Index
A. Clinical Promotion and Long-Term Contract Policy and Procedures
1. Introduction
2. Criteria for Appointment
3. Rights and Responsibilities of the Candidate
4. Joint and/or Dual Appointment
5. Role of the System-Wide Programs
6. Clinical Promotion and Long-Term Contract Processes
a. Contracts and Conditions of Employment Prior to Long-Term Contract
b. Review of Appointment to a Long-Term Contract
c. Clinical Assistant-Associate-Professor Promotions
d. Process of Dossier Preparation and Review
e. Role of the School Dean during Probationary Period and Dossier Preparation
f. Role of the School Promotion and Tenure Committee
g. Role of the Dean during the Review Process
h. Role of the Campus Promotion and Tenure Committee
i. Role of the Chief Academic Officer
j. Role of the Chancellor
k. The Summary Sequence of Review of the Dossier
7. Contract Renewal (After Approval of Long-Term Contracts), Dismissal and Non-Reappointment
B. Long-Term Contract and Promotion Criteria
1. Clinical Promotion and Long-Term Contract
2. Promotion in Rank
a. From Assistant Clinical Professor to Associate Clinical Professor
b. From Associate Clinical Professor to Clinical Professor
3. Evaluation of Teaching Activities
a. Framework for Judging the Quality of Teaching
b. Forms of Evidence on the Quality of Teaching
4. Evaluation of Service Activities
a. Framework for Judging the Quality of Service
b. Forms of Evidence on the Quality of Service
C. Clinical Long-Term Contract and Promotion Dossier Outline
1. Comments about Dossier Organization
2. Outline for Electronic Dossier Format
D. Severability
A. Clinical Promotion and Long-Term Contract Policy and Procedures
This policy should be read in conjunction with Indiana University’s ACA-18 Regulation of Clinical and Lecturer Appointments. [Amended 3/19/24]
1. INTRODUCTION
According to Indiana University’s Regulation of Clinical and Lecturer Appointments policy (ACA-18), “Clinical appointments are appropriate for those who work primarily in the clinical setting. Clinical faculty may be involved in research that derives from their primary assignment in clinical teaching and professional service; however, continued appointment and advancement in rank must be based on performance in teaching and service” (University Policies of Indiana University).
At Indiana University East, the prefix “Clinical” is used for full-time salaried appointees with the rank of Lecturer through Professor whose primary duties are teaching and service in a clinical setting. Clinical rank faculty members may also be assigned non-clinical teaching and service by their Schools or units. Clinical faculty may be involved in research that derives from their primary teaching and professional service, and supports the academic mission of IU East and their assigned School or equivalent unit; however, they are not expected to do individual research.
Continued appointment and advancement in rank must be based on performance in teaching and service.
This IU East policy should be read in conjunction with the Regulation of Clinical and Lecturer Appointments policy (ACA-18 in University Policies of Indiana University).
2. CRITERIA FOR APPOINTMENT
The specific qualifications of faculty hired for Clinical positions will depend on the needs and standards of the School.
According to IU’s Regulation of Clinical and Lecturer Appointments policy (ACA-18), “The faculty of each unit using clinical appointments shall decide whether those appointments will be with the titles of Clinical Professor, Associate Clinical Professor and Assistant Clinical Professor, or Clinical Senior Lecturer and Clinical Lecturer. Initial clinical appointments should be at the level appropriate to the experience and accomplishments of the individual” (from “Regulation of Clinical and Lecturer Appointments” in University Policies of Indiana University).
At IU East, the faculty of each unit using clinical appointments shall decide whether those appointments will be with the titles of Clinical Professor, Associate Clinical Professor and Assistant Clinical Professor; or Clinical Senior Lecturer and Clinical Lecturer. Initial clinical appointments should be at the level appropriate to the experience and accomplishments of the individual.
Criteria for hiring at the Assistant Clinical Professor, Associate Clinical Professor and Clinical Professor ranks should be determined by the faculty of each School or unit that uses clinical faculty. Criteria should be in compliance with IU East and IU policies for clinical appointees.
Note: Clinical positions do not lead to tenure-track positions. Appointees who have extensive responsibilities for research endeavors outside of teaching should be encouraged to apply for tenure-track positions.
3. RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE CANDIDATE
As explained below, for long-term contract and/or promotion, Assistant Clinical Professors must be found EXCELLENT in teaching or service, and at least SATISFACTORY in the other category. For Assistant Clinical Professors, the campus evaluation criteria for teaching and service are identical to those for tenure-track faculty. In addition, Schools (or equivalent academic units) must specify discipline-specific criteria for clinical teaching and service.
The requirements of the University govern the nature of individual assignments in teaching and service. However, the individual needs to receive assignments that are consistent with professional goals for career development. Deans* will thoroughly discuss rights and responsibilities with each faculty member to reach an understanding that will maximize the benefit of assignments to both the University and the faculty member.
The faculty member shall also be advised in writing, before or at the time of the initial appointment, of the criteria and procedures employed in recommendations and decisions about reappointment and the award of long-term contract specified in the University Policies of Indiana University. Special procedures customarily employed in the department, school, or program of the University in which the faculty member is appointed shall be given to the faculty member in writing, before or at the time of initial appointment. (See "Policies Governing Reappointment and Non-Reappointment during Probationary Appointment Period" in the current University Policies of Indiana University.)
Clinical faculty are expected to follow and be protected by University policies, including those pertaining to faculty hiring and faculty annual reviews. The faculty salary policies of the University, campus, school, and department shall apply to clinical faculty. Clinical faculty have the right to petition the campus Faculty Board of Review. Clinical appointees on long- term contracts are eligible to apply for up to one semester of paid professional leave during each period of seven years’ full-time service, including time on professional leave, following the completion of the first six years of full-time service.
Clinical faculty are not eligible for academic administrative appointments at and above the department chair level.
Though the candidate prepares the dossier, the School Dean or supervisor should provide the candidate with supporting materials, guidance, and assistance in dossier development and review. The Indiana University Regulation of Clinical and Lecturer Appointments policy is in the University Policies of Indiana University.
The candidate will be informed in writing about recommendations made at various levels of the review. In cases for negative recommendations at any level for long-term contract (and/or promotion, if applicable), the letter shall include a copy of the “Policies Governing Appointment and Reappointment during the Probationary Period” and the criteria for long-term contract (and/or promotion, if applicable) from the University Policies of Indiana University to insure that the candidate fully understands his or her rights.
