Tenure-Promotion Application and

Review

Art Spisak & Mary Lynne Golden, Provost’s OfficeHelen Reid & Julie Masterson, CHHS Dean’s

Office

May 4, 2010

Date Item ResponsibleNOW Select External Reviewers Applicant

Dept. Head (DH)Dept. Committee

NOW Prepare materials for external reviewers ApplicantJuly 2 Lists of faculty intending to apply for P/T submitted to

ProvostDean

August Materials sent to external reviewers DHOctober 8 Dossier submitted to Dept. Head ApplicantLate Sept-Early Oct.

October 11

Ensure external reviews are returned, solicit additional if necessary;

Transfer dossier to Dept. Committee

DH

October 29Check dossier for completeness, consistencyReview and submit recommendation to DH

Dept. T/P ChairDept. Committee

November 1-3 Review, respond, sign, return form to Dept. Applicant

November 19Check dossier for completeness, consistencyReview and submit recommendation to Applicant

DH

Nov 22-24 Review, respond, sign, return form to Dept. ApplicantNovember 24 DH submits dossier to Dean DHDecember Review and submit recommendation to Provost Dean

CHHS CommitteeJanuary, 2011 Provost schedules meetings with applicants Provost OfficeMarch 11, 2011 Review portfolio and notify Applicant of approval or non-

approvalProvostPACTP

Portfolio

Required Items Preparation Logistics

1. Application Form2. Personal Summary

Statement3. Current Vita4. Yearly Performance Reviews5. External Review Letters6. Guidelines at time of hire7. Dept. Criteria Matrix:

Applicant Accomplishments8. Teaching Documentation9. Research Documentation10. Service Documentation

Two 3-Ring Binders Separate with Tabs First Binder

◦ Items 1-6 Second Binder

◦ Items 7-10

Application Form Applicant

◦ Name◦ Rank/Year of Appointment◦ Current Status◦ Application for Tenure?◦ Application for Promotion (to….)◦ Years Credited toward Tenure◦ Years on Leave from Tenure

Consideration

CHHS Dean’s Office◦ Verifies applicant info

Each Evaluation Entity◦ Recommendation for Tenure◦ Recommendation for Promotion◦ Initials◦ Date

Make your case! Strong, convincing…. Faculty Handbook Definitions/Criteria

◦ Promotion to Associate: “sustained record” (FH 3.4.2)◦ Promotion to Full: “cumulative record” (FH 3.4.3)

Consider your readers◦ External Reviewers (maximum familiarity with scholarship,

but not teaching, service… provide context)◦ Dept. Committee and Dept. Head (maximum familiarity)◦ College Committee and Dean (somewhat familiar)◦ PACTP and Provost (less familiar)

Comment about interrelatedness of teaching, research, and service

Comment about increases in contributions to university and leadership throughout the years at current rank

Personal Statement: General

Comment about your accomplishments within context of requirements

Describe your research focus Work is cohesive, programmatic, makes an impact Information about dissemination venues (impact

factors, international audiences, acceptance rates) Information about funding Personal contributions within collaborations Highlight involvement of students Comment about future research agenda

Personal Statement: Research

Comment about your accomplishments within context of requirements

Discuss any allocated time for administrative activities related to teaching (i.e., program coordinator)

Discuss approach to teaching, how it has evolved as a result of experience and feedback

Discuss innovative teaching methods◦ Technology◦ Problem-Based Learning◦ Service Learning

Describe professional development you’ve completed related to teaching and its effects on your approach

Discuss evidence of your teaching effectiveness◦ Pre-Post Measures◦ Student Evaluations◦ Peer Reviews

Personal Statement: Teaching

Comment about your accomplishments within context of requirements

Highlight contributions to various levels (department, college, university, community, national/international professional)

Describe any impact of your service activities on your students, colleagues, community, professional organization

Personal Statement: Service

Departmental Criteria Charts

Criteria JJM Accomplishments Materials

Student evals of 2.5 or better; Response to student feedback (required)

Table with each summary course evaluation data is included in Teaching Documentation section. All course evaluations met departmental requirements and improved steadily throughout probation period.

My response to student feedback, including specific course adjustments, is provided in the Teaching Documentation section. Examples of changes I made in response to feedback, as well as course aspects that I did not change along with the rationale, are included.

Teaching: pp. 2-3

Teaching: pp. 4-5

Peer review of teaching to document a positive learning environment (1 to 2 per year) (required)

A table summarizing all peer evaluations is included in Teaching Documentation section. They indicate steady improvements in the learning environments associated with my classrooms. My response to peer feedback, including specific course adjustments, is provided in the Teaching Documentation section. Examples of changes I made in response to feedback, as well as course aspects that I did not change along with the rationale, are included.

The complete peer evaluations also are included.

