Second Year Review
California Lutheran University
Guidelines for Candidates
CONTENTS
CANDIDATE MATERIAL:
1. Candidate Guidelines
2. Candidate Checklist for Second Year Review
3. Preliminary Dossier Outline
4. Self-Appraisal of Teaching
5. Self-Appraisal of Scholarly Productivity
6. Self-Appraisal of Professional Service
7. Faculty Evaluation Process & Standards (from Faculty Handbook)
*All forms must be submitted electronically.
FORMS FOR EVALUATORS:
These forms are included for your information only. They are distributed by the Vice President’s
office on behalf of the ART Committee. Responses are placed in the candidate’s confidential file.
1. Teaching Evaluation: Classroom Visitation
2. Teaching Evaluation: Materials and Procedures
3. Chair/Dean Evaluation of Advising
4. Department/School Contribution Evaluation
5. University Contribution Evaluation
6. Comprehensive Evaluation
*All forms must be submitted electronically.
CANDIDATE GUIDELINES FOR SECOND YEAR REVIEW
The Appointment, Rank and Tenure (ART) Committee has prepared this guide to aid you in your preparation
for your second- or fourth-year review. We encourage you to read carefully Section Two.VII. of the Faculty
Handbook, which contains more detailed information.
The second year review is designed to assist you in your progress toward promotion and/or tenure review by
having you address the key evaluation criteria and by providing you with feedback on your current
performance. In the review you are required to produce a smaller scale version of the tenure/promotion
dossier. For the second-year review, you will collect materials and provide your reflection on them for the
first time.
Second-year candidates are expected to have devoted most of their time to teaching. They should have
developed a scholarship program, and may have begun to do some advising and service on committees.
It is very important that the materials in the dossier speak directly to the criteria by which you will be
evaluated. There is no ideal size for the volume of material which needs to be in your file, but the committee
encourages you to submit enough information for a meaningful review without padding it. The committee
will be more concerned with the quality and specificity of the evidence you present than with its sheer
quantity.
In addition to your dossier, the ART Committee will review materials in your confidential file. This file
contains confidential evaluations solicited by the Vice President for Academic Affairs on behalf of the ART
Committee, and it is closed to the candidate. These materials include:
Second year reviews:
a.
Evaluations from your Department Chair/Program Director and Dean.
b.
Teaching Evaluation from one tenured member of your department.
c.
Evaluations from one tenured faculty outside your department.
d.
Departmental contribution evaluations from all department members.
Also included in the file are copies of the course evaluations for all of your CLU courses, and information
from the Registrar regarding your course loads and grade distributions.
CANDIDATE CHECKLIST FOR SECOND YEAR REVIEW
Please feel free to consult with the Vice President for Academic Affairs of Chair of the ART if you
have any questions about what to do or how to prepare your material. We want to be as helpful as
possible.
1.
Meet with your Department Chair/Program Director to discuss review process.
2.
Prepare your dossier and submit it to the Academic Affairs Office by September 15 or
closest working day.
PRELIMINARY DOSSIER OUTLINE
2ND YEAR REVIEW
I.
Introduction and Overview
A.
Personal statement
Write a fairly brief overview statement in which you present whatever considerations you
feel are pertinent to your review. Be sure to identify specific areas in which you feel you
have particular strength as well as those in which you feel improvement is needed. What
goals have you set for yourself for the next few years?
B.
Curriculum Vitae
II. Teaching Effectiveness and Advisement
A. In evaluating a candidate’s credentials, the most weight is given to teaching/advising
effectiveness. Select two courses to use as illustrations of your effectiveness as an instructor.
For each course, collect course syllabi, exams, assignments, and exercises and write a brief
narrative which responds to the questions on the “Self-Appraisal of Teaching” form.
Building on these specific courses as examples, present an overall portrait of yourself as a
teacher, describing what you do best as well as discussing the areas in which you think you
need to improve. In doing so, be sure to review all of your teaching evaluations and
comment on what you have learned from them.
B. It is not expected that you have advised in your first year. If you are an exception and have
please describe your activities and effectiveness as a student adviser within and outside of the
department. These activities might include advising load as well as advising materials
prepared to assist students.
III. Scholarly and Professional Activities
A.
Submit a list and samples of published works, creative works, papers presented at
scholarly meetings, or other evidence of scholarly activity.
B.
Using the questions contained in the “Self-Appraisal of Scholarly Productivity” and
“Self-Appraisal of Professional Service” forms, include a narrative which assesses your
accomplishments in this area. You are strongly encouraged to supply review or evaluative
comments from professional peers along with material you submit in support of the
criteria in this category.
IV. Institutional Service
A.
Include a list of all activities which constitute service to your department. List the
activity, dates, and the specific role you played. Please include a review/discussion of
special responsibilities and contributions to your department (e.g., revising curriculum,
writing a department newsletter, organizing a colloquium, assisting with Program
Review, or serving on a search committee).
B.
Include a list of activities which reflect service to the University community as a whole.
List the activity, dates, and specific contribution that you made to each. Include
representation of the faculty to the larger community beyond CLU, contributions to
student recruitment and enrollment activities, and participation in extracurricular student
clubs or activities.
V. Community Service
A.
6-97
Include a list of activities which constitute service to the community. List the activity,
dates, and precise role you played. These activities might include: lectures given to
community groups, leadership positions held in community organizations, participation
in charity or service groups in the community, technical assistance or consultation to
businesses or community groups, membership in professional organizations. You may
include supporting documents such as programs or letters from community
representatives.
Candidate Self-Appraisal of Teaching
Candidate:_____________________________________________________________________
Course:_______________________________________________________________________
Number of times you have taught this course:_____________
Average enrollment in this course:____________
Is this course:
A core requirement
A major/program requirement
An elective
Write a brief, reflective, and compelling statement that responds in spirit to the questions below. Provide
relevant material, such as course syllabi (including statement of course objectives), exams, assignments,
exercises, and student work, which presents an accurate overall portrait of you as a teacher. Describe what
you do best as well as areas that you think need improvement.
1. How do the course objectives stated in the syllabus reflect the educational objectives of the
University or your department?
2. How does the organization of the course connect with the course objectives?
3. What teaching methods do you use? What is the rationale for choosing these methods?
4. Respond to as many of the following as are applicable:
a. What do you do to promote critical/creative thinking in this course?
b. What do you do in this course to encourage active/participative learning by students?
How does this facilitate independent thinking?
c. If you use technology in this class, how does it enhance student learning?
d. Do you include issues of values and ethics in this course? How?
e. What do you think students find most challenging about this course?
5. What, in your opinion, are the major strengths of this course?
6. In what ways do you feel this course could be improved?
7. Add any comments you feel were not addressed above that would be relevant in evaluating your
teaching in this course.
8-03
Self-Appraisal of Scholarly Productivity
Full-time faculty at CLU are expected to be engaged in a sustained program of research, scholarship,
or creative activities in their field of expertise and to have presented the results in a professional,
peer-reviewed forum. CLU embraces a broad definition of scholarship, informed by the work of
Ernest Boyer.1 It may include all forms of scholarship as well as critical analysis and arts
performances. Publications in professional journals or reviews of performances by professional peers
are expected to be a component of each faculty member’s dossier of scholarly products.
Forms of scholarship include:

