Index
 
A. Promotion & Tenure Policy and Procedures

1. Introduction
2. Rights and Responsibilities of the Candidate
3. Joint and/or dual appointment
4. Role of the System-wide Programs
5. Promotion and Tenure Processes
   1. Eligibility
   2. Process of Dossier Preparation and Review
   3. Role of the School Dean during Probationary Period and Dossier Preparation
   4. Role of the School Promotion & Tenure Committee
   5. Role of the Dean during the Review Process
   6. Role of the External Reviewers
   7. Role of the Campus Promotion and Tenure Committee
   8. Role of the Chief Academic Officer
   9. Role of the Chancellor
   10. Reporting the Decisions
        
       B. Promotion & Tenure Criteria
6. The Principle of Tenure
7. Criteria for Tenure
8. Criteria for Promotion
9. Promotion in Rank
   1. Assistant Professor to Associate Professor
   2. Associate Professor to Professor
10. Evaluation of Teaching Activities
    1. Criteria
    2. Forms of Evidence
11. Evaluation of Research and Creative Work
    1. Criteria
    2. Forms of Evidence
12. Evaluation of Service Activities
    1. Criteria
    2. Forms of Evidence
        
       C. The Dossier
                  1. Dossier Organization
                  2. Dossier Format
        
       D. Severability

This policy should be read in conjunction with Indiana University’s ACA-37 Faculty and Librarian Tenure and ACA-38 Faculty and Librarian Promotions. (added 2/20/24)

A. Promotion and Tenure Procedures
 
           1. Introduction
 
Promotion and tenure involve two different decisions. Promotion to any rank is recognition of past achievement and a sign of confidence that the individual is capable of greater responsibilities and accomplishments. Tenure shall be granted to those faculty members and librarians whose professional characteristics indicate that they will continue to serve with distinction in their appointed roles. Tenure will generally not be conferred unless the faculty member or librarian achieves, or gives strong promise of achieving, promotion in rank within the University.

While tenure and promotion are campus-specific, their principles are governed by policies and procedures that apply to all campuses of the university. Candidates and reviewers for promotion and tenure should also consult the policies for promotion and for tenure from the University Policies of Indiana University. Of particular interest are the Policy for Faculty and Librarian Tenure; the Policies Governing Reappointment and Non-Reappointment during Probationary Period; and the Policy for Faculty and Librarian Promotions.
 
           2. Rights and Responsibilities of the Candidate
 
The requirements of the University govern the nature of individual assignments in teaching, service, and research. 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. Individual faculty at different points in their career may well emphasize the three areas of teaching, service, and research and creative work to different degrees. However, regardless of the particular emphases, at no time will expectations in any of the three areas be reduced to zero. That is, while individual faculty may, with the approval of the University, place greater emphasis on teaching, service, and/or research and creative work at different points in their career, each faculty member will continue to maintain at least minimal expectations in all of the other areas. The faculty member has the right to be evaluated on the basis of the established objectives and criteria.

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 tenure specified in the University Policies of Indiana University. Special procedures customarily employed in the department, school, program, or library unit of the University in which the faculty member of librarian is
 
* In all cases the word “Dean” means the School Dean or appropriate supervisor if holding another title.
 
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.)
 
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. Indiana University promotion and tenure policies are 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 tenure, the letter shall include a copy of the “Policies Governing Appointment and Reappointment during the Probationary Period” and the criteria for promotion and tenure from the University Policies of Indiana University to insure that the candidate fully understands his or her rights.
 
           3. 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.
 
           4. 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 tenure procedures, timetables, and method of reconciling potential disagreements between I.U. 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.
 
5) Promotion and Tenure Processes
 
       a) Eligibility
 
                                   (1) Tenure
 
An individual appointed to the faculty for full-time tenure track service is eligible to be considered for tenure after a probationary period of not more than seven years. This period may include full-time service with faculty rank at other institutions if similar services at Indiana University East would have been applicable towards tenure. In the case of persons with three or more years of applicable service in other institutions, a probationary period of not more than four years may be required, if agreed upon in writing at the time of the appointment. This agreement is binding upon both parties. The Chief Academic Officer will notify candidates eligible for tenure during September of the year prior to the candidate's tenure review.
 
