Introduction: The A&S Faculty Handbook is designed to provide A&S personnel with information relevant to their positions as employees of the University of Wyoming and the State of Wyoming. For further explanation or questions feel free to contact me or the member of the A&S Dean’s Office staff listed next to each heading. Mine is owalter@uwyo.edu.
i.
At least three hours per week are required and
should be posted on your office door. Post a note on your door
when you cannot meet office hours and inform the departmental staff.
ii.
When a student is visiting you, focus on the student – do not continue
working on your computer.
i. You may not require students to attend anything during hours not listed in the syllabus. That means you should not have additional times for exams or require students to attend a function (lecture, play, etc.) unless there is a note in the syllabus that “Additional times may be required” or something to that effect.
ii. Make every attempt to include all expectations and requirements in your syllabus. To make room for flexibility, include a statement in your syllabus that “it is subject to change.” If subsequent changes must be made, it is your responsibility to make sure all enrolled students are made aware of them.
i. State your class behavior expectations at the beginning of the semester (would not be a bad idea to include them in your syllabus) and stick to these expectations. The publication “Students and Teachers Working Together” can be helpful in discussing your expectations with students.
ii. If you require students to purchase several texts, be certain that you use these texts in the course.
iii. Do not condone behavior that is disruptive. You can ask a disruptive student to leave the classroom at that moment. A student who is repeatedly disruptive may be “administratively” removed from the class roster after due process. Please consult with your department head or Associate Dean Audrey Shalinsky to find out about the proper procedures.
iv. When you invite questions or comments from students, wait several moments to receive them. Do not become anxious when students do not immediately respond.
v. If you suspect cheating or plagiarism, take the problem to your department head immediately for his/her advice. http://uwadmnweb.uwyo.edu/a&s/Appeals_Dishonesty/guidelines_Dishonesty.htm http://uwadmnweb.uwyo.edu/a&s/Appeals_Dishonesty/guidelines_Appeals.htm
vi. Always be consistent and fair in your treatment of students.
vii. Never, never, never ask a student enrolled in one of your classes for a date.
i. Give your final test during finals week at the time and on the day listed in the final exam schedule (in each semester’s class schedule). Do not give a test during the week before finals. According to the Uniregs, no graded assignments may be required during the last week of classes unless they have been announced at the beginning of the class (on the syllabus).
ii. Do not post grades by name, W#, or social security number. Give the student a number on your own or another name (for example, city or place names or pseudonyms) which only you and the specific student will know.
i. Know about the student’s right to privacy according to the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (PL-380) as described in the UW Bulletin.
ii. Keep your grade-book at least three years after the completion of a course. It is wise to keep student papers and tests one year if you have not returned them to the students. If you will be away from campus for an extended period of time after the close of a semester (leave of absence, summer vacation, etc.) leave your grade-book and course syllabi with the department head/office in the event a student has a question about grading, attendance, etc.
iii. Before you make an exception for any one student (for example, taking a late paper, allowing a student to re-do some work), remember that you will have to give the same opportunity to every student in the class who can claim the same “problem.” For example, if you give one student permission to hand in a late paper because the student “didn’t have time to finish,” you will have to ask other students if they had the same problem and give them the same opportunity.
General
i. Students will ask for your approval/denial for “exceptions to the rules” on a variety of forms such as petitions. Do not sign such paperwork until the student has put the request in writing on the form – do not sign blank forms. You have the right to ask for documentation that may support or substantiate the request.
ii. Don’t have too many rules, but be prepared to enforce consistently the ones you do have. Be sure that students know and understand the rules. Going over them with students early in the semester can save you problems later.
iii. Faculty and department heads should refer queries about students/faculty from law enforcement investigators to the Office of General Counsel who will coordinate how information is disseminated. To be sure that accurate information on international faculty or students is made available questions should be referred to the International Student Services office (Jill Johnson) or the International Programs office (Anne Alexander).