* In all cases the word “Dean” means the School Dean or appropriate supervisor if holding another title.
4. JOINT AND/OR DUAL APPOINTMENT
In the case of an academic joint and/or dual appointment, the candidate’s “administrative home” School is the one recognized in the original contract with Indiana University.
5. ROLE OF THE SYSTEM-WIDE PROGRAMS
It is the responsibility of the Chief Academic Officer to acquire in writing from each appropriate system-wide program an agreement specifying the rights and responsibilities of the candidate, system promotion and long-term contract procedures, timetables, and method of reconciling potential disagreements between IU East and the system-wide program, and inform the candidate and Dean and/or supervisor at the time of the initial appointment. In any case, the recommendation of the system-wide program Chairperson, Dean, Supervisor is forwarded to the Campus Promotion and Tenure committee.
6. CLINICAL PROMOTION AND LONG-TERM CONTRACT PROCESSES
a. Contracts and Conditions of Employment Prior to Long-Term Contract
Clinical appointees’ contracts are renewable on a yearly basis during a seven-year probationary period. All conditions governing each clinical appointee’s initial appointment, yearly contract renewal, and salary must be prepared in advance in writing by the School or unit. All conditions of employment will be made through the normal procedures of each School, in a way that is consistent with all relevant University policies. Clinical appointments during the probationary period shall be subject to the same policies and procedures with respect to conditions of employment as tenure-probationary faculty. Clinical appointees will submit the customary faculty annual report and provide documentation as evidence of the quality of their performance. Evidence of performance of the responsibilities described in IU East criteria for appointment and responsibilities of clinical rank faculty should be included in the annual reports. In the event of non-reappointment, faculty in their first year of a clinical appointment must be given three months’ notice. During the second through sixth consecutive year, twelve months’ notice must be provided, unless otherwise specified by University policy.
b. Review for Appointment to a Long-Term Contract
Clinical appointees must apply for appointment to a long-term contract by the first month of their sixth year of full-time service within their School or unit. However, they may apply for such appointment at any time prior to that. Assistant Clinical Professors may apply for appointment to a long-term contract without promotion, or a long-term contract with promotion. Usually, Assistant Clinical Professors who hold the terminal degree in their disciplines will apply for long-term contract with promotion to Associate Clinical Professor, while Assistant Clinical Professors who do not hold the terminal degree in their disciplines will apply for long-term contract without promotion. The Chief Academic Officer (CAO) will notify candidates eligible for appointment to a long-term contract with or without promotion during September of the fifth year of the probationary period. The candidate for appointment to a long-term contract with or without promotion will prepare a dossier as described below. Candidates should be assessed in the areas of teaching and service. Candidates must be found excellent in teaching or service, and at least satisfactory in the other category. Favorable action should result when the individual has demonstrated a level of excellence in one area, and satisfactory in the other area. Criteria for excellence in teaching and service, and satisfactory in teaching and service, are listed in IU East’s Clinical Professor Policy and Procedures. In addition, Schools (or equivalent) must specify School-specific criteria for excellence and satisfactory performance in teaching and service for clinical faculty. Candidates are required to include School criteria in their dossiers.
The candidate’s review materials will be examined in accordance with the campus process for review of tenure-track faculty, with the exceptions that review by persons outside IU East will not occur. All Assistant Clinical Professors will be reviewed by the Campus Promotion and Tenure Committee.
c. Clinical Assistant-Associate-Professor Promotions
Faculty choosing to seek promotion in rank will go through the normal faculty procedures appropriate to the unit of the University, including peer review by the primary unit, and the Campus Promotion and Tenure Committee. The faculty of each unit using Clinical Assistant, Associate, and Professor appointments must adopt criteria for promotion that are consistent with the IU and IU East criteria for appointment and responsibilities of clinical rank faculty. Those criteria must be written, available to the unit faculty, and filed with the campus academic officer.
Promotion will be accompanied by the salary increases accorded professorial ranks.
d. Process of Dossier Preparation and Review
During the pre-long-term-contract years a candidate should maintain records of activities that support teaching and service. These activities should be the basis of the candidate’s annual report and should be consistent with the candidate’s long-range plan and should demonstrate growth in each of these areas. The candidate’s long-range plan will address school, campus and university expectations toward long-term contract. The candidate should regularly communicate with the Dean about progress and should incorporate suggestions from the Dean and other senior faculty within the school as appropriate.
The Dean will be responsible for supplying or overseeing the collection of all university information about the candidate that would include a copy of the candidate’s letter of appointment, faculty annual reports, supervisor’s annual reviews, course evaluations, letters about the candidate and other appropriate documents. The candidate will be responsible for including analyses of information, philosophies and histories, assessment of work, copies of appropriate documents and an index of dossier contents. The candidate must achieve excellence in teaching or service, and at least satisfactory in the other category, for long-term contract and/or promotion. Any of the levels of review may come to a different conclusion in each of the two areas.
The dossier provides the evidence upon which the long-term contract (and/or promotion if applicable) decisions are to be made. At each stage of the dossier review (School P & T committee, Dean, the campus P & T Committee, the Chief Academic Officer and the Chancellor) the candidate may be asked for additional clarifying information. All requests for additional clarifying information must be in writing and state with specificity the information requested, the rationale for the request, and the deadline for receipt of the materials. If additional information is sought or received during the review of the dossier at any level, the candidate and all previous committees and reviewers must be notified and given the opportunity to respond to the additional information. The information and the responses shall then become part of the dossier.
A candidate who receives a request for clarifying information must respond to the request in writing. The response may provide the clarifying information, refuse to provide the information, or aver that the information is unobtainable. The candidate’s response becomes part of the dossier. The candidate may examine his/her dossier at any time during the review process.
e. Role of the School Dean during Probationary Period and Dossier Preparation
The School Dean works with a long-term contract (and/or promotion if applicable) candidate continuously throughout the candidate’s time at IU East. The Dean may also choose to appoint a faculty member to work in this capacity if he/she is of commensurate or higher rank for which the candidate is seeking long-term contract and/or promotion.
i. The Dean will inform the candidate of school, campus and university requirements for clinical long-term contract (and/or promotion if applicable) soon after hiring. The Dean will clarify written documents and explain how the clinical long-term contract (and/or promotion if applicable) process works and will provide the candidate with a copy of (a) Indiana University policies pertaining to clinical long-term contract (and/or promotion if applicable), (b) Indiana University East policies pertaining to[clinical long-term contract (and/or promotion if applicable) (c) the School policies pertaining clinical long-term contract (and/or promotion if applicable), and the School’s lists of examples for excellent and satisfactory work in teaching and service.
ii. Annually the Dean of the school will communicate with the candidate about progress toward long-term contract and/or promotion. The supervisor’s written annual review will indicate progress toward long-term contract and/or promotion.