                                   (2) Promotion
 
Indiana University does not specify a timetable for promotion. It is the privilege of any faculty member or librarian to submit a recommendation for the promotion of any faculty member or librarian including that of him/herself. These recommendations should speak to the established criteria for promotion. The nomination is given in writing to the faculty member's School Dean or Supervisor, who then notifies the nominated faculty member. The School Dean will then notify the Chief Academic Officer and the Chairperson of the Promotion and Tenure Committee. The nominee may withdraw his/her candidacy at any time.
 
b) Process of Dossier Preparation and Review
 
During the pre-tenure years a candidate should maintain records of activities that support teaching, service, and research and creative work. 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 tenure. 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. In cases of promotion, the candidate must specifically indicate whether his/her own performance is “excellent” or “satisfactory” in teaching, service and research and creative work, or whether a balanced case is sought.  The Office of the Executive Vice President for University Academic Affairs advises the candidate to declare one area of excellence. Any of the levels of review may come to a different conclusion in each of the three areas.
 
The dossier provides the evidence upon which the promotion and tenure decisions are to be made. At each stage of the dossier review (external reviewers, 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.
 
c)     Role of the School Dean during Probationary Period and Dossier Preparation
 
The School Dean works with a promotion or tenure 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 promotion.
 
In cases where the candidate is the dean of a school, the remaining deans will select one of their number to serve in the role of the school dean as described in the following procedure.
 
(1) The Dean will inform the candidate of school, campus and university requirements for promotion and tenure soon after hiring. The Dean will clarify written documents and explain how the P&T process works and will provide the candidate with a copy of (a) Indiana University policies pertaining to promotion or tenure or both, (b) Indiana University East policies pertaining to promotion or tenure or both, (c) the School policies pertaining to promotion or tenure or both, and the School’s lists of examples for excellent and satisfactory work in teaching, research/creative activity and service.
(2) Annually the Dean of the school will communicate with the candidate about progress toward promotion and/or tenure. The supervisor’s written annual review will indicate progress toward promotion and/or tenure.
(3) During the year prior to the review process the School Dean will work with the candidate to identify possible external reviewers. Upon determining the identity and qualifications of the external reviewers the Dean will submit those names to the Chief Academic Officer.
 
Dossier reviewers are advised to be aware of biases connected with faculty’s gender, culture, etc. that influence student evaluations of teaching. (added 2/20/24)
 
d) Role of External Reviewers
 
The candidate’s dossier will be sent to four (4) external reviewers within the candidate’s discipline. All external reviewers will be tenured faculty at the college or university level and hold at least the rank for which the candidate is seeking promotion. In cases where the candidate is seeking tenure only, all external reviewers must be tenured and hold at least the rank that the candidate currently holds. External reviewers should not have a significant relationship with the candidate (such as thesis advisor, post-doctoral mentor, co-author, or former colleague or classmate, or personal relationship). At a minimum, such relationship must be clearly disclosed by the candidate or the reviewer. Reviewers’ comments will be added to the dossier before the School Promotion and Tenure Committee members make their recommendation. External reviewers will be selected using the following procedure: (1) The candidate and school dean will jointly develop a list of at least six external reviewers whose qualifications meet the university criteria and who are acceptable to both the candidate and the dean. (2) The candidate’s dean and the Chief Academic Officer will jointly select the external reviewers from the submitted list. (3) The full complement of reviewers will consist of at least one faculty member from another Indiana University campus and at least one faculty member from outside Indiana University. (4) The names of the external reviewers will be submitted to the Chief Academic Officer, who will make the formal request to the selected reviewers.  In such cases, the candidate must notify the CAO of his or her candidacy in sufficient advance time to allow the timely selection of the external reviewers.
The external reviewer will write a letter which evaluates the candidate’s dossier and provides guidance to later levels of review with respect to the impact of the candidate’s contributions in the areas of teaching, research/creative activities and service from the perspective of a specialist in the discipline.
This letter will be included in the dossier.