Like all universities, the University of Wyoming has a bureaucratic structure, a structure that is far more permeable than some but one that cannot be ignored. Department heads or program directors have administrative responsibility for their units and consequently the personnel within those units. We will frequently reference the duties of the heads and directors throughout this document. Needless to say they are generally the first stop when one has questions and concerns about the obligations of his/her position. For instance, it is essential that all requests for funds go initially to the head or program director.
The dean has administrative responsibility for the college and its constituent units the academic vice president for the academic portion of the University. Unireg 510, A&S Bylaws, and the A&S Mission Statement are policy documents and ideals that provide structure for the college.
A&S schedules a mandatory orientation for in-coming Tenure-track (TT) and Extended-term track (ETT) academic personnel on the new faculty reporting date in August.
A&S holds college meetings once each fall and spring. The dean discusses the state of the college in both meetings. Academic personnel are strongly encouraged to attend these meetings.
At the fall meeting the department head or program director introduces new academic personnel and recognizes the A&S Extraordinary Merit for Teaching, Research and Advising award winners. In the spring, the college meeting is primarily devoted to recognizing faculty who have received various college and university awards and those who are retiring.
The general framework for the university space policy can be found in Unireg 181. In part, the policy reads:
All University facilities, whether owned or leased, belong to the University as a whole and are to be utilized in the best interests of the total institution. Accordingly, the proprietary interests of individual organizational units shall not exclusively define the allocation and use of campus space, especially when larger institutional interests are thereby sacrificed.
The University seeks to utilize its finite facilities resources efficiently and effectively. Thus, the utilization of all facilities are subject to periodic evaluation and reassignment to meet changing institutional needs.
The vice president for Academic Affairs has responsibility for space allocation. The dean is responsible for allocating space in the college. See Guidelines for Assigning Office Space. The Department Head is responsible for allocating space within the department.
UW Information Circular 1996-1 establishes guidelines for the assessment and payment of charges for approved use of University facilities and equipment including office space and equipment, computing facilities, laboratories and lab equipment, and transportation vehicles. In addition, the following regulations and policies are imposed.
a. Trustee Regulation VII.I. mandates that no employee may use UW funds, time, services and facilities in the exercise of their rights and privileges to express political points of view as a citizen.
b. UW endorses the Association of American University Professors' 1940 Statement on Academic Freedom, which includes the following observation on perceptions of institutional representation:
College and university teachers are citizens, members of a learned profession, and officers of an educational institution. When they speak or write as citizens, they should be free from institutional censorship or discipline, but their special position in the community imposes special obligations. As scholars and educational officers, they should remember that the public may judge their profession and their institution by their utterances. Hence, they should at all times be accurate, should exercise appropriate restraint, should show respect for the opinions of others, and should make every effort to indicate that they are not speaking for the institution.
Therefore, use of institutional stationary bearing the lettertype is authorized for official UW use only and personal use by individuals not affiliated with the university is not permitted.
Job expectations are based on A&S job descriptions which are required for all tenured or tenure track faculty and all extended term or extended term track academic professional. The following areas have been developed to help explain the expectations for academic personnel.
Be a highly proficient teacher in a variety of courses at different levels. It should be understood that teaching occurs both in and outside the classroom and that one-on-one interaction with students is often crucial to their success. Teaching proficiency is judged on both quality and quantity of teaching.
Tenure-track, tenured faculty and extended-term track and extended-term research scientists are to be highly proficient researchers. The expectations for research activities and achievements are detailed and on file in the ________ department.
Extended-term track and extended-term academic professionals are to actively pursue professional development. The expectations of activities and achievements are detailed and on file in the _____________ department.
Be a highly proficient and conscientious student academic and career advisors.
Make a positive contribution to the governance and effective operation of your department, the College and the University. Many academic personnel also make significant service contributions to the state and/or their discipline. Academic personnel obligations extend beyond the classroom and beyond the research enterprise and may include such activities as committee work, public relations, fund raising, calling and meeting with prospective students, participating in college and department functions (for example, departmental seminars and awards banquets, graduation, Discovery Day, the Honors Convocation), and interacting with high school and community college faculty and students.