Scholarship of discovery – traditional research, the creation of new knowledge through
original investigation.

Scholarship of integration – the critical evaluation, synthesis, analysis, integration, or
interpretation of the research of creative work produced by others. It may be disciplinary,
interdisciplinary, or multidisciplinary in nature and includes the varieties of artistic
interpretation and performance.

Scholarship of application – the application of disciplinary expertise to the investigation of
intellectual, social, or institutional problems. In the arts it can involve mastering a new
performance repertory or exploring a style of creative activity developed by someone else.

Scholarship of teaching/practice –the use of one’s expertise as a teacher to develop, transform,
and extend the skills, methodology, and resources of pedagogy in artistic, disciplinary, or
interdisciplinary teaching. It includes research and other creative work that focuses on the
improvement of teaching and learning.
Consider the following suggestions as guidelines for your statement about your scholarship. You do not need
to respond to each one. There may also be some scholarly activities you engage in that would count by that
my not neatly fit into the definitions of scholarship mentioned above. These “gray areas” may count as
scholarship if you demonstrate and document that they meet the following criteria:

The activity requires a high level of disciplinary expertise.

The activity either breaks new ground or has impact.

The work and its results are documented and peer reviewed.
1. List articles, books, monographs, chapter(s) in books, courseware, or creative works (and reviews where
applicable) that you have published, and include copies in this section of the dossier. Identify the journals
or other publications that are refereed.
2.
List papers presented at conferences in your discipline. Please list the title of your paper/presentation and
the type and name of conference. Include copies in this section of your dossier.
3.
Identify unpublished manuscripts and creative or scholarly works you have completed, and include a copy
in this section of the dossier.
4.
What are your plans for your future scholarly development? Is there anything in progress? Explain.
1
Boyer, E.L. Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate. Princeton, N.J.: Carnegie
Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 1990.
Self-Appraisal of Professional Service
In addition to producing scholarship, faculty may also be involved with service-related activities that
contribute to professional associations or to the university community in a scholarly way. These activities may
supplement and even enhance a faculty member’s scholarly productivity, but they should not be seen as oneto-one equivalents for scholarly productivity. Consider the following suggestions as guidelines for your
statement about your professional service. You do not need to respond to each one. There may also be some
scholarly activities you engage in that would count but that may not neatly fit into the following suggestions.
These “gray areas” may count as professional service as well.
1. Have you directed a student’s research project in your discipline? Have you co-directed a student’s
research project in another discipline? Describe the work and direction you have provided.
2. Have you included students in your own scholarly or creative activity? How have you encouraged
research or scholarly creative activity by students (e.g. student research conferences, student attendance
at professional conferences, on-campus or off-campus publications of student research, creative works
or other scholarship)?
3. Identify any awards or honors you have received for your scholarly work or positions you have held in
professional associations.
4. Identify grants you have applied for and those you have received.
5. What conference/workshops in your discipline have you attended solely as an attendee? How did the
attendance at this conference benefit you professionally?
VII.
FACULTY EVALUATION PROCESS AND STANDARDS
A. Faculty Evaluation Criteria and Documentation
Members of the full-time teaching faculty are regularly evaluated on performance of their faculty
assignments and the progress they have made in their professional development. Semester summaries of
each faculty’s teaching evaluations are sent to and reviewed by department chairs. Department chairs’
evaluations are reviewed by the dean of the school or college.
Annually, department chairs or deans are expected to have at least one evaluation interview with each nontenured member of their department. The interview includes a discussion of teaching evaluations, course
syllabi, scholarly development, and service to the department, the University and the community. The
results of these interviews are transmitted to the dean of the school or college and then to the Vice President
for Academic Affairs for placement in the faculty member’s file. The Vice President for Academic Affairs is
responsible for reviewing these evaluations and ensuring that they are included in the appropriate files.
Formal evaluations by the ART Committee are carried out in the second, fourth, and sixth years for all
faculty, before promotion in rank and before granting continuous (tenured) contracts. Following the sixthyear review, each faculty member will be evaluated every five years by the ART Committee.
Faculty evaluations cover four major categories of performance:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Teaching Effectiveness
Effectiveness as an Adviser
Scholarly Productivity and Professional Service
University and Community Service.
Of the four, teaching effectiveness is the most important and is weighted most heavily.
1.
Teaching Effectiveness
At California Lutheran University, teaching effectiveness is the most important attribute of a faculty
member. An effective teacher is one who:

fulfills basic teaching obligations (See Section Two.IV.D.);

has command of the subject and knowledge of current developments in the discipline;

relates the subject to other areas of knowledge;

effectively communicates with students;

plans and executes a substantive, well-organized course;

stimulates critical and creative thinking;

actively engages students in the learning process;

designs assignments and assesses student performance consistent with high academic standards;

uses a variety of teaching methods where appropriate;

makes efforts to improve overall teaching.
Teaching effectiveness is assessed by:

the candidates’ presentation in their dossiers of teaching philosophy, materials, methods and selfevaluation;

student course evaluations;
2.

peer and chair evaluations based on classroom observations;

evidence of efforts to improve teaching.
Effectiveness as an Adviser
An effective adviser is one who:

is knowledgeable about all curricular requirements;

is available to students by maintaining adequate open office hours (See Section Two.IV.E.1.);

helps students select a course of study;

accepts a proportionate share of advisees;

guides students to integrate cocurricular and extracurricular activities into their academic and career
planning;

provides students in the faculty member’s classes with additional consultation and guidance outside
of class.
Evidence of effectiveness as an adviser is provided through:
3.