Teaching: pp. 6-8

Teaching: pp. 9- 18

Course syllabi reflect sufficient depth and breadth of content (required)

All course syllabi are included in the Teaching Documentation section. Sufficient depth is illustrated by the number of readings/projects associated with each topic. Sufficient depth is illustrated by the number of different topics included in each course. Although not required, an external evaluation of my current syllabi was conducted by Dr. Big Wig at University of Awesomeness, and she specifically addressed the depth and breadth of my course content. Her evaluation is included.

Teaching pp. 19-32

Teaching: p. 33

Criteria JJM Accomplishments Materials

3 peer-reviewed articles, 2 of which are first authored by Applicant (required)

Powell, A. & Masterson, J. (June, 2009). The effects of structured writing intervention for elementary students with special needs: A systematic review. Evidence-Based Practice Briefs, 3, 59-73.  

Masterson, J. (2009). Curriculum-based measurement procedures for writing meet minimal reliability and validity standards: More complex measures offer promise for secondary students. [Abstract]. Evidence-Based Communication Assessment and Intervention, 3, 4-7. Abstract of McMaster, K., & Espin, C. (2007). Technical features of curriculum-based measurement in writing. The Journal of Special Education, 41, 68-84.

Masterson, J., & Apel, K. (2006). Effects of modality on spelling words varying in linguistic demands. Developmental Neuropsychology, 29(1), 261-277.

Research: Reprints pp. 2-60

3 peer-reviewed presentations (required)

Masterson, J. (2009). Classroom implementation of the multilinguistic model for literacy instruction. Poster presented at the annual meeting of the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, November, New Orleans. 

Masterson, J., Henbest, V., White, L., & Najim, F. (2009). Behavioral and non-behavioral measures of literacy development. Poster presented at the annual meeting of the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, November, New Orleans.

Masterson, J., & Apel, K. (2009). The spelling sensitivity score: Representing increases in accuracy and complexity. Poster presented at the annual meeting of the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, November, New Orleans.

Research: Conference program excerpts: pp. 100-120

At least 4 additional articles or presentations (required)

Masterson, J. & Basye, S. (September, 2007). Proposed Missouri DESE developmental standards for sound system disorder: Research base. Technical report for Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education.

Kamhi, A., Masterson, J., & Apel, K. (Eds). (2007). Clinical decision making in developmental language disorders. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Company.

Masterson, J., Apel, K., & Wasowicz, J. (2006). Spelling evaluation for language and literacy- 2 (SPELL-2) [computer software]. Evanston, IL: Learning by Design

Apel, K., Wolter, J., & Masterson, J. (2006) Effects of phonotactic and orthotactic probabilities during fast-mapping on five-year-olds’ learning to spell. Developmental Neuropsychology, 29(1), 21-42.

Masterson, J., Davies, L., & Masterson, G. (2006). Coach talk: Linguistic demands in youth sports. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 37, 39-49.

Masterson, J., Bernhardt, B., & Hofheinz, M. (2005). A comparison of single word and conversational speech in phonological evaluation. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 14(3), 229-241.

Research: Reprints pp. 61-99

Established program of research/Impact on Field (encouraged)

The majority of my publications and presentations are related to literacy and phonology and represent sequential steps completed as part of my research agenda. Impact on field is evidenced by the number of invited workshops and national and international collaborative projects. Although not the primary focus on my research, I co-authored a book on language development for parents. The book has sold over 25,000 copies and resulted in several radio and newspaper interviews throughout the country.

Research: Vita by topic area: pp. 120-140

Grants (encouraged)

National Institutes of Health. The Developmental Test of Reading Fluency and Spelling. $29,011. In review.

Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. Sound System Disorder Classification Criteria. Funded $6,755.

National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, submitted 2006. A Multiple Factor Model for Word Level Reading and Spelling. $202,891, Not funded.

American Speech-Language-Hearing Association and The University of Cincinnati, 2004-2006. Innovative models for PhD education. Funded $34,000.

Research: Grant IAF and Response Forms: pp. 140-155

Criteria JJM Accomplishments Materials

Departmental (required)

Chair, Search Committee, Assistant Professor Line, 2009-2010Coordinator, Speech-Language-Pathology Program, 2005-2008CSD Graduate Coordinator, 1999-2005Coordinated Development of New Courses to Meet 2005 CAA Accreditation Requirements

Preparation of SLP Academic Portion of CAA Accreditation Report, 2002, 2009

Speech-Language Pathology Curriculum Committee, 1993-present

Service: pp. 1-10

College/University (required)

Faculty Handbook Revision Committee, 2007-2009; Chair, 2009-10Co-Chair, T. Berry Brazelton Presentation, 2006-2007Chair, Faculty Senate Rules Committee, 2006-2007Provost Tenure and Promotion Committee, 2006-2008CHHS College Compensation Committee, 2007-2008Missouri State University Futures Committee, 2005-2006Task Force on Research, 2004-2005