Work in a cooperative and mutually supportive manner with your colleagues within the University community.
The proportion of effort is negotiated with the department head and may vary by department and by individual. Academic Affairs has established a 50% teaching load as generally 2 classes (6 cr. hr.) per semester based upon the formula where one three-credit course per semester is equivalent to 25 percent of a full-time academic-year appointment. If there is no agreement between the department head and faculty member, the department head will decide upon allocations. Job descriptions are not immutable and should be reviewed on a regular basis. The dean, as well as the department head, must approve all job descriptions.
Each January faculty and academic professionals are asked to provide a summary of their activities during the previous calendar year. The Annual Update Form is used. For each person the form is completed with the list of courses taught during that period. The faculty member should check the course list for any errors. The information on these forms is the data for your evaluation. Academic personnel should take the opportunity to check the job description percentages for accuracy. Academic personnel should also take the opportunity to write additional information about their work in the narrative section.
Committees are an important part of the service component of the job description. Committees operate at the department, college and university level. In the College of Arts & Sciences, there are two types of committees: elected committees and appointed committees. Elected standing committees are Central Committee; Teaching Committee; and the Tenure and Promotion Committee. Appointed standing committees are: Academic Dishonesty Hearing Officers; Board of Visitors; Interdisciplinary Programs Advisory Committee; Scholarship Committee; Student Appeals Committee; Student Computer Fee committee; Self-Designed Major; Faculty Council; and the Support and Outreach Units Advisory Committees.
The College of Arts and Sciences has instituted a standardized vita format which is required for the reappointment, tenure and promotion packets. It is also used for applying for special funding, nomination for awards and internal grants. Link here to find the A&S Academic Personnel Curriculum Vitae.
These evaluations are most important. Because the process is complex, you should study Unireg 803 and/or 408. Academic Affairs has posted a Preparation Packet on their web site that is very informative. There are few tasks more important than T&P — take them seriously and make sure you understand your department's process!
Packets are to be compiled according to the checklist supplied by the Dean’s Office for faculty and academic professionals (Academic Personnel Checklist). The Dean’s Office supplies binders and index tabs for new hires and for those going up for promotion to full professor. Complying with deadlines is essential. A&S deadlines may differ from those of the university. See Unireg 803 http://uwadmnweb.uwyo.edu/legal/Uniregs/ur803.htm for faculty and Unireg 408 http://uwadmnweb.uwyo.edu/legal/Uniregs/ur408rev2.htm and its appendices for academic professionals.
Candidates should compile and include in the reappointment T&P packet the Research/Creative Activities Summary.
Additionally, faculty/academic professionals may request a temporary stop of their tenure/review clocks. Most frequently this is done for an addition of a child to the family. The process for requesting and reviewing such requests is contained in clock stoppage. Also see the Academic Affairs clock stoppage memo.
Voting responsibly
At the department discussion of a candidate, it is very appropriate to review precisely what people are to vote on --- that is, what year review it is and if there are two parts to the vote. As packets are reviewed and voted upon in January, be sure that the voting comments are a helpful part of the process. Many votes have two parts --- reappointment and whether to skip; tenure and promotion; or extended term and promotion. Ballots should clearly state the voter's position on all relevant questions. For example, state in the first sentence:
I vote yes to reappointment and to skip review in year 3. OR
I vote yes to reappointment, however, I vote to review in year 3. OR
I vote in favor of tenure and promotion to associate professor for XXXXXX.
Obviously, all tenured or tenure track faculty and extended term or extended term track academic professionals have the right to vote on all department issues. The one exception is voting on tenure and promotion for tenured or tenure track faculty. Here, academic professionals are not given the right to vote.
The question at hand is whether a member of a department or program should vote if he/she becomes and administrator outside the department. Clearly, if he/she moves into an administrative position in which the unit reports to that administrator, the administrator should not vote in the department. On the other hand, if the administrator is outside the reporting lines, the question is more complicated. Faculty who move into administrative positions do not lose their formal status as members of that unit and it could be argued, therefore, that they retain their voting rights within a department. However, we believe it is not wise for an administrator to vote within a department or program unless that administrator interacts with the department on a consistent basis through teaching, research or department service.