self-evaluation;

evaluation by chair or program director based on input from students, faculty, and staff;

student evaluations.
Scholarly Productivity and Professional Service
A productive scholar engages in a sustained program of research, scholarship, or creative activities in
his or her field of expertise and presents the results in publications or other appropriate public or
professional forums.
Criteria for scholarly productivity:

require a high level of scholarly expertise;

are in a documented form;

are peer reviewed.
Professional service includes:

serving as a reviewer for a professional journal;

holding office in a professional association.
Evidence of scholarly productivity and professional service is provided through:

documentation of such activities as advanced study, research, publication, leadership in scholarly
and professional organizations, and artistic performance;

reviews or statements of evaluation by professional peers;

presentations or publications in juried venues or organs such as journals, books, or conferences;

4.
awards, grants, or commendations.
Service
a.
University Service
Faculty members who are effective contributors to the life of the University:

regularly participate in academic gatherings, faculty governance, and other forms of service
(See Section Two.IV.G.);

demonstrate initiative, leadership, or sustained responsibility in some area that contributes to
the vitality of the University community.
Evidence of institutional service is provided through:
b.

self-report of activities;

evaluation by the chair/program director;

evaluation by peers.
Community Service
Faculty members who are active contributors to the community work with people and/or
organizations in their professional field or in communities. They might:

present lectures to community groups;

hold leadership positions or provide service in community, religious or political organization
activities;

participate in non-profit organizations designed to serve the general public;

serve community groups in a professional capacity.
Evidence of community service is provided through:

self-report of activities, adequately documented;

awards;