e) 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’s and campus policies for promotion and tenure. 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. Only tenured associate professors or professors who have been faculty members at IU East for at least two years may serve on the School Promotion and Tenure Committee when the Committee is considering promotion and/or tenure dossiers. (See IU East’s Policy on Lecturer Appointments for membership on the School Promotion and Tenure Committee when the Committee is considering Lecturer long-term contract dossiers.) In cases where there is not an adequate number of tenured faculty, a committee of tenured faculty of similar disciplines may be formed, such as a Professional Schools P & T Committee. 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 promotion and/or tenure criteria, including the comments from the external reviewers. 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 promotion and/or tenure. The evaluation must be consistent with campus and university standards for promotion and tenure 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, research/creative activities and service from the perspective of faculty members in the candidate’s School, and should refer to the School’s list of examples for excellence and satisfactory in teaching, research/creative activity and service.  Candidates should note that these are only examples and do not override the criteria given here.  The evaluation and recommendation will be included in the dossier and a copy will be sent to the candidate.

In cases of promotion, the evaluation must specifically indicate whether performance is “excellent”, “satisfactory” or “unsatisfactory” in teaching, service and research and creative work. For candidates who seek promotion based on a balanced-case argument the evaluation shall also state whether promotion based on a balanced case is justified. (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.

f) Role of the Dean during the Review Process

The Dean will read and evaluate the complete dossier including the recommendations of the external reviewers and 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. In cases of promotion, the evaluation must specifically indicate whether performance is “excellent”, “satisfactory” or “unsatisfactory” in teaching, service and research and creative work. For candidates who seek promotion based on a balanced-case argument the evaluation shall also state whether promotion based on a balanced case is justified.  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 tenure" and/or “candidate for 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.5.k of the IUE Promotion and Tenure Policy and Procedures, 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.
 
     g) Role of the Campus Promotion and Tenure Committee
 
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 promotion and/or tenure criteria, including the recommendations of the external reviewers, the School Promotion and Tenure Committee, and the School Dean. (2) The committee's recommendation for or against promotion or tenure or both 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 tenure. In cases of promotion the letter will include numerical tabulations of the votes on promotion, and rating (“excellent,”
“satisfactory” or “unsatisfactory”) in teaching, service and research and creative work. For candidates who seek promotion based on a balanced-case argument the evaluation shall also state whether promotion based on a balanced case is justified. 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 I.U. East archives. In cases of appeal or dispute the Chief Academic Officer shall authorize access to these archives.
 
h) Role of the Chief Academic Officer
 
The Chief Academic Officer will make a written recommendation for or against promotion or tenure or both to the Chancellor, with a copy to the candidate, after evaluating the dossier and the recommendations of the external reviewers, School Promotion and Tenure Committee, the School Dean, and the Campus Promotion and Tenure Committee. In cases of promotion, the evaluation must specifically indicate whether performance is “excellent,” “satisfactory” or “unsatisfactory” in teaching, service and research and creative work. For candidates who seek promotion based on a balanced-case argument the evaluation shall also state whether promotion based on a balanced case is justified.
 
  i) Role of the Chancellor
 
The Chancellor will submit a recommendation to the President of the University after evaluating the dossier and the recommendations of the external reviewers, the School Promotion and Tenure Committee, the School Dean, the Campus Promotion and Tenure Committee, and the Chief Academic Officer. In cases of promotion, the evaluation must specifically indicate whether performance is “excellent,” “satisfactory” or “unsatisfactory” in teaching, research and creative work, and service. For candidates who seek promotion based on a balanced-case argument the evaluation shall also state whether promotion based on a balanced case is justified.
 
 j) Reporting the Decisions
 
When the Chancellor’s review process is completed the Chancellor will submit a recommendation to the President of the University. The President submits to the Board of Trustees in time for consideration at their April meeting the names of those recommended for tenure and/or promotion. (University Policies of Indiana University)
 