Dossier reviewers are advised to be aware of biases connected with faculty’s gender, culture, etc. that influence student evaluations of teaching. [Amended 3/19/24]
f. Role of School Promotion and Tenure Committee*ª
The Schools create their own policies for the Promotion and Tenure review process that are under the purview of School authority, e.g., whether there is a School Promotion and Tenure Committee and how its members are selected. These policies must be consistent with IU and campus policies for clinical long-term contract. This process may include a School Promotion and Tenure Committee whose role it is to evaluate the candidate with a closer understanding of his/her field of study. When possible, at least one senior clinical rank faculty member will serve on the School’s Promotion and Tenure Committee when a clinical rank faculty member is applying for long-term contract and/or promotion. (The senior clinical rank faculty member should have earned a long-term contract and hold the rank of associate professor or higher. Note: in principle, the senior clinical rank faculty member should hold at least the rank for which the candidate is applying.) The senior clinical rank faculty member cannot serve on the School Promotion and Tenure Committee when the Committee is considering a promotion and tenure dossier. A School may choose to have a separate committee comprised of senior clinical faculty members when considering clinical faculty dossiers. If there is a School Promotion and Tenure Committee, it should have at least three members. Except for cases of reconsideration for which a candidate provides additional documentation and/or responses, no person may participate in the review process more than once.
All members of the School’s Promotion and Tenure Committee must have access to the entire dossier. Meetings of this committee shall be in executive session. Members of this committee may not participate or vote by proxy. The School Promotion and Tenure Committee will review and collectively evaluate the complete dossier on the basis of the criteria for clinical faculty long-term contracts. Only members who fully participated in the committee deliberations are eligible to vote. The School’s Promotion and Tenure Committee completes a written evaluation and recommendation concerning the candidate’s case for the long-term contract (and/or promotion if applicable). The evaluation must be consistent with campus and University standards for clinical faculty long-term contract and/or promotion and must substantiate the recommendation. The evaluation will lead later levels of review to an understanding of the impact of the candidate’s contributions in the areas of teaching and service from the perspective of faculty members in the candidate’s School, and should refer to the School’s list of examples and criteria for clinical faculty for rankings of excellent and satisfactory in teaching and service. Candidates should note that they must also fulfill the criteria described in the IU East and IU clinical faculty policies. The evaluation and recommendation will be included in the dossier and a copy will be sent to the candidate.
(The dossier with recommendation(s) included is forwarded to the School Dean.)
* In cases of system schools, the system school review may constitute the School P&T committee review.
ª In cases where there is no School P&T committee, this step is omitted.
g. Role of the Dean during the Review Process
The Dean will read and evaluate the complete dossier including the recommendations of the School Promotion and Tenure Committee, if applicable. The Dean will add his/her written recommendation to the candidate's dossier and send a copy to the candidate. The evaluation must specifically indicate whether performance is “excellent,” “satisfactory,” or “unsatisfactory” in teaching and service. Clinical faculty must be excellent in teaching or service, and at least satisfactory in the other category, for long-term contract and/or promotion. The Dean and/or supervisor will then forward the candidate's dossier to the campus P&T Committee with a letter of transmittal that describes the purpose of the candidacy, e.g., "candidate for long-term contract and/or promotion.” In the event that a Dean has not supervised a candidate, for example the Dean or supervisor is new, the candidate may request that a senior faculty member or administrator familiar with the candidate’s work write a recommendation to be included in the dossier prior to its submission to the Office of Academic Affairs. At the correct stage of the sequence of review of the dossier as explained in Section A.6.e and Section A.6.k, the Dean will write a recommendation. This letter will explain that he or she has not supervised the candidate, and explain how he or she has drawn conclusions from the materials presented in the dossier, including the recommendations in it.
h. Role of the Campus Promotion and Tenure Committee
An Assistant Clinical Professor or Associate Clinical Professor applying for long-term contract will be reviewed by the campus Promotion and Tenure Committee, whether or not the individual is also applying for promotion.
All members of the Promotion and Tenure Committee must have access to the entire dossier. Meetings of the committee shall be in executive session. Members of the committee may not participate or vote by proxy. The Committee members (1) will read and collectively evaluate each completed dossier on the basis of the clinical faculty criteria, including the recommendations of the School Promotion and Tenure Committee, and the School Dean. (2) The committee's recommendation for or against long-term contract and promotion will be determined by secret ballot. Only members who fully participated in the committee deliberations are eligible to vote. The Bylaws to the Indiana University East Faculty Senate Constitution, Section VI.B.7, contain additional policies and procedures for the Promotion and Tenure Committee, including how the alternate member is selected each year, and when members are required to recuse themselves from cases. According to the Bylaws, “The faculty member elected each year who has the least seniority shall serve as that year’s alternate; seniority will be determined by time at Indiana University East. The alternate member will have all committee rights and responsibilities except the vote, but will replace any voting member who is absent or ineligible to vote. During the second year of the alternate’s term, he/she will become a voting member” (Bylaws, Section VI.B.7.e). The Bylaws also state, “Members who feel unable to render impartial judgment on a case must disqualify themselves from that case” (Bylaws, Section VI.B.7.c). (3) The recommendation of the P & T Committee to the Chief Academic Officer, with a copy to the candidate, will include a written, comprehensive and detailed rationale for the recommendation. It will also include a numerical tabulation of the vote on long-term contract and/or promotion. The letter will include numerical tabulations of the votes on long-term contract and/or promotion, and rating (“excellent,” “satisfactory” or “unsatisfactory”) in teaching and service. If there is not a unanimous vote, reasons for the differences in opinion will be included. (4) The chairperson or designated secretary will write notes that summarize major themes of the discussion and provide rationales involved in the decision-making process. These notes and the ballots will then be placed in a sealed envelope and placed in a confidential file in the IU East archives. In cases of appeal or dispute the Chief Academic Officer shall authorize access to these archives.
i. Role of the Chief Academic Officer
The Chief Academic Officer will make a written recommendation for or against long-term contract and/or promotion to the Chancellor, with a copy to the candidate, after evaluating the dossier and the recommendations of the School Promotion and Tenure Committee, the School Dean, and the Campus Promotion and Tenure Committee. The evaluation must specifically indicate whether performance is “excellent,” “satisfactory” or “unsatisfactory” in teaching and service.
j. Role of the Chancellor
The Chancellor makes the final determination to approve or not approve the long-term contract and/or promotion. The Chancellor will evaluate the dossier and the recommendations of the School Promotion and Tenure Committee, the School Dean, the Campus Promotion and Tenure Committee, and the Chief Academic Officer. The evaluation must specifically indicate whether performance is “excellent,” “satisfactory” or “unsatisfactory” in teaching and service. The Chancellor will write a letter notifying the candidate of approval or non-approval of the long-term contract and/or promotion.
