The revised checklist, approved by the senate at its final meeting of last semester on Dec. 10, was developed in response to urging by Provost Thomas E. Headrick that a fuller and more credible evaluation of teaching become part of the promotion dossier.

"It seems to me the kind of portfolio with the flexibility described here would clearly be additive." MICHAEL FRISCH

The additions to the checklist that address evaluation of a candidate's teaching include:

– Analyses, including the percent of students responding, of a candidate's quantitative teaching evaluations

– Making the chair responsible for selecting reviewers to evaluate a candidate's teaching, scholarship and community service, and ensuring that the mix of reviewers appropriately addresses all three areas. These reviewers may include external and internal reviewers, and former and current students. This provision would apply to both the confidential and non-confidential sections of the dossier.

The provision concerning external reviewers elicited considerable discussion among members of the senate's Tenure and Privileges Committee, which reviewed revisions to the current checklist submitted by the Provost's Office, according to committee Chair Margaret Acara, professor of pharmacology and toxicology. Although Senior Vice Provost Kenneth Levy and William Fischer, vice provost for faculty development, had proposed that external reviewers be required to evaluate a candidate's teaching, committee members felt that "external evaluators probably were not the best evaluators of the teaching of a candidate," Acara said.

– Requiring candidates to submit a single statement about their teaching, research and public-service contributions. The committee felt three separate statements, as proposed by Levy and Fischer, would be a burden on the candidate, Acara said.

– Requiring candidates to prepare a teaching portfolio that would be explicitly evaluated by the department chair, by selected internal reviewers and by selected external reviewers, when appropriate. The portfolio would be discipline-specific, with each unit developing its own list of supplementary material to be included in it.

The concept of a teaching portfolio generated much discussion among members of the senate.

Lou Swartz, associate professor of law, observed that the "notion of a teaching portfolio is an unfamiliar notion to many units" and may need to be explained further.

He also noted that it's becoming increasingly difficult to get "distinguished (external) reviewers" to read the scholarship that is sent to them. "I think that the idea of sending a teaching portfolio to them as well is an invitation to some kind of routine response," he said.

Any unit that wants to "solicit opinions" about a candidate's teaching should be free to do so, he said. "Why this undocumented new proposal should be imposed on all units at this time is a mystery to me," Swartz said.

David Benensen, professor of electrical and computer engineering and a member of the Tenure and Privileges Committee, stressed that the teaching portfolio is intended to be discipline-specific. "The committee is recognizing that each part of our system is a wee bit different" and each unit, he added, should be given the opportunity to determine what constitutes a teaching portfolio for its candidates for promotion.

Michael Cowen, professor of mathematics, told senators he did not understand how the teaching portfolio relates to how a candidate "actually is in the classroom." He pointed out that the draft checklist included such items for the portfolio as exams, handouts and course syllabi.

"None of that seems to tell me how someone does in the classroom," Cowen said, adding that while he finds student evaluations valuable, he has looked at exams and syllabi from both good and bad teachers "and I can't tell the difference.

"I definitely would like to see people evaluated for their teaching. I don't see how this teaching portfolio advances that one bit," he said.

Michael Frisch, professor of history and American studies, disagreed.

"It's hard for me to imagine a situation in which I would not learn something from receiving course syllabi, exams and other such materials," said Frisch, who noted he has written many letters evaluating teaching. "It seems to me the kind of portfolio with the flexibility described here would clearly be additive."

Cowen suggested that including a teaching portfolio be an option for units.

Dorothy Woodson, a librarian in Lockwood Library, said it is dangerous to have different standards for different candidates. "You have to have consistency in evaluating dossiers," she stressed.

Barry Smith, professor of philosophy, noted that faculty members who are hired for their research contributions and come up for promotion may be required to submit an "empty" teaching portfolio that would be a "bad signal" for those deciding on the promotion. In such cases, a candidate should have the right not to submit a teaching portfolio, Smith said.

Thomas Schroeder, associate professor of learning and instruction, added that "teaching is the responsibility of all of us, even though it is a small responsibility for some people, and it ought to be documented in the dossier."

A motion by Smith to amend the checklist to make the teaching portfolio an option for individual candidates for promotion was defeated by senators.

The checklist approved by the senate will be forwarded to President William R. Greiner for his action.