Department of Youth Development Professor
Portfolio Review Worksheet (September 2004/updated September 2006)
Person Reviewed:
Reviewer:
1st Reader:
Vote:
Date of Review:
2nd Reader:
Criteria for Evaluation for Rank Change
Criteria
Strengths
Concerns
Prerequisites
 Rank of Associate Professor for a minimum of 5
years prior to January 15 submission/application.
 Minimum of one juried paper published prior to July
1 letter of intent.
 Conducted a seminar during current academic year.
Portfolio Guidelines
 Resume [5 pp.]
 Position Description
 Professional Exp [8 pp.]
 One page description of future professional
development plans
 Up to 15 pieces of support material
 3- 5 letters due Jan. 15 to chair of Professors
A. Evidence of successful scholarship
Scholarship in UW-Extension is defined as creative intellectual work; reviewed by the scholar’s peers who affirm it’s value; added
to our intellectual history through its communication; and valued by those for whom it is intended. (See Articles of Faculty I.B for
scholarship assessment)
1. “Creative, intellectual work”
 How does the work build upon the knowledge,
research, or practice in the field?
 How does the work respond to an identified need,
fill a need for new knowledge, a new approach, or
a new method, or the creative adaptation of
existing knowledge, approaches or new methods?
 How did the work result in the development of
new information or the development of new or
creatively adapted methods or approaches?
2. “Reviewed by scholar’s peers who affirm its
value”
 How has the scholar’s work been shared in
published articles, academic presentations,
exhibitions of work, creative performances, or in
other public venues in which peers independently
evaluated this work?
 How has the scholar’s work resulted in the
receiving of an award, honor, or some other public
recognition by peers?
 How has the scholar’s work resulted in
testimonials, letter of recommendation, or
adaptations that affirm the value of this work?
3. “Added to our intellectual history through its
communication”
 How has the work been shared with colleagues?
 How has the worked added to the body of
knowledge?
 How has the scholar’s work resulted in
testimonials, letter of recommendation, or
adaptations that affirm the value of this work?
D:\99281535.doc
4. “Valued by those for whom it was intended”
 What actions did the intended audience take as a
result of this work?
 What measurable impacts occurred as a result of
the effort (e.g., individual, family, community –
knowledge gained, information shared, behavior
change)?
 How were the developed materials or processes
subsequently used by others?
 What were the implications, either positive or
negative, beyond those anticipated for the intended
clientele and/or community?
B. Evidence of continuing professional development
C. Evidence of leadership in program development
D. Effective working relationships with colleagues
and clientele
E. Contributions to the profession department and
university
F. Probability of positive future contributions to the
profession, department and university
Other General Comments
D:\99281535.doc