testimony by leaders of community/professional groups.
B. Second- and Fourth-Year Reviews
1.
Purpose
The second- and fourth-year reviews are designed to assist faculty in their development as teachers,
advisers, scholars, and contributing members of the University community as well as to provide faculty
with a formal assessment of their performance in each of these areas.
2.
Process
For both second- and fourth-year reviews, the faculty members and their deans/department chairs are
notified that they are candidates for review by the Vice President for Academic Affairs. The faculty are
sent a packet of guidelines, instructions, and deadlines for preparing their dossiers. At the same time,
the deans/department chairs are sent guidelines and forms for evaluating the candidates.
Candidates submit their dossiers directly to their immediate supervisors (deans/department chairs).
Department chairs review the dossiers, student evaluations, peer evaluations and all other evaluation
materials and discuss conclusions drawn from the evaluation in a conference with the faculty candidate.
Department chairs produce a written evaluation of the candidate’s performance in all categories,
addressing both strengths and weaknesses and identifying specific goals for improvement. All
department peer evaluation forms included in the dean/department chair packet must be appended to the
summary report.
Dossiers and department chair reports are submitted to the dean for his or her review and assessment.
The dean submits the chair’s evaluation and the dean’s own assessment to the Vice President for
Academic Affairs.
In preparation for the Fourth-year Review, the candidate’s department chair, dean, the Vice President
for Academic Affairs, and the President will review the faculty member’s prospects for tenure in light of
the University’s projected needs and resources. (See Section Two.VII.D.2.a.) The results of this
discussion will be included in the material sent to the ART Committee and shared with the faculty
member in the final summary of the evaluation.
The ART Committee conducts a thorough review of the evaluation materials including the candidate’s
dossier, student evaluations, and evaluations by peers, department chairs and deans. The ART
Committee submits a written report of its evaluation, which covers the candidate’s professional
preparation (e.g., degree completion) as well as performance in each of the four areas for evaluation,
and its overall assessment of the fourth-year candidate’s progress toward and prospects for tenure for
those on probationary contracts.
The report by the ART Committee is sent to the Vice President for Academic Affairs and to the faculty
member. A copy is also placed in his or her permanent file. The report forms the basis for a conference
between the candidate and the Vice President for Academic Affairs if the candidate wishes to review the
dossier further.
FORMS FOR EVALUATORS:
These forms are included for your information only. They are distributed by the Vice President’s
office on behalf of the ART Committee. Responses are placed in the candidate’s confidential file.
1. Teaching Evaluation: Classroom Visitation
2. Teaching Evaluation: Materials and Procedures
3. Department Contribution Evaluation
4. University Contribution Evaluation
5. Dean/Department Chair/Program Director Comprehensive Evaluation
CONFIDENTIAL
TEACHING EVALUATION
Classroom Visitation Report
Name of Instructor:
Course Visited:
Number of Students Present:
Date:
Duration of Visit:
hrs
1.
Please describe the topic(s) covered and/or work in progress during your visit.
2.
Which instructional techniques were used?
mins
_____ Lecture
_____ Writing
_____ Student Presentations
_____ Guest Speakers
_____ Interactive Lecture/Discussion
_____ Small Group Discussion
_____ Case Studies
_____ Problem Solving
_____ Audio-Visual Methods
_____ Other
3.
Is the instructor well prepared? Is class time used well? Is there a logical flow to the class?
4.
Are students actively engaged in the learning process? Are they listening, responding, asking
questions?
5.
Does the class session engage the students in higher order critical thinking? Explain how this
was observed.
6.
Overall, how would you characterize the effectiveness of the teaching you observed? (If
lecturing, is there a clear and interesting presentation of the material? If discussion, are
questions well-formulated; do students understand their task; does instructor draw out
responses which emphasize main points?)
7.
Based on your visit, what are the most obvious teaching strengths?
8.
What are your recommendations for improving teaching effectiveness?