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 Promotion and/or Tenure Dossier is as follows:
 

1. Completed dossier is submitted to the Office of Academic Affairs.
2. Dossier is reviewed by the external reviewers.  Each letter becomes part of the dossier.
3. Dossier is reviewed by the School Promotion and Tenure Committee, if applicable. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. Dossier is reviewed by the Chancellor of Indiana University East. The Chancellor submits a recommendation to the President.
8. The President submits to the Board of Trustees the names of those recommended for tenure and/or promotion.
    
   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.
    
   B. Promotion and Tenure Criteria
    
              1. THE PRINCIPLE OF TENURE
    
   "The principle of tenure imposes reciprocal responsibilities on the University as a body politic and on the faculty members and librarian. In order to meet its responsibilities to its students and to society, the University must attract and retain faculty and librarians of outstanding quality. To that end the University provides academic freedom and economic security, which are implicit in the principle of faculty and librarian tenure. The faculty members, on their part, are obligated to maintain high standards of teaching, research, service, and professional conduct. Librarians, on their part, are obligated to maintain high standards of performance in librarianship, professional development/research/creative activities, service, and professional conduct." (University Policies of Indiana University)
    
    
              2. CRITERIA FOR TENURE
    
   "After the appropriate probationary period, tenure shall be granted to those faculty members and librarians whose professional characteristics indicate that they will continue to serve with distinction in their appointed roles. The criteria for tenure and the criteria for promotion are similar, but not identical. [. . .] Tenure considerations must recognize the diversity of the missions and the contexts of the campuses of the University and must not ignore the mission of the particular unit as defined in its statement of criteria and procedures and the individual’s contribution to that mission. Tenure will generally not be conferred unless the faculty member or librarian achieves, or gives strong promise of achieving, promotion in rank within the University." (University Policies of Indiana University)
    
   The award of tenure is based on the qualifications and performance of individual faculty members and the long-term needs, objectives, and missions of the program, the school, and the university. Teaching, scholarly achievement, professional qualifications, and professional service shall be used in evaluating the performance of a candidate for tenure. To be awarded tenure, the faculty member should enhance the academic environment of the academic unit and the university. Tenure may be denied on legitimate grounds including the lack of need for a faculty member in the particular academic unit or academic specialization, financial exigency, or a failure to meet the performance standards required for promotion to associate professor. 
    
   In all cases a candidate for tenure may withdraw without prejudice from consideration prior to receiving official notification of the tenure decision. Withdrawal from tenure consideration in the penultimate year of the probationary period will be considered resignation from the university effective at the end of the probationary period. Tenure documents should present all post-terminal degree work, including work completed independently, at other institutions, or at Indiana University.
    
    
              3. Criteria for Promotion
    
   "Teaching, research and creative work, and services which may be administrative, professional, or public are long-standing University promotion criteria. Promotion considerations must take into account, however, differences in mission between campuses, and between schools within some campuses, as well as the individual’s contribution to the school/campus mission. The relative weight attached to the criteria above should and must vary accordingly. A candidate for promotion [or tenure] should normally excel in at least one of the above categories and be satisfactory in the others. In exceptional cases, a candidate may present evidence of balanced strengths that promise excellent overall performance of comparable benefit to the university. In all cases the candidate’s total record should be assessed by comprehensive and rigorous peer review. Promotion to any rank is a recognition of past achievement and a sign of confidence that the individual is capable of greater responsibilities and accomplishments." (University Policies of Indiana University)
    
   Promotion dossiers should present only work done while the candidate has been in the present rank, either at Indiana University or elsewhere.
    
              4. Promotion in Rank
    
   Individuals in clinical ranks should refer to the specific promotion statements relating to their ranks elsewhere in University Policies and IU East policy.
    
