Technology and Faculty Rewards
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Technology
World Wide Web
Distance Education
Extended Campus
Non-Traditional Roles
Evaluation
Rewards (P&T)
7/11/2017
Mark Merickel - DCE
1
Overview
Broadening the Definition of
Scholarship
Defining a Process for Validating
Nontraditional Scholarship
Who Are Your Peers?
Defining the Process for Communicating
Creative Work and Scholarship
Defining Originality and Contribution
Creating a Process for Validating
Originality and Contribution/Impacts
Validating Evaluation Criteria
Gather and Present Results
Problems and Benefits
Discussion
7/11/2017
Mark Merickel - DCE
2
Criteria For Promotion and Tenure
General Guidelines
Candidates for promotion and tenure will be evaluated objectively for evidence of excellence in their performance of
assigned duties, in their scholarship or creative activity, and in their professional service. Each of these
responsibilities will be documented in the dossier.
Oregon State University is committed to educating, both on and off campus, the citizens of Oregon, the nation, and
the international community, and in expanding and applying knowledge. The responsibilities of individual faculty in
relation to these fundamental commitments will vary and will be specified in position descriptions developed at the
time of initial appointment and revised periodically, as necessary. Some positions will require more direct
involvement in classroom instruction; others, more in conducting research and disseminating the results; others, in
extending the university's programs and expertise to its regional, national, and international publics. Whatever the
assignment, faculty in the professorial ranks will engage in appropriate scholarship or other creative activity.
In addition to these primary responsibilities, all faculty are expected to be collegial members of their units, and to
perform appropriate service that contributes to the effectiveness of their departments, colleges, and the University,
and