In the event of a negative decision, the candidate will be advised of his/her rights to appeal the decision and referred to the relevant section in the current University Policies of Indiana University.
k. The Summary Sequence of Review of the Dossier is as follows:
i. Completed dossier is submitted to the Office of Academic Affairs. Note: dossiers of clinical faculty do not go to external reviewers.
ii. Dossier is reviewed by the School Promotion and Tenure Committee. The School Promotion and Tenure Committee writes a letter to the Dean. The letter becomes part of the dossier; the candidate receives a separate copy of the letter.
iii. Dossier is reviewed by the School Dean. The Dean writes a letter to the Campus Promotion and Tenure Committee. The letter becomes part of the dossier; the candidate receives a separate copy of the letter.
iv. Dossier is reviewed by the Campus Promotion and Tenure Committee. The Campus Promotion and Tenure Committee writes a letter to the Chief Academic Officer. The letter becomes part of the dossier; the candidate receives a separate copy of the letter.
v. Dossier is reviewed by the Chief Academic Officer. The CAO writes a letter to the Chancellor. The letter becomes part of the dossier; the candidate receives a separate copy of the letter.
vi. Dossier is reviewed by the Chancellor of Indiana University East. The Chancellor writes a letter notifying the candidate of approval or non-approval of the long-term contract and/or promotion.
Each long-term contract will be for a period of five years.
Note: reviewers at any level may request clarifying information from the candidate.
A candidate who receives a request for clarifying information must respond to the request in writing. The response may provide the clarifying information, refuse to provide the information, or aver that the information is unobtainable. Both the request and the candidate’s response become part of the dossier. The candidate may examine his/her dossier at any time during the review process and, if requested, may also add more documentation or a response to any level of review. In either case, the candidate’s response becomes part of the dossier.
If additional information is sought or received during the review of the dossier at any level, the candidate and all previous committees and reviewers must be notified and given the opportunity to respond to the additional information. The information and the responses shall then become part of the dossier.
In all cases a candidate for long-term contract may withdraw without prejudice from consideration prior to receiving official notification of the long-term contract decision. Withdrawal from long-term contract consideration in the penultimate year of the probationary period will be considered resignation from the university effective at the end of the probationary period.
7. CONTRACT RENEWAL (AFTER APPROVAL OF LONG-TERM CONTRACTS), DISMISSAL AND NON-REAPPOINTMENT
Annual reviews of performance after appointment to a long-term contract will follow the same procedures as the annual review of tenured faculty. Contract renewal will be based on continued performance in teaching and service as documented in the annual reviews. Contract renewal or non-renewal will be recommended by the School Dean to the Chief Academic Officer, who will forward his/her recommendation to the Chancellor during the review process in the fourth year of the contract.
Dismissal of clinical appointees holding a long-term contract which has not expired may occur because of closure or permanent downsizing of the program in which the faculty member teaches; otherwise, dismissal of clinical appointees shall occur only for reasons of professional incompetence, serious misconduct, or financial exigency.
Non-reappointment of clinical appointees to a new contract term may occur for the foregoing reasons or may occur as well for reason of changing staffing needs of the academic unit’s program. Appeal of non-reappointment or dismissal decisions will follow procedures outlined in the IU East Faculty Senate Constitution Bylaws and the IU and IU East Faculty Board of Review Policies and Procedures.
(Adapted from the 2006 version of the IU East Clinical Rank Appointments at IU East policy.
B. Long-Term Contract and Promotion Criteria
1. CLINICAL PROMOTION AND LONG-TERM CONTRACT
Individuals in clinical ranks should refer to the specific promotion statements relating to their ranks in Indiana University’s Regulation of Clinical and Lecturer Appointments Policy (ACA-18), and in the IU East Clinical Professor Policy.
Assistant Clinical Professors are required to apply for long-term contracts. They are not required to apply for promotion, but they may choose to do so. Usually, Assistant Clinical Professors who have the terminal degree in their discipline will apply for long-term contract with promotion, while Assistant Clinical Professors who do not have the terminal degree will apply for long-term contract without promotion.
Long-term contract dossiers may present work relevant to teaching and service that followed completion of the individual’s highest degree, including work completed independently, at other institutions, or at Indiana University. Promotion dossiers should present only work done while the candidate has been in the present rank, either at Indiana University or elsewhere.
2. PROMOTION IN RANK
a) From Assistant Clinical Professor to Associate Clinical Professor
This advancement is based on continued improvement, whether in quality of teaching or in the performance of service roles. Clinical faculty are required to be excellent in teaching or service, and at least satisfactory in the other category, for long-term contract and/or promotion.
If teaching is the primary criterion, it should be distinctly superior to that of effective teachers at this and other major institutions. If service to the University, profession, or community is the primary criterion, it should be discharged with merit and should reflect favorably on the University and on the individual’s academic status. (Adapted from Faculty and Librarian Promotions (ACA-38), University Policies of Indiana University.)
Specific criteria for promotion from Assistant to Associate Clinical Professor should be determined by the School. These criteria must comply with the criteria in the IU and IU East clinical faculty policies.
b) From Associate Clinical Professor to Clinical Professor
This promotion is based upon achievement beyond the level required for the associate professorship.