   “When considered for promotion, the individual should be assessed in regard to all three criteria [of teaching, service, and research and creative work].  Favorable action should result when the individual has demonstrated a level of [excellence] or distinction appropriate to the proposed rank in one area of endeavor and is satisfactory in the other two. Failure to promote may arise from unsatisfactory performance in the other areas." (“Faculty and Librarian Promotions” in University Policies of Indiana University)
    
     a) From Assistant Professor to Associate Professor.
    
   "This advancement is based on continued improvement, whether in quality of teaching, in scholarship, or in the performance of service roles.
    
   If teaching is the primary criterion, it should be distinctly superior to that of effective teachers at this and other major institutions. If research or other creative work is the primary criterion, the candidate should have demonstrated a broad grasp of his or her own and related fields and should be establishing a national reputation as a scholar. A definite and comprehensive plan of future research covering a number of years and a beginning thereon which extends well beyond the limits of the doctoral dissertation should be evident. 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." (University Policies of Indiana University)
    
     b) From Associate Professor to 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 for scholarly work” (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 4/19/22)
    
   “If research or other creative work is the primary criterion, the candidate should have shown a continued growth in scholarship which has brought a national reputation as a first-class productive scholar. If administrative, professional, or academic service is the primary criterion, distinguished contributions must be evident." (University Policies of Indiana University)
    
   At Indiana University East, candidates for promotion to 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. If research and creative work is the primary criterion, a national reputation will be evidenced through the external reviewers’ statements and supported with evidence from publications and readings and/or showings of creative works directed at a national audience. If service is the primary criterion, the candidate will have an established record of distinguished service, above and beyond expectations of service, the quality of which is evidenced through the acknowledgement of those served. (amended 4/19/22)
    
              5. Evaluation of Teaching Activities
    
   Teaching is the primary responsibility of Indiana University East faculty. As such, the faculty engages in on-going 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 4/19/22)

           (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 4/19/22)

           (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 4/19/22)
 
           (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.)
 
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 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 4/19/22)
        
 (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 4/19/22)
 
 (3) To ensure faculty provide multiple sources of student learning, every dossier will provide appendices containing the following evidence 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-tenure 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-37 Faculty and Library Tenure, and ACA-38 Faculty and Librarian Promotions state, “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. (Section B.5.b.3.d added 2/20/24)
 
 [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 outcomes from peer reviews and student feedback. The Summative Reflective Analysis may include other feedback and assessments. (amended 2/20/24)
(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. (amended 4/19/22; Section B.5.b.3 amended 2/20/24)
 
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 on-going 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 portfolio, 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 grants, on a par with more traditional forms of research and creative work. Evaluation of such work, if selected by the faculty member, will be through the criteria presented in the research and creative work section of the dossier.
 
           6. Evaluation of Research and Creative Work
 
Research and creative work are important and distinguishing features of a faculty member’s responsibility. Broadly conceived, research entails systematic inquiry into a subject, attainment of a level of expertise, and communication of that expertise to others. Research may mean “new” in the same sense as a discovery or technological breakthrough. Research can also be advanced through the synthesis or integration of existing knowledge, by more effective explanation and dissemination of concepts, interpretations, and information that originated with other scholars, and by the application and engagement of knowledge in addressing contemporary problems within the field or community. Scholarship can be in the form of research and discovery scholarship, the scholarship of teaching and learning, the scholarship of performance and creative activity, the scholarship of application, or community-engaged research. Broadly conceived, creative activity entails the creation of original works of art primarily through an expression of the imagination or the performance of such works created by oneself or others within scholarly or community contexts. Regardless of the nature of the research or creative work, they share a set of common elements that provide the basis for a set of standards against which all forms of such activities can be judged. (amended 4/19/22)

a) Framework for judging the quality of Research and Creative Work**:
           
The following provides a conceptual framework to guide evaluation of all forms of research and creative work. 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 will apply in varying degrees depending on the particular research and creative works of the faculty member.
 
(1) Clear Goals: A scholar must be clear about the aims of his or her work as tied to his or her program of research.
     The scholar states the basic purposes of his or her work clearly and defines objectives that are realistic and achievable. Clear goals help to define a project, give it structure, recognize relevant material, identify exceptions, and see new possibilities. 
 