Service: pp. 11-19

CommunityStateNationalInternational(required)

Reviewer for Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in the Schools, Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, Journal of Medical Speech-Language Pathology, Topics in Language Disorders, Developmental Science (Great Britain), 2004-present

Item Developer/Reviewer, SLP Praxis Exam, Educational Testing Service, 2009-present

Review Committee, Language Disorders in School-Age Children and Adolescents, Annual Convention of the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, 2004-2010

Advisory Board, The Psychological Corporation/Harcourt, 2007-2008Reviewer, Leadership Development Program, American Speech-

Language-Hearing Association, External Reviewer, Master’s and PhD Programs in Speech-Language

Pathology, University of Toronto, Fall, 2006President, Council of Academic Programs in Communication Sciences

and Disorders, 2006-2007Presenter, Early Reading First Webcast, United States Department of

Education, September, 2002Vice President for Research and Technology, American Speech-

Language-Hearing Association, 2001-2003.

Service: pp. 20-40

Year 5 (2009; Evals completed Sp10)◦ Department Committee◦ Department Head◦ Dean◦ Your responses (if applicable)

Year 4 (2008; Evals completed Sp09)◦ Department Committee◦ Department Head◦ Dean◦ Your responses (if applicable)

Year 3 (2007; Evals completed Sp08)◦ Department Committee◦ Department Head◦ Dean◦ Your responses (if applicable)

Year 2 (2006; Evals completed F06, Sp07)◦ Department Committee◦ Department Head◦ Dean◦ Your responses (if applicable)

Year 1 (2005; Evals completed Sp06)◦ Department Committee◦ Department Head◦ Dean◦ Your responses (if applicable)

Yearly Performance Statements

External Reviews Selection

◦ Solicit 4; 3 Required◦ From peer or higher-level

institutions◦ Must hold rank for which you are

applying or higher◦ Not personal friend, research

collaborator, etc.◦ Asked to evaluation scholarship

Applicant provides◦ Personal statement◦ Vita◦ Examples of scholarship from each

year in evaluation period DH provides

◦ Department criteria◦ Info re Applicant’s teaching

assignment/workload

Begin with a Table of Contents Place materials in order specified in matrix Student & Peer Evaluations Syllabi and Description of Depth/Breadth (or whatever

dept. criteria are) Professional Development Certificates Description of how teaching evolved as a result of

feedback or professional development activities Artifacts such as screen shots, project descriptions,

service learning assignments, etc. Data regarding teaching effectiveness (outcomes, pre-

post graphs, etc.) Description of reassigned time for administrative

activities related to teaching (e.g., program coordinator) and evaluations of effectiveness in that role

Teaching Documentation (FH 4.2.1)

This table contains my student evals over the past 5 years. The undergraduate evals started within expected levels; however, they were relatively low. Student feedback indicated a lack of clarity in lectures, excessive assignments that were not apparently related to lecture material, and unreasonable demands on exams. Despite the student comments about excessive assignments and demanding exams, I did not want to decrease the course requirements or my expectations because I felt the content was appropriate for a 200 or 300 level course, and future graduate courses would be based on assumptions that the content had been covered in undergrad courses. Consequently, during the next few years, I posted PPT slides in order to facilitate lecture clarity, I reorganized my syllabi so that each assignment was specifically tied to the lecture topics, and I scheduled outside exam prep sections.

Begin with a Table of Contents Place materials in order specified in matrix Reprints of all publications Documentation of presentations (scans of

programs, acceptance letters, etc.) Documentation of invitations for invited lectures,

workshops, collaborations Pubs/presentations grouped by topic, illustrating

sequential agenda Covers from grant applications and agency

responses

Research Documentation (FH 4.2.2)

Begin with a Table of Contents Place materials in order specified in matrix Artifacts from Departmental Service

◦ Minutes, Event Announcements/Brochures Artifacts from College/University Service

◦ College Council Roster◦ University Committee Rosters◦ Event Announcement/Brochures◦ Thank you notes

Artifacts from Community/National/International Service◦ Journal covers (editor/reviewer rosters)◦ Committee rosters◦ Thank you notes

If applicable, extra information regarding relationship between service and teaching/research expertise (in addition to what is in Personal Statement)

Service Documentation

Proof, proof, have someone else proof Make sure documentation is consistent (chart=vita

= personal statement = documentation) Follow organizational framework Self-evaluate Provide only pertinent documentation, organized in

a cohesive manner Minimize “exploration” by evaluators Dossier with errors may be returned by Dept.

Committee, Dept. Head, or Dean’s Office… try to prevent that!

Final Remarks

CHHS Materials Preparation Workshop

June, 2010Details forthcoming

Comments? Questions?