If teaching is the primary criterion, the candidate must have demonstrated an extraordinary ability to stimulate in students, either undergraduate or graduate, a genuine desire to achieve professional excellence (Adapted from Faculty and Librarian Promotions (ACA-38, University Policies of Indiana University). This may be demonstrated through a continued commitment to growth as an instructor, a record of teaching distinction through pedagogy, leadership, mentorship, and/or student accomplishments. Wherever feasible, this may also include the ability to direct student research or experiential learning with a substantial impact on student achievement. [Amended 1/24/23]
If administrative, professional, or academic service is the primary criterion, distinguished contributions must be evident. (Adapted from Faculty and Librarian Promotions (ACA-38), University Policies of Indiana University)
At Indiana University East, candidates for promotion to Clinical Professor on the basis of teaching or service may have forms of peer-acknowledgement, such as awards (local, regional, national), that attest to the distinguished quality of their teaching or service work. [Amended 1/24/23]
Specific criteria for promotion from Associate Clinical Professor to Clinical Professor should be determined by the School. These criteria must comply with the criteria in the IU and IU East clinical faculty policies.
3. EVALUATION OF TEACHING ACTIVITIES
Teaching is the primary responsibility of Indiana University East faculty. As such, the faculty engages in ongoing professional development activities on teaching and learning and strives to create quality learning environments for all students. Quality teaching promotes learning and intellectual development by the students. Teaching evaluation systems should therefore be organized around characteristics crucial to the success of the teaching endeavor. Research indicates that there are multiple components involved in effective college teaching and fundamental to student success. The major research on teaching and learning has been summarized in the following six criteria and their respective components, known to have an effect on the quality of teaching and learning. These criteria form the basis for evaluating the quality of teaching at Indiana University East.
a. Framework for judging the quality of Teaching:
The following provides a framework for faculty members to present their teaching and enable evaluators to judge the quality of that teaching. Candidates should address each of the following six criteria. The definitions and examples listed after each criterion are provided only as illustrations of what candidates may address to demonstrate a case for each. Candidates are not expected to address every definition and example. NOTE: These criteria should apply to a wide variety of teaching situations; however, their individual salience will vary depending upon the particular teaching environments involved.
1) Teacher’s Content Expertise: Effective teachers understand their academic field well; and match their instruction to institutional and program learning objectives.
2) Course Design: Effective teachers have a clear purpose that organizes course elements; align activities and assessments with learning outcomes; communicate high but realistic expectations; integrate innovative practices in teaching and learning; and match the instruction to students’ learning needs and interests. [Amended 1/24/23]
3) Instructional Delivery: Effective teachers use good communication skills; design learning environments that encourage time on task; engage students to use knowledge actively; assess student success in achieving course learning objectives; use an appropriate array of methods; encourage students to work together to learn; and give regular, helpful evaluations of learning.
4) Instructional Relationships: Effective teachers promote student interest in the subject, learning, and success; effective teachers and students need to know and respect each other; effective teachers acknowledge and adjust to student differences; are fair and impartial in dealings with students; and are open to receiving feedback and adjusting courses appropriately. [Amended 1/24/23]
5) Course Management: Effective teachers organize face to face and/or online instructional environments well; provide timely feedback; and are available to help students, both in and out of the classroom. [Amended 1/24/23]
6) Professional Development: Effective teachers hold high standards and engage in ongoing professional development; and show improvement in their teaching through student feedback, peer review, and other appropriate feedback and review methods.
(Note: The criteria above are adapted from the Report of the Task Force on Assessing and Improving Teaching and Learning at Indiana State University, 1998. The full list of subcomponents, descriptions and examples adapted from the 1998 Report of the Task Force on Assessing and Improving Teaching and Learning at Indiana State University is available in Appendix One.)
In addition to the above criteria, candidates must address their School or unit’s criteria for clinical faculty’s teaching. The School should specify criteria for those seeking long-term contract without promotion; those seeking promotion to Associate Clinical Professor; and those seeking promotion to Clinical Professor.
b. Forms of evidence on the quality of Teaching:
1) Every dossier will contain a narrative, which includes a philosophy of teaching with rationale. Candidates should also relate specifics of their teaching to the IU East and School criteria for judging the quality of teaching. To do this, candidates will describe in detail up to three courses that they feel best demonstrate the evaluation criteria. The narrative should include details on hurdles, adjustments, and growth with evidence on outcomes and impact on student success. Where appropriate, candidates should note the scholarly foundations for their choice of teaching methods. It is the responsibility of candidates to make explicit the connections between their teaching documentation as evidenced in the selected courses and the evaluation criteria. It will be most helpful if at least one of the selected courses provides evidence over multiple semesters. In the narrative, candidates present an argument that their teaching has met or exceeded the criteria for judging the quality of teaching. A narrative of 10-25 double-spaced pages is suggested as sufficient to make a case. Supporting documents must be referred to in the narrative but do not by themselves constitute the candidate’s argument. [Amended 1/24/23]
(2) Dossiers should analyze and reflect on multiple sources of evidence of student learning, success, and achievement of course and/or program learning outcomes. Evidence may include, but is not limited to, classroom assessments such as exams, papers, projects, pre/posttests, portfolios, and exit surveys. A faculty member’s teaching effectiveness should be measured, in part, by student products and performances of their learning. It is acknowledged, however, that factors outside teaching also play a role in student learning, so multiple sources of evidence should be used to evaluate teaching. [Amended 1/24/23]
(3) To ensure faculty provide multiple sources of student learning, every dossier will provide appendices containing the following evidences of the quality of the candidate’s teaching:
(a) Examples of class syllabi, reading lists, examinations, assignments and corresponding samples of student work, summaries of course-level assessment evidence with analysis of outcomes and impact on student success, and handout materials from courses selected in “b)(1)” above.
(b) List of courses taught at IU East and their enrollments, organized by semester and academic year. Include details on format (online, practicum, hybrid, lab, face-to-face). Highlight graduate versus undergraduate, study abroad, internships, and Honors courses when appropriate.
(c) At least two peer evaluations of teaching and teaching materials. Peer reviews ideally reflect recurrent visits throughout the pre-long-term-contract period from several colleagues within and outside the candidate’s discipline with the intention of leading to the candidate’s reflection and attention to growth. The culminating visit should occur during the period of two years prior to dossier submission.
(d) Faculty must include, at minimum, all student feedback for “up to three courses” that are described in detail in their teaching narratives. The student feedback emphasizes students’ comments on their learning, and qualitative feedback on how the faculty member’s teaching and guidance have impacted their learning. Procedures used for collecting the student feedback, enrollment in each section, and number of students responding should be included.
ACA-18 Regulation of Clinical and Lecturer Appointments states, “Because numerical summaries in student course evaluations may reflect cultural biases, and low participation rates may skew results, numerical ratings should not be used as the primary source of data for evaluating teaching. Each campus and unit faculty governance organization shall have a policy for evaluating teaching that provides for qualitative student feedback and other sources of information.”