(2)  Adequate Preparation: The pursuit of scholarly work depends, fundamentally, on the depth and breadth of the scholar’s understanding of subject matter. 
The scholar shows an understanding of existing scholarship in the field and brings the necessary skills to his or her work.
 
(3) Appropriate Methods: At the most basic level, appropriate methodology gives a project integrity and engenders confidence in its findings, products, or results. 
The scholar uses and effectively applies methods appropriate to the goals.
 
(4) Meaningful Results: A fundamental indication of a project’s significance is its contribution to the field or community.
A project should first meet its own goals. Its results should have meaning within the parameters the scholar has set for the project. The scholar’s work sometimes opens additional areas for further exploration and/or adds consequently to the field or community. (amended 4/19/22)
 
(5) Effective Presentation: The contribution made by any form of scholarship relies on its presentation. 
Scholarship, however brilliant, lacks fulfillment without someone on the receiving end. The presentation of scholarly work is a public act, and even though some work is highly esoteric, it must ultimately be known and understood by at least the members of that special audience. The scholar must, therefore, present his or her message with clarity and integrity while using appropriate forums for communicating the work to its intended audiences.
 
(6) Reflective Critique: This standard involves the scholar thinking about his or her work, seeking the opinions of others, and learning from this process so that scholarship itself can be improved. 
The scholar uses self and other critical evaluation to improve the quality of research and/or creative work. Through reflection comes creativity. This ability to invent, devise, envisage, and improvise, is the key to success in all types of research and creative work. Effective scholars think about what they are doing while they are carrying out their work.
 
(From Glassick, Huber, and Maeroff, Scholarship Assessed: Evaluation of the Professoriate, 1997)
 
**“Scholarship” and “research” should be understood to include creative work throughout this policy.
 
 
 b) Forms of evidence on the quality of Research and Creative Work:
 
For some, publication in scholarly or professional journals or the publication of specialized monographs or books may be appropriate. For others, a program of applied scholarship resulting in products that may be used within an academic discipline or by other professionals may be an appropriate form of evidence. Presentations at professional meetings or community settings, demonstrations to other professionals, or proposals reviewed by other professionals may provide evidence. Faculty members in areas in which creative production plays a significant role may give evidence of their productivity through public exhibitions and showings or public performances and readings, as well as through published works. (amended 4/19/22)
 
Tenure documents should present all post-terminal degree work, including work completed independently, at Indiana University, or at other institutions. Promotion dossiers should present only work done while the candidate has been in the present rank, either at Indiana University or elsewhere.
 
(1) Every dossier will contain a narrative in which candidates relate specifics of their research and creative work to the criteria for judging the quality of such activities. To do this, candidates will describe in detail up to three products that they feel best demonstrate the evaluation criteria. It is the responsibility of candidates to make explicit the connections between their documentation as evidenced in the selected products and the evaluation criteria, demonstrating influence on the field through these selected products. Included as part of this narrative should be an outline of the candidate’s research and creative work plan, including both an historical review which shows an intentional and integrated program of research, as well as an explanation of future goals and work in progress. In the narrative, candidates present an argument that their research and creative work has met or exceeded the criteria for judging the quality of research and creative work. 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 the following:
(a)  An annotated list of scholarly products (e.g. publications, presentations, art work, creative writing pieces, grants, digital media, reports, white papers, proposals, workshops, and so on) to include:
(i) Distinctions between peer-reviewed, juried, invited, community-engaged, and other works.
(ii) Statement of the candidate’s contribution to works having more than one author.
(b) An annotated list of works in progress.
(c) An annotated list of professional development activities related to research and creative activity.
(d) Sample publications reproduced in their entirety from the published source. In the case of books, a sample chapter is sufficient. Candidates should include complete texts of presentations where possible.
(e) Collaborative work requires an explanation of the candidate’s specific role and contributions. (amended 4/19/22)
 