________________________________________________
Name of Peer/Chair Appraiser
7-03
CONFIDENTIAL
TEACHING EVALUATION
Appraisal of Teaching Materials and Procedures
Candidate
Date ________________
Course ______________________________________________________________________
Appraiser ___________________________________________________________________
Please answer each of the following questions thoughtfully and as thoroughly as possible based on
your observations of teaching materials and teaching performance. Offer suggestions if you think
improvement should be made.
1. Based on your formal or informal discussion with this instructor, describe his/her interest in
and/or commitment to teaching and learning.
2. Based on your observations, what aspects of this course and the instructor¹s teaching seem best to
foster independent thinking on the part of the students?
3. How does the course content reflect current knowledge in the area of the discipline covered in
class? How do the materials included in the dossier reflect the instructor¹s level of preparation?
4. How do you feel the instructor¹s materials and performance in class align with his/her selfappraisal included in the dossier?
5. How are students most effectively challenged in this course?
6. How reasonable and clearly communicated are the instructor’s expectations of students’
performance?
7. In what ways is active/participative learning evident in this course?
Evaluator Signature:___________________________________________Date:_____________
8-03
CONFIDENTIAL
Department Contribution Evaluation
Name of Faculty Candidate:_____________________________________Date:_________________
Directions: Please write in the blank space the number that describes your judgment of each factor as
it relates to the individual's department/school service and relations with department colleagues. This
will be included in the confidential portion of the promotion/tenure review file.
Highest
7
Middle
6
5
4
3
2
Lowest
Don't know
1
X
1.
Acceptance of department assignments. Does the faculty member accept department
assignments willingly? Does he/she volunteer occasionally?
2.
Attitude. Does the faculty member act in the best interest of the department and the
college with regard to non-teaching activities/tasks?
3.
Professionalism. Does he/she take a professional attitude toward human relations and
personnel or student problems?
4.
Cooperation. To what extent does the faculty member assist colleagues and others with
their problems? Is he/she a good team member?
5.
Performance on department assignments. Does the faculty member complete
assignments thoroughly and on time? What is the quality of his/her performance?
6.
Overall Contribution. Does he/she contribute positively to the overall energy, morale and
accomplishments of the department?
Feel free to mention any noteworthy contributions here:
Evaluator Signature: _____________________________________________ Date:______________
8-03
CONFIDENTIAL
University Contribution Evaluation
Name of Faculty Candidate:_____________________________________Date:_________________
1. Please list the specific instances in which you have observed the Candidate’s contribution to the
University as a whole.
2. Please comment on the quantity and quality of the Candidate’s contributions. What impact has
she/he had on the CLU community?
Evaluator Signature: _____________________________________________ Date:______________
8-03
CONFIDENTIAL
Dean/Department Chair/Program Director
Comprehensive Evaluation
Name of Faculty Candidate:_____________________________________Date:_________________
Please provide your best professional judgment regarding the candidate’s performance on as many of
the following criteria for review as you feel qualified to address. For each category, please describe
specific instances (type and frequency) in which you have been able to directly observe the
candidate’s performance as well as your assessment of it.
A. Teaching effectiveness
Basis for observation:
Strengths:
Areas for improvement:
B. Advising
Basis for observation:
Strengths:
Areas for improvement:
C. Scholarship/Creative Work and Professional Service
Basis for observation:
Strengths:
Areas for improvement:
D. Service to the University
Basis for observation:
Strengths:
Areas for improvement:
E. Community Service
Basis for observation:
Strengths:
Areas for improvement:
Your evaluation will be kept in the confidential portion of the candidate’s file.
Evaluator Signature: _____________________________________________Date:______________
8/03
Suggested Revisions
Please make note of anything that was unclear in these documents or should be revised for any
reason.