Faculty members may choose to include quantitative measures of student feedback. Quantitative feedback may be given equal consideration with qualitative feedback. However, quantitative feedback should not be the primary consideration for evaluating the quality of teaching and learning. Qualitative feedback may also reflect biases based on culture, gender, etc. However, biases in students’ qualitative comments are more readily apparent due to context than biases in quantitative feedback. Biases in comments may be explained as biases with contextual evidence, and countered with explanation._ Faculty members may choose to counter such biases with explanation, but are not required to do so.
The nature of the “student feedback” that must be included in annual reports, and in Promotion and Tenure, Clinical, and Lecturer dossiers, is delegated to Schools, which should develop School policies consistent with the campus and IU policies. For example, the student feedback might consist of existing or revised course evaluations, students’ narrative responses to questions about their learning (as suggested by the U10-2022 UFC/ALC Task Force Report of April 2020), midterm student feedback, and/or other. When determining the nature of the “student feedback,” Schools should consider including a judiciously worded statement for students that addresses bias connected with faculty’s gender, culture, etc. For example, information about bias that influences student evaluations of teaching can be placed with instructions for completing the evaluation, or elsewhere on the form.
~~ ~~
[Comment: each School will determine the nature of the “student feedback” to be included in annual reports, and in Promotion and Tenure, Clinical, and Lecturer dossiers as described above, revise their School policies accordingly, and send their revisions to the Chief Academic Officer by November 29, 2024.]
~~ _~~
(e) All annual self-reflections of teaching and learning. A self-reflection of teaching and learning should be included in every annual report submitted for annual review.
(f) Summative Reflective Analysis of Peer Reviews, and student feedback. The summative analysis should focus on what trends and interconnections emerge, how the faculty member responded, and how teaching improved as a result of peer reviews and student feedback. The Summative Reflective Analysis may include other feedback and assessments.
(g) List of teaching awards and honors, if any; annotated if desired.
(h) An annotated list of professional activities in teaching and learning and student success which may include, but is not limited to, professional development, advising, mentoring, peer reviews for colleagues, student achievements, teaching-related faculty learning community participation, study abroad outcomes, service learning impact, Honors course outcomes, student research achievement, diversity course outcomes, and community engagement in and beyond the classroom. [Section 3.1-h amended 1/24/23; Section B.3.b.3.a-h amended 3/19/24 to address references to mandatory reporting of numerical data in course evaluations and student feedback (rendered obsolete by UFC vote).]
Clinical faculty must be found excellent in teaching or service, and at least satisfactory in the other category, for long-term contract and/or promotion. A faculty member’s teaching is SATISFACTORY when it can be demonstrated that the instruction is effective, taking into account the nature of the courses and their role in the mission of the university. A faculty’s member teaching is EXCELLENT when it can be demonstrated that it is unusually effective or distinguished. The evidence to document excellent teaching must be based on a continuing record of effective instruction and improvement, and it must also demonstrate how the teaching is unusually effective or distinguished.
Teaching is a central role of faculty at Indiana University East. All faculty have been asked to assume various roles in the ongoing assessment of our academic programs. In addition, faculty often find themselves in the roles of developing and designing new curricula for their programs or the campus. The following statements are intended to provide some guidance on how these particular responsibilities are reflected in the promotion and tenure criteria. Some of the teaching criteria clearly speak to these faculty activities. A faculty member might therefore choose a course that he or she developed as one of the three selected courses to include in the dossier, relating the curricula development to the stated teaching criteria. These activities could also, if selected by the faculty member, be addressed in the service section of the dossier as service to the institution. In fact, the concluding statement about excellence in service includes a reference to initiating or effecting substantial change in curriculum of the unit, campus, or university. We recognize pedagogical scholarship, as evidenced through publications, presentations, and/or grants, may contribute to a candidate’s case for excellence in teaching.
4. EVALUATION OF SERVICE ACTIVITIES
Indiana University East possesses a valuable resource in the educated talent, technical competence, and professional skill of its faculty and expects that this resource will be tapped as professional, community, and university needs warrant. Service activities by faculty members enhance their professional status and the status of the university. Effective service will receive the same consideration as proficiency in teaching.
Service applies a faculty member’s knowledge, skills, and expertise as an educator, a member of a discipline or profession, and a participant in an institution to benefit students, the institution, the discipline or profession, and the community in a manner consistent with the missions of the university and the campus. From year to year a faculty member’s service duties will vary in terms of the extent of involvement and the constituencies that are served. It is expected that the levels of faculty participation in such functions will vary directly with seniority. Junior faculty should normally have less responsibility in the service area than senior faculty for whom more responsibility is generally expected. Among senior faculty members, there may be variations in responsibilities so that service duties do not become consistently burdensome for any specific individual.
Examples for discussion might include:
Service to students:
Service to students involves activities that assist individual students and groups of students beyond the normal teaching responsibilities of every faculty member. These activities may involve support for curricular, co-curricular, and extra-curricular activities or organizations.
Service to the institution:
Academic programs, departments, schools, the campus, and the university as a whole are not simply organizations but are communities. As such, these communities rely on their members for the necessary energy, time, and leadership to sustain and develop them as viable and effective systems for accomplishing their missions. Faculty and administrators are members of these communities who share responsibility for their governance and advancement by contributing through institutional service. Service to the institution involves activities that help sustain or lead academic endeavors.
Service to the discipline or profession:
Service to the discipline or profession involves activities designed to enhance the quality of disciplinary or professional organizations or activities.
Service to the community:
Service to the community involves activities that contribute to the public welfare beyond the university community, to the benefit of the citizenry and the development of the community, and call upon the faculty member’s expertise as teacher, administrator, or practitioner. [Amended 1/24/23]
a. Framework for judging the quality of Service:
The following provides faculty members a framework to present their service work and enable evaluators to judge the quality of that work. These quality indicators will be useful in evaluating all service work; however, their salience will differ depending on the work being evaluated and the instances of application (i.e., a single service activity or an overall service record). While faculty members may engage in many types of service as individuals, their service as faculty at Indiana University East will be evaluated on the following five criteria. Candidates should address each of the following five criteria. The definitions, examples, and characteristics listed after each criterion are provided only as illustrations of what candidates may address to demonstrate a case for each. Candidates are not expected to address every definition, example, and characteristic. NOTE: These definitions, examples and characteristics will apply in varying degrees depending on the individual service activities of the faculty member.
