skills (speaking, explaining), and aids (handouts, AV, etc).
5. Assessment of student learning, e.g., tests (multiple_choice, essay, oral, etc.), papers, projects, practicums, and grading practices.
6. Use of assessment outcomes to improve student learning.
7. Advisement and availability to students, e.g., office hours and informal contact.

Documentation of performance in the category of teaching will come from a peer review, student evaluations, and the candidate to be reviewed.

Peer Review. Every candidate seeking tenure shall undergo peer review. Peer review may also occur prior to the formal review as part of a mentoring process designed to cultivate the candidate's potential in an atmosphere separate from evaluation. (See PPM 8_11, 2.a.3)

Student Evaluations. In an attempt to chart ongoing teaching performance, each year each faculty member shall have student evaluations administered and compiled by an impartial third party in at least two of the courses that the faculty member teaches. (See PPM 8-11, 2.a.1)

Candidates shall be rated good (minimum rating in channel C) if they are consistently rated by students and peers as good relative to other faculty members and provide evidence of having developed new materials, new methods or other innovative techniques to improve their teaching performance.

Scholarship and Professional Activities: Scholarship and Professional Activities are defined as those activities that contribute to the profession and increase the candidate's effectiveness as a teacher. While the faculty member is not expected to be equally active in all areas listed below prior to the sixth year review, the candidate must submit evidence of professional activity in areas 1 or 2; evidence of involvement in activities identified in areas 3 - 7 can be used to augment a candidate’s file in the area of scholarship and professional activities. The quality and quantity of effort and the results obtained are the criteria for the evaluation of scholarship and professional activities.

1. Publications, such as books and/or articles in refereed regional or national journals. (Non_reviewed publications should be included in the category of service.)
2. Maintenance of a peer reviewed professional clinical practice. (Clinical practice which includes mandated clinical practice hours, continuing professional education and participation in and documentation of quarterly peer reviews should be listed in this area; other clinical/work related activities should be included in area 4.)
3. Presentation of professional papers at international, national or regional conferences or workshops. (Conferences or workshops in which the candidate had only supporting roles, such as introducing a speaker or a topic or chairing a session should be listed in the category of service.)
4. Developmental projects, such as funded proposals, classroom and/or clinical research, ongoing professional clinical practice or other long_term professional association with a health care organization, service agency, or other field_based settings appropriate to the candidate's discipline. (Activities that are service in nature should be listed in the service category.)
5. Professional improvement, such as additional degrees beyond the terminal degree, formal post_graduate study, certification of advanced training, and/or increased expertise through self_study.
6. Published book reviews, published monographs, opinion papers or other professionally reviewed written material. 
7. Other activities which are appropriate to the category.

Candidates shall be rated satisfactory (minimum rating in channel B) if they provide evidence of publication in refereed regional or national journals or maintenance of a peer reviewed professional clinical practice.

Professionally Related Service: Professional service is defined as those activities which provide professionally related value to the community, the institution, or professional organizations. A candidate is not expected to be equally active in all areas listed below.

1. Membership and positions held in professional organizations. Leadership positions and primary contributor roles will be weighted more heavily than membership or attendance.
2. Professionally_related community activities including speech making.
3. Committee assignments at the program/department, college or university levels.
4. Non_reviewed publications, e.g., newsletters, newspaper and popular magazine articles, and media interviews.
5. Participation in professional conferences, workshops and seminars.
6. Administrative assignments within the college and or university.
7. Developmental activities which are service in nature, e.g. consulting and work experience.
8. Other professional service.

Candidates shall be rated satisfactory (minimum rating in channel A) if they accept and perform in an acceptable manner those duties constituting an average share of the work load in the department/program, college, University or community.

The candidate for tenure will be evaluated in each of the above categories and a rating of unsatisfactory, satisfactory, good or excellent shall be determined and interpreted relative to the candidate's program/department and college peers.

A general description of each of these ratings, which shall serve as a guide to the evaluation committees, is as follows:

Unsatisfactory:   This rating shall be given to a candidate who does not meet the minimum requirements of the satisfactory category.

Satisfactory: The candidate will be rated satisfactory if normal duties required of all faculty members are performed in an acceptable manner. Satisfactory means commendable and desirable and should not imply undesirable or below average endeavor.

Good: The candidate will be rated good if normal duties required of all faculty members are performed consistently in a more than satisfactory manner. Inasmuch as satisfactory implies commendable and desirable levels of achievement, a rating of good in any category implies a substantial degree of achievement above satisfactory levels.

Excellent:  The candidate will be rated excellent if normal duties required of all faculty members are performed consistently in an outstanding manner. Inasmuch as a good rating in any category implies a substantial degree of achievement above satisfactory levels, a rating of excellent in any category implies a substantial degree of achievement above those considered appropriate for a good rating.

Adherence to Professional Ethics

The College of Health Professions endorses as a minimum standard the statement of "Professional Responsibilities, Ethical Principles, and Standards of Behavior" contained in the Weber State University Policy and Procedures Manual, Section 9_3 through 9_8. Candidates for tenure shall be evaluated against those ethical canons and standards of behavior.

A general indication of the faculty member's adherence to those ethical principles and standards of behavior shall be noted in the evaluation reports, with a "yes" or "no" response. If a no response is given, letters indicating the findings of the evaluative committees, chairpersons, and dean shall indicate weaknesses in this regard. If a finding of unsatisfactory professional ethics is rendered by the College Promotion and Tenure Review Committee the candidate shall have the opportunity to request an expedited hearing by the University Faculty Board of Review to appeal the finding. The Board of Review shall conduct a hearing and produce a decision based on findings of fact. A copy of the Board of Review’s decision shall be returned to the College Committee and their findings shall be available for the Dean’s review