Streamlined process for third- and fifth-year faculty
UniReg 803 provides for a streamlined procedure for third- and fifth-year faculty reappointments. For these cases, college T&P committees need only evaluate and make recommendations on disputed cases or on cases in which the candidate or an appropriate administrator has requested a committee review.
a. For those who have been given time to tenure in their appointment letters, no skips will be approved.
b. If all levels below the university level unanimously agree that there should be a skip, Academic Affairs would be very unlikely to veto this recommendation and thus require a review. If any level requests a full-scale review, there will be a full-scale review. If a majority of faculty recommend skipping, but a sizeable minority recommend full-scale review, there should be a full-scale review.
Promotion to Full Professor
The deadline for packets for promotion to full professor within the college comes quickly in the fall. Therefore, the process should begin in the prior year in terms of peer review of teaching, etc.
a. Faculty who are eligible for promotion to full professor should discuss with the department head their intentions in the spring prior to the fall review.
b. Those who may wish to be considered for full professor should be informed of the need for peer review of their teaching in the spring prior to the fall review.
c. The Dean's Office has a meeting in the spring for anticipated full professors.
All candidates for tenure or promotion are required to have outside reviews. The procedures for selecting the reviewers can be found in the file Outside Reviewers per Unireg 803. These procedures must be followed without deviation. Letters from personal friends, dissertations advisors, co-authors, and so on will not carry as much weight as letters from experts in the field of study without personal connections. Letters from well-known, high profile researchers within the discipline also carry more weight.
Reappointment, tenure, and promotion evaluation protocol for tenure-track faculty with joint or split positions and/or obligations to secondary units
In the following, the terms "primary-department" and "primary-head" refer to the department and head of the department in which the candidate has the majority of their academic appointment. While secondary-unit refers to the other unit to which the candidate has the remainder of the appointment. This terminology and protocol also applies to a situation in which an obligation to a secondary unit is a formal part of the written job description even when the appointment is technically not joint. An example of the latter is a specific teaching obligation to an interdisciplinary program that is included in the written job description. In addition, some academic personnel have primary homes in academic units but also have obligations to non-academic units including such entities as WyGISC or instrumentation facilities. The department home is the primary unit and the non-academic entity is secondary for the purposes of reappointment, tenure, promotion, and extended term.
a. The primary department will be responsible for the supervision of the production of the candidate’s packet. The primary-department will provide the secondary-department or program with a copy of the candidate's T&P packet (Packet 1 primarily and Packet 2 if relevant) two-weeks prior to the primary-department T&P meeting in which the candidate will be discussed.
b. Faculty associated with the secondary-department/program/facility will review the candidate's packet in relation to the relevant portion of the job description. They may schedule a meeting to discuss the candidates' T&P packet. They will provide written feedback to the secondary-head/director/committee chair.
c. The secondary-head/director/committee chair prepares a written evaluation of the candidate, in the form of a letter, based on packet review and comments from faculty in their unit. The secondary-head/director/chair sends a copy of this written evaluation to the primary-head, for inclusion in the candidate's packet before the primary-department meets to discuss the candidate's reappointment, or tenure, and/or promotion or extended term. The letter from the secondary head provides a minimum standard of participation by the secondary unit.
d. Upon the invitation of the primary department head, the secondary-head/director/chair attends the meeting in the primary-department where the candidate's T&P packet, reappointment, or tenure, and/or promotion is discussed to respond to questions from the primary department faculty to clarify content in the secondary unit’s letter.
e. Both primary and secondary unit evaluations are included in the T&P packet prior to being sent on to the College level.
f. If a candidate for tenure and promotion so chooses, upon written request to the primary and secondary heads, external letters that evaluate the research contribution to the secondary area in addition to the primary area may be solicited in a process that conforms to the one delineated in Unireg 803.