(1) Impact/significance is characterized by furthering the missions and goals of the appropriate levels of the campus and university; influencing constituencies or stakeholders; and contributing to the professional development of the faculty member.
(2) Intellectual work is characterized by command and application of relevant knowledge, skills, and technological expertise; contribution to a body of knowledge; imagination, creativity, and innovation; and sensitivity to and application of ethical standards.
(3) Importance of role is characterized by consistency in completing necessary work; sustained contribution; increasing level of responsibility; creative and responsible leadership; and consensus building.
(4) Communication and dissemination is characterized by responsible representation of work during and after completion; communication with appropriate audiences; use of modes of communication and dissemination appropriate to audiences; and analysis of and reflection on the service.
(5) Interaction of service and teaching is characterized by a symbiosis of service and teaching, and service that contributes to the learning environments for students and for faculty members.
(Adapted from Service at Indiana University: Defining, Documenting, and Evaluating, 1999)
In addition to the above criteria, candidates must address their School or unit’s criteria for clinical faculty’s service. The School should specify criteria for those seeking long-term contract without promotion; those seeking promotion to Associate Clinical Professor; and those seeking promotion to Clinical Professor.
b. Forms of evidence on the quality of Service:
(1) Every dossier will contain a narrative in which candidates relate specifics of their service to the criteria for judging the quality of service. To do this, candidates will, within the context of their overall plans of service, describe in detail up to three service activities that they feel best demonstrate the evaluation criteria. It is the responsibility of candidates to make explicit the connections between their service documentation as evidenced in the selected activities and the evaluation criteria. In the narrative, candidates present an argument that their service has met or exceeded the criteria for judging the quality of service. A narrative of 10-25 double-spaced pages is suggested as sufficient to make the case. Supporting documents must be referred to in the narrative but do not by themselves constitute the candidate’s argument.
(2) Every dossier will contain a list of service activities to include:
(a) An annotated list of University service (e.g. committees, taskforces, program assessment, curricula development, students or student groups), listed by semester and year, that demonstrates impact, role, contribution, etc.:
(i) Department
(ii) School
(iii) IU East
(iv) Indiana University
(b) Service to the discipline or profession and external to the university.
(c) Service to the community.
(d) Annotated list of professional development activities in service.
A faculty member’s service is SATISFACTORY when it can be demonstrated that the faculty member has participated actively in service. Service to departmental, school, campus, university, community, or professional life are examples of what may be sufficient to be considered SATISFACTORY or even EXCELLENT in this category. A faculty’s member service is EXCELLENT when it shows sustained evidence of leadership or participation with distinction. The evidence to document excellent service would include awards or recognition from peer professional groups; initiating or effecting substantial change in curriculum, policy, procedures, or organization of the unit, campus, or university; or extensive, coordinated, fruitful activity in the service categories mentioned above. Candidates should include and address disciplinary guidelines explaining expectations for service in their fields when appropriate.
C. Clinical Long-Term Contract and Promotion Dossier Outline*
1. COMMENTS ABOUT DOSSIER ORGANIZATION
a) No document should appear in more than one section of the dossier. Reference to the original entry should be made in subsequent sections.
b) Candidates should avoid including in their dossiers any material that is unrelated to long-term contract and/or promotion.
c) Long-term contract dossiers may present work relevant to teaching and service that followed completion of the individual’s highest degree, including work completed independently, at other institutions, or at Indiana University. Promotion dossiers should present only work done while the candidate has been in the present rank, either at Indiana University or elsewhere.
d) Candidates should select and limit documentation to only those materials that are needed to prove points made in the narrative. Documents should be labeled to explain their purpose to readers.
The candidates are responsible for explaining the relevance of evidence submitted in their dossiers, evaluation criteria, and to guide the reader through the material by arranging and presenting it clearly. They should remember that some readers will not be familiar with the candidates’ areas of expertise or with the proper weight to be given to some specialized evaluations.
2. OUTLINE FOR ELECTRONIC DOSSIER FORMAT
With electronic dossier submission, candidates upload materials as individual files. Recommendations and statements from official levels of review for clinical faculty will be added to the electronic dossier during the process of review.
All uploaded items need to be carefully labeled with names to assist reviewers in immediately understanding each file’s contents and to facilitate clear organization to guide readers (e.g., Teaching Narrative, Sample Syllabi, Course Evaluation Summary, Peer Reviews). The following is an outline for the electronic dossier.
I. General
A. Campus and School Clinical Faculty Criteria
B. Candidate’s Curriculum Vitae
C. Candidate’s Statements
1. Letter of Appointment
2. Introductory Narrative
3. Teaching Narrative
4. Service Narrative
5. Annual Reviews and Supervisor Reports
6. Annotated lists of Teaching Activities and Service Activities
D. Letters of support from faculty, administrators, students, and others
II. Teaching
A. Forms of evidence on the quality of teaching could include, but are not limited to a list of courses taught, sample course material, graduate student training, student awards and honors, undergraduate research mentoring, student feedback on learning, unsolicited letters from students, evidence of learning outcomes, assessment outcomes, peer reviews, annual self-reflections of teaching and learning, curricular development, professional teaching development, advising, mentoring, peer reviews for colleagues, student achievements, teaching related faculty learning community participation, study abroad outcomes, service learning impact, Honors course outcomes, student research achievement, diversity course outcomes, community engagement in and beyond the classroom, teaching publications, teaching awards and honors (see Section B.3.b above). [Amended 1/24/23; 3/19/24]
B. Other relevant evidence of teaching.
III. Service
A. Forms of evidence on the quality of service such as service to Campus, University, School, and Department; service to the profession; service to the community (see Section B.4.b above).
B. Other relevant evidence of service.
NOTE: The 2015 version of Indiana University’s electronic dossier platform contains a Supplemental-Post Submission tab that is intended to be used in the event that additional information is sought by reviewers of the dossier at any level. Candidates should not otherwise use the Supplemental-Post Submission tab to upload documents.
For an explanation of instances when additional information is sought by reviewers, see Section A.6.k above.
D. Severability
If a provision of this policy is held in violation of state or federal laws and regulations, or contrary to Indiana University policy, or otherwise invalid, only the affected part shall be void. This invalidity shall not affect other provisions of this policy which can be given effect without the invalid provisions. To this end, the provisions of this policy are severable.