The case for research and creative work is evaluated on the basis of appropriateness of plan, demonstration of progress, and the quality attained. A faculty member’s research and creative work is considered SATISFACTORY when the faculty member demonstrates a continuing program of research and creative work that includes peer-reviewed products. A faculty member’s research and creative work is considered EXCELLENT when the faculty member meets the criteria for satisfactory and has influential publication(s), creative presentation(s), or other products appropriate to the candidate’s discipline that have been professionally evaluated (peer reviewed, juried, invited) and are judged to be of superior quality. Indiana University’s Faculty and Librarian Promotions Policy (in University Policies) specifies a “national reputation” for candidates seeking promotion on the basis of EXCELLENCE in research. Every case is different, dependent on expectations of the field and impact of the scholarly works, and candidates must make a case that their research program is either SATISFACTORY or EXCELLENT given the above criteria. A scholarly monograph, a textbook, a creative work, several articles in peer-reviewed journals, peer-reviewed presentations, a series of juried art shows, grant-supported research, or applied, disseminated research are examples of what may be sufficient to be considered SATISFACTORY or even EXCELLENT in this category.   Candidates should include and address disciplinary guidelines explaining expectations for research and creative work in their fields when appropriate. 

7. 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 or scholarship and creative work.
 
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:
 
1.  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.
 
2.  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.
 
3.  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.
 
4.  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 scholar, teacher, administrator, or practitioner. (amended 4/19/22)
 
   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, teaching, and/or research is characterized by symbiosis of service, teaching, and research; and service that contributes to the learning environments for students and for faculty members.
 
(From Service at Indiana University: Defining, Documenting, and Evaluating, 1999)
 
 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.   Promotion & Tenure 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 promotion, tenure, or reappointment.
 
c) Tenure dossiers should present all post-terminal degree work; 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 (e.g., those of external scholars, refereed journals).
 
           
2. Outline for ELECTRONIC Dossier Format
 
With electronic dossier submission, candidates upload materials as individual files. Recommendations, statements from outside reviewers, and statements from official P & T levels of review 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, Department and/or School P & T Criteria
           B. Candidate’s Curriculum Vitae
C. Candidate’s Statements
    1. Letter of Appointment
    2. Introductory Narrative
    3. Teaching Narrative
    4. Research and Creative Work Narrative
    5. Service Narrative
    6. Annual Reviews and Supervisor Reports
    7. Annotated lists of Teaching Activities, Research and Creative Work, and Service Activities
D. List of Potential Reviewers
E. 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.5.b above). (amended 4/19/22; 2/20/24)
           B. Other relevant evidence of teaching.
 
III. Research and Creative Work
A.   Forms of evidence on the quality of research and creative work such as copies of publications and/or evidence of creative work, reviews of candidate’s work, list of grants, copies of manuscripts or creative work in progress, evidence of research and/or creative work impact, evidence of work stature, awards and honors (see Section B.6.b above).
B.    Other relevant evidence of research or creative work.
 
IV. 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.7.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.5.b above, and Indiana University’s Faculty and Librarian Tenure Policy (in University Policies of Indiana University).
 
 
*Note: Faculty librarians should consult the guidelines issued by the Dean of University Libraries.
 
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.

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 are also encouraged to refer to current School promotion and tenure policies, the all-IU promotion and tenure policies, and documents such as “Identifying Pathways for Excellence in Teaching.” (added 4/19/22; reorganized 2/20/24)
 
As explained in IU East’s Promotion & Tenure 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. (amended 4/19/22)
 
(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. (added 4/19/22)
 
(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.
 
(d) 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 shape the design of instructional activities to ensure that students explore the subject thoroughly. (amended 4/19/22)
 
(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 4/19/22)
 
(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. (added 4/19/22)
 
(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 4/19/22)
 
(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 4/19/22)
 
(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 4/19/22)
 
(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 on-going 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. (amended 4/19/22)
 
(Adapted from the Report of the Task Force on Assessing and Improving Teaching and Learning at Indiana State University, 1998)