Reappointment, tenure, promotion and extended term protocol for academic personnel whose work supports more than their primary unit but who do not have formal obligations to the secondary unit in their job descriptions.
a. Upon the request of the candidate, the secondary program director may review the candidate’s tenure and promotion packet(s) and provide a written evaluation, in the form of a letter, for inclusion in the candidate’s packet before the candidate is evaluated by the home unit.
b. If the secondary head’s letter is included in the candidate’s packet and upon the invitation of the primary head, the secondary head attends the meeting in the home department where the candidate’s reappointment, tenure, promotion, or extended term is discussed to respond to questions to clarify content in the secondary head’s letter.
The university’s post-tenure review process is described in Post-Tenure Review Implementation on the Academic Affairs policy site at http://uwadmnweb.uwyo.edu/AcadAffairs/PolicyStatements/ptr_implementation.doc . Also see http://uwadmnweb.uwyo.edu/legal/Uniregs/ur808.htm and http://uwadmnweb.uwyo.edu/legal/infocirc/1998-2.htm.
The department head should discuss the evaluation with each faculty member and encourage the faculty member to submit a response to the review if the faculty member does not agree with the assessment. This written response should be included with the head's assessment that is sent to the dean.
In A&S, the practice is to give a faculty member warning before entering the post-tenure review process. For example, suppose a person is reviewed and found to be below expectations in one or more job dimensions. The person then will be reviewed again the next year. Only if the person is below expectations in one or more job dimensions in the second year, too, will s/he enter the post-tenure review process.
The Dean will return the evaluation to the department head following his/her review. The faculty member under review must receive a copy of the completed review and should sign.
Teaching is an essential part of faculty and AP responsibilities. For the T&P process, A&S has constructed a triangulated evaluation of teaching that includes instructor self-evaluations, student evaluation of teaching and faculty peer review. For Post Tenure Review, student teaching evaluations only are required.
A. Student evaluation of teaching:
Because teaching evaluations are an integral part of the tenure and promotion and biennial review processes, it is essential that we follow a standard procedure that informs students of the rationale for evaluations, provides them with adequate time to provide a reasoned assessment of a teacher, and protects them from the “perception” of retaliation if their assessment is negative. No one should be able to question the validity of the student evaluations by reference to a flawed process.
The Teacher Effectiveness Evaluation System is described in Unireg 800. Unireg 800 governs the number of evaluations per rank of faculty member, i.e. tull professor are evaluated once per year, associate professors are evaluated one course per semester, and assistant professors are evaluated every course every semester.
The College of Arts & Sciences has implemented a procedure that requires use of a Student Teaching Evaluation Form consisting of two parts. Part I requires the student to provide a written evaluation while Part II uses a NCR bubble sheet to score multiple choice answers. The administrator of the evaluation is required to read a prepared statement to the class before the evaluation begins. NCR bubble sheets are scanned by the department secretary to create a report.
Temporary instructors are required to have student teaching evaluations given in one section of every course taught per year. The Department Head may request other teaching evaluations if s/he thinks it is necessary. Retired faculty who return to teaching on a part-time basis should be evaluated on the same schedule as is mandated for their rank by UNIREG 800 at the time of retirement.
College of Arts and Sciences Peer Review Policy for Tenure and Promotion
In the College of Arts and Sciences we believe that high quality teaching is obligatory. In this regard peer evaluation of teaching has two purposes: First, it provides colleagues, the tenure and promotion committee, and administrators with a means to assess teaching quality beyond the comments provided by students. Second, it provides those under review with advice on how teaching quality might be improved. For both purposes, it is essential that the peer reviews be forthright, thoughtful and thorough. Both the positive and the negative should be discussed. Peer reviewers are far better able to assess course content than are students; therefore, this aspect of the review should not be ignored.
_______________________________________________________________
PEER EVALUATION OF TEACHING GUIDELINES
- Two reviewers per case are to be chosen either by the department head or by a delegated committee. Reviewers may be from outside the department or program. Reviewers preferably should be tenured. For instructors whose appointments span two or more departments or who do significant teaching for interdisciplinary programs, the department head and program director, in consultation with the candidate, will work together to select reviewers.