Approved by Indiana University East Faculty Senate, 2/5/19; amended 1/24/23; 3/19/24.
Appendix One
The following criteria, including subcomponents, definitions and examples, are adapted from the Report of the Task Force on Assessing and Improving Teaching and Learning at Indiana State University, 1998.
Faculty should also refer to current School promotion and long-term contract policies for Clinical faculty, the all-IU ACA-18 Regulation of Clinical and Lecturer Appointments policy, and documents such as “Identifying Pathways for Excellence in Teaching.” [Amended 3/19/24]
As explained in the Clinical Professor Policy and Procedures, candidates should address each of the following six major criteria. Subcomponents, definitions and examples are offered only to illustrate how one might demonstrate the case for each criterion. Candidates are not expected to address all subcomponents, definitions and examples.
NOTE: These criteria should apply to a wide variety of teaching situations; however, their individual salience will vary depending upon the particular teaching environments involved.
(1) Teacher’s Content Expertise
(a) Effective teachers understand their academic field well.
A teacher’s knowledge base in a subject area is fundamental to the creation and enhancement of students’ opportunities to learn well. A teacher’s expertise assures that content is current and taught in adequate depth. Competence includes not only content knowledge but also the ability to organize, integrate, adjust, and adapt this content in ways that make it accessible and thought-provoking to the learner.
(b) Effective teachers match their instruction to institutional and program learning objectives. Indiana University East has a set of learning objectives that defines outcome expectations for all students. Several academic programs have additional learning objectives tied to program review requirements. Faculty integrate their content expertise with these learning objectives to foster learning of the objectives across the disciplines.
(2) Course Design
(a) Effective teachers have a clear purpose that organizes course elements. A teacher needs to provide an organizing framework that orients students to the course’s ideas, materials, and activities that reflect innovation in teaching and learning methods.
(b) Effective teachers align activities and assessments with learning outcomes. Teachers need to demonstrate purpose in the design and delivery of course activities and assessments to ensure that students achieve designated course and/or program and campus learning outcomes.
[Amended 1/24/23]
(c) Effective teachers communicate high but realistic expectations. The goals of a course must be challenging enough to motivate students, yet not so demanding as to overwhelm them.
(c) Effective teachers match the instruction to students’ learning needs and interests. The design of a course must include deliberate connections between the subject matter and students’ needs and interests that engage them in the learning process. Good courses should be designed to help students extract main points and they should incorporate activities that connect learning to applications.
(3) Instructional Delivery
(a) Effective teachers use good communication skills. The ideas and directions presented in class are clear and understandable. Good communicators go beyond clear information delivery to create environments that encourage comfortable, two-way communication between students and teacher.
(b) Effective teachers design learning environments that encourage time on task. An effective teacher uses what is known about how people learn to design productive learning time so that teachers and students spend time on tasks that aid learning.
(c) Effective teachers engage students to use knowledge actively. Learning is enhanced when students are engaged in active learning. Effective teachers can describe specific ways in which their understanding of learning theories and processes shapes the design of instructional activities to ensure that students explore the subject thoroughly.
(d) Effective teachers use an appropriate array of methods. Teachers must be prepared to alter instructional methods to suit immediate goals and to accommodate students’ differences and/or developmental levels. However, it is the aptness of methods that is important to learning, not simply the presence of different teaching techniques. [Amended 1/24/23]
(e) Effective teachers encourage students to work together to learn. Peers are one of the most powerful learning aids. Effective teachers structure activities that use peer relationships to assist in the learning enterprise.
(f) Effective teachers give regular, helpful evaluations of learning. To improve the quality of their work, students need continual, immediate, and helpful feedback. This evaluation system must provide specific information that both confirms knowledge gains and highlights the next steps for improvement.
(g) [Effective teachers assess student success in achieving course learning objectives. Effective teachers use a variety of assessment strategies and evaluate direct evidence of student learning to confirm the achievement of course learning objectives. This may include both formative and summative assessment techniques. Assessment results are also used to guide reflection and revision of course design and delivery to promote student growth and success.]
[Amended 1/24/23]
(4) Instructional Relationships
(a) Effective teachers promote interest in the subject. The effective teacher finds ways to create student interest and commitment to the learning task. Effective teachers employ strategies of engagement such as, but not limited to individual conferences, advising, mentoring, directing research, leading collaborative research, and other appropriate techniques. [Amended 1/24/23]
(b) Effective teachers and students need to know and respect each other. At the very least, it is important that students feel welcomed to talk to the instructor. The teacher’s ability to connect with students constitutes a significant factor in learning success.
(c) Effective teachers acknowledge and adjust to student differences. Teachers must be responsive to student differences such as class, race, gender, ethnic and lifestyle backgrounds, and developmental learning stages. [Amended 1/24/23]
(d) Effective teachers are fair and impartial in dealings with students. Students’ perception that the teacher treats all students fairly is fundamental to the integrity of a class.
(e) Effective teachers are open to receiving feedback and adjusting courses appropriately. The teacher provides, receives, and makes use of regular, timely, specific feedback about course procedures. The teacher develops a reflective approach to teaching by collecting feedback and using it to continually modify the approach to teaching.
(5) Course Management
(a) Effective teachers organize instructional environments well. The way in which the classroom is organized as an environment determines how effectively it will support learning. Course management encompasses a range of issues such as: regular meetings with classes; timely assignment of tasks and return of feedback, and so on.
(b) Effective teachers are available to help students, both in and out of the classroom. Effective teachers understand that learning does not occur only in the classroom. Rather, good teaching requires teachers to engage with student ideas thoughtfully, frequently, and extensively in and outside of the classroom.
[Amended 1/24/23]
(6) Professional Development
(a) Effective teachers hold high standards and engage in ongoing professional development. Good teaching requires that teachers have a rich understanding of pedagogical theory and practice and are able to engage in the ongoing development and adaptation of their teaching approach. They use research on teaching and learning as it applies to instruction in their disciplinary field.
(b) Effective teachers show improvement in their teaching through student feedback, peer review, and other appropriate feedback and review methods. Effective teaching evaluation includes multiple measures, not a single instrument or scale of success. As teachers engage in appropriate professional development activities and apply what they are learning in their own teaching, the quality of their teaching and of their student’s learning will improve.
(Adapted from the Report of the Task Force on Assessing and Improving Teaching and Learning at Indiana State University, 1998)
[Amended 1/24/23; 3/19/24]
