University Libraries
Faculty Personnel Actions
Procedure Review

All,

I am inviting the Library Faculty to get together and help generate some feedback:

Contract review portfolios: What would it help you to see in the portfolios that are prepared by candidates being reviewed for contract renewals, tenure, or promotion? What would best help you to know what's important or significant about the recent activities of a colleague you may not iteract with very often? The only guidance given in the Faculty Manual for portfolios is pretty brief [1]. If we have any other documents, I don't recall them; please bring copies to share if there's anything I've forgotten about.

This will be a brainstorming session, with perhaps some philosophical discussion along the way; an opportunity to gather ideas and suggestions, consider what's necessary or practical, and weed out what's not relevant. I'll digest the ideas and suggestions into something that candidates can refer to when they're assembling their portfolios; more on Winter'06 reviews later in November. Please don't feel that in one discussion we are going to be creating some kind of hard and fast checklist for candidates to be measured against-- my goal is simply to get our minds working, and provide some creative and useful tools that we can begin working with soon, and improve over time.

I'm looking forward to this discussion, and if it seems productive perhaps some on other topics to develop ideas about other parts of the review process --see you soon!

--Debbie
DUH

[1]
Administrative Manual, Chap.4, Sec.2.10.5,

"Unit Notification and Candidate Materials.
...The candidate shall prepare materials containing relevant information for the action under
consideration for review by the unit regular faculty. This information includes, but is not limited to, the following:

a) A current vita of the candidate.
b) A personal statement that contains a self-assessment of the candidate's performance as a unit regular faculty member at the university in each of the evaluation criteria.
c) Examples of the relevant work of the candidate that supports b).

While no limit is placed on the material submitted by a candidate, the amount of
materials should be tailored to the action under consideration...."

Notes from 3 Nov. 2005
Augmented by input from 'Faculty Personnel Policy Sessions' presented by Jean Nagelkirk, Tom Butcher, and Rob Franciosi (11/4/05, 11/29/05)

Portfolios: What purpose do they serve?
= A candidate's "showcase," the opportunity to make their best impression
= A persuasive presentation of eligibility for being reviewed and evaluated positively
= Make a case: Why are library services and the University better off because this candidate is here?
= Informational: provide a "visual" for peer reviewers, and subsequent evaluators (Departmental Personnel Committee, Dean) who may not have much direct contact with the candidate in the normal course of business
= How much "weight" does a portfolio have in the overall evaluation of a candidate? If this is a candidate's presentation of her/himself, it's subjective; what else should be considered? --This question wasn't really answered...
= Reviews should focus on verifiable evidence, not on perceptions; so a portfolio should be the candidate's best representation of evidence of their performance.

What could/should a portfolio include?
- Quality, not quantity: there is no credit for poundage. However, there is no stated limit on material submitted, either -- use good judgement in developing your best presentation of yourself.
- Evidence! Don't just claim or suggest you've done something, find ways to show it:
- Examples of leadership in activities which have caused positive outcomes (promoted a new idea, headed an investigative team, served as project manager for an implementation). Be specific about your role, and how it contributed to the result.
- Samples of effective learning tools or assessments you've created: handouts, PowerPoints, pre/post teaching session quizes
- Presentations done as in-service training for library faculty peers, presentations at FTLC annual teaching conferences, etc.
- Experiments and their outcomes: what did you learn? could this contribute (or has it already) to more effective service?
- Liaisonships: things you've done in conjunction with other departments/faculty to further the educational mission
- More than just a list of learning experiences you've (presumably) had: include narrative reflecting on what you learned, and how you applied it in a way which has improved the Libraries.
- Letters of commendation or support. These might be from within the University (e.g. from departmental liaisons) or from external sources (e.g. chairs of committees, presidents of professional organizations, conference program chairs). Soliciting letters of support is acceptable; presenting a judiciously selected sample of the most honest and informative ones makes a better impression.
- There might be examples we could use from other places; KR found a teaching portfolio development guide from Ohio State University; is there anything similar for a portfolio reflecting a primarily non-teaching area of responsibility? (See 'Resources' below)

Preparing your portfolio
- A candidate should be always be aware of the need to be building up her/his portfolio, and should be receiving/seeking feedback on areas which might benefit from attention as a next review approaches. Mentoring and support of junior faculty is an area the Administration has set as a goal, and which our unit needs to develop.
- Official notification of an impending review is made to the candidate and to the reviewers at least a month prior to the established submission deadline, but don't wait to be gathering materials and thinking about how to present yourself effectively!
- Submission deadlines for portfolios are set by Faculty Governance: they are real deadlines, not suggestions. The dates are Sept.15 for Fall Semester reviews (infrequent) and 1st day of Winter Semester classes for Winter Semester reviews (most). In the case of Promotion or Early Tenure reviews there is no exception for materials received late: the review cannot proceed. In the case of Contract Renewals there can be some exceptions for extenuating circumstances, though habitual failure to meet deadlines will likely be factored into peers' evaluations. --This information is directly from Tom Butcher, University Counsel, and the Provost's Office.
- It is acceptable, and encouraged, for a candidate to ask a trusted (generally more senior) colleague to read and critique the portfolio before it is submitted to the Unit Head/Designate. Mentoring and support of junior faculty are goals of the Administration, and this is one way that can be manifested.
- It is acceptable to ammend or add to a submitted portfolio prior to the Unit Discussion; such ammendments may be in response to questions/suggestions from reviewers as they begin their perusal and evaluation. Any such materials should be clearly dated and marked as ammendments, clarifications or supplements; and no materials should be removed -- the original submission should remain intact. Reviewers should be notified that the portfolio has been updated, which will necessitate another reading to re-evaluate. --This information is directly from Tom Butcher, University Counsel, and the Provost's Office. A question for Tom Butcher and Jean Nagelkirk: Is it fair to require that no more ammendments be accepted once agenda-setting for the Unit Discussion has begun?

Portfolio review
- Only after the portfolio submission deadline is past should real deliberation and evaluation take place.
- University Counsel and the Provost's Office consider BlackBoard an acceptable medium for making portfolios available electronically, although we'd have to figure out how to create (or have created) an "oganization" (group) which includes only those faculty eligible to vote: these are the only people who should be able to view the portfolio. Presumably this could include the members of the Library Personnel Committee, too. Another potential tool for making portfolio review easier by having documents available electronically is the Luminis Portal "Group Studio" functionality, part of the Banner project coming soon -- but maybe not soon enough for our reviews this year.
- It is NOT permissible to conduct any evaluative or deliberative discussion about a portfolio using BlackBoard, e-mail, or any other electronic means. In general, if possible, make requests for clarifications, ammendments, or updates in person, too.

Relationship of your portfolio to the Unit Discussion Agenda
- A subject for another meeting!
- the agenda can be as it appears in the workbook (blank) or very detailed (e.g., with strengths and weaknesses, concerns, etc.)

Resources

• Ohio State University Libraries
  "Resources for Evaluating and Documenting Teaching", including "Developing a Teaching Portfolio"
  "The Ohio State University Libraries' Teaching Portfolio" (MS-Word form)
  "Teaching Portfolio Instructions" (PDF)