- The choice of reviewers should vary from year to year.
- Ideally, peer reviews should be from a variety of classes.
- The protocol for the peer evaluations is stated below. Previous peer evaluations and student evaluations of teaching should be available to the reviewers prior to class visits.
- Peer review reports are required for the second, fourth, and sixth year reviews and prior to consideration for full professor. The department may require additional reviews. All review reports must be included in the T&P packet.
- Cumulative peer evaluations will be maintained in a designated section of the T&P teaching portfolio.
PROTOCOL FOR PEER EVALUATIONS
Step 1. Planning Session. Prior to the class observation there should be a discussion between instructor and the peer evaluator to review the instructor’s previous evaluations of teaching by students and peers, the course syllabus, course content and objectives, objectives/goals of the specific class observed, and the sequencing relevance within the semester.
Step 2. Classroom Observation. At minimum reviewers should visit at least one class. Descriptive and specific comments should be placed in context, be professional, and be collegial. Examples should support statements. Comments should be written clearly to enable both the instructor and others to understand their meanings. A sample note taking form is attached, but its completion is not required.
Step 3. Post-Observation Session. As early as possible after observing the class, the evaluator and the instructor should meet to discuss the class. Suggested issues to discuss can include (but are not limited to) the following:
- Teaching effectiveness
- Asking questions of the instructor to determine whether or not the goals of the class were achieved
- Discussion about possible changes that can be achieved
- Discussion of possible improvements for the class
Step 4. Report to the Unit Head/Director. Preferably, the two reviewers will co-write one final report to be submitted to the unit’s head/director. If necessary the reviewers may write separate reports. With rare exceptions reports should be no longer than two or three pages.
******************************************
University of Wyoming College of Arts and Sciences
SAMPLE OBSERVATION NOTE-TAKING FORM
INSTRUCTOR’S NAME:
COURSE OBSERVED:
DATE OF OBSERVATION:
LENGTH OF OBSERVATION:
NAMES OF PEER REVIEWERS:____________________________________________
PLEASE COMMENT ON THE FOLLOWING ITEMS. Notes in italics are suggested areas to address. Be sure to include suggestions for improvement.
PRE-OBSERVATION MEETING SUMMARY
Syllabus, handouts, course content and objectives, objectives of the specific class observed, timing within the semester or course sequence, level of the class
CONTEXTUAL INFORMATION
Number of students in class, format of class (lecture, rehearsal, etc.);
CONTENT
Subject matter covered, substantive, appropriate, current, challenging, intellectually stimulating.
METHOD AND DELIVERY
Preparation, teaching methods employed, pace and use of time, instructive, questions/answers, technological aids
VERBAL/NON-VERBAL COMMUNICATION
Consistent variety, clarity, effective use of silence, emphasis of tone; gestures, movement, eye contact, proximity, etc.
CLASSROOM ATMOSPHERE
Interaction among students, interaction with instructor, quality and quantity of discussion, mood of class
OTHER OBSERVATIONS OR COMMENTS
_________________________________________________
C. Actions to maintain high quality teaching
For the most part we determine teaching quality through the processes of peer review, self evaluation, and student evaluations.
Many excellent instructors also conduct a mid-term (unofficial) evaluation to make improvement before the semester is over. Help in the classroom is available from the ECTL.
Because we place so much emphasis on student teaching evaluations and student retention, there is an inevitable upward pressure on grades, leading to grade inflation. Overall for the A&S College, lower division grade averages are around 2.5; upper division, around 3.00; graduate, around 3.5.
The Dean’s Office provides the Grade Differential Index (GDI) for each class taught in every department. This index compares the grade averages of students in a classes to those received by these students in other class during the same semester. One would certainly expect considerable variation from class to class. Instructors should monitor their GDIs to avoid grade inflation. Copies of Grade Differential Index are placed in the reappointment packets.