Page tree

Versions Compared

Key

  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.

...

Non-tenured:  Annual contract non-tenure-track faculty may be awarded successive three-year contracts after five successful years of teaching and service or scholarship. Click here for the Review Process for Faculty in Consecutive 3-year Contracts. 

Schedule for Promotion

Promotion by Rank requires:  a specified length of EMU service attained, as well as specific ratings (Competent, Proficient, or Outstanding) across the domains of Teaching, Scholarship, and Service.

...

  1. In October, each member of the colleague review committee (CRC) reviews the dossier using the Colleague Review Response form. All members of the committee complete Part I of the colleague review response form prior to the meeting of the colleague review committee. Program colleagues of the candidate who are not members of the CRC may also choose to review the dossier and submit their feedback via Part I of the response form to the CRC.
  2. By November 7, the chair convenes the CRC to discuss the candidate’s performance (Not Achieved, Competent, Proficient, or Outstanding) in each of the three domains. Discussions during the meeting are confidential.
  3. Following the CRC meeting, all members complete and sign Part II of their individual colleague response forms. Individual members submit their form to the CRC chair by November 15. The faculty candidate does not see the individual response forms.
  4. The CRC chair reviews the results of the response forms and drafts a summary report. The report summarizes the discussion of the CRC, the performance ratings in each domain, and the level of support for the contract renewal/promotion.
  5. The CRC chair submits the summary report, completed dossier, student evaluation results, and colleague response forms to the respective dean by November 30. The summary may be viewed by any member of the colleague review committee, upon request.

...

  • Cover Letter indicating the purpose of the review: tenure, contract renewal, and/or promotion.
  • Self-evaluation form: The faculty candidate identifies a rating of own performance (Not Achieved, Competent, Proficient, or Outstanding) for each domain, with a supporting explanation of the evidence. The candidate may also speak to current areas of focus in their professional development and contributions to the school/university.
  • Curriculum vitae
  • Class Visit Forms: the faculty member places two signed class visit forms in the dossier; a program faculty member must complete one form.
  • Course Evaluation Summariesthe faculty member provides quantitative and/or qualitative summaries of course evaluation results since their previous review, along with a representative and helpful sample of course evaluation reports.
  • Statement of Faith and Life (depth of updating is at the discretion of the applicant)
  • Annual goals reports from prior 3 years
  • Faith integration paper (for the initial tenured six-year contract only). The integration paper is 5-10 pages in length and is also shared with peers at an appropriate venue, as arranged by the provost (not a part of the review process). The faculty candidate addresses how their teaching and scholarship is influenced by serving at Eastern Mennonite University, a Christian institution in the Anabaptist tradition. In addition, it should explore the question of affinity with the university mission. A guidelines document is available on the Provost’s page in MyEMUSee the Faith Integration Guidelines for more information.
  • Supporting Evidence at Faculty Discretionoptional supporting evidence may be offered to assist in demonstrating the level of performance. Duplication of evidence is unnecessary. Supporting evidence may include, but is not limited to:
    • evidence of teaching strategies or curriculum development
    • sample syllabi
    • evidence of student learning
    • published scholarship
    • evidence of service assignments
    • reports generated by consulting or other professional service
    • internal/external letters of recommendation
    • evidence of public critique or adoption of one’s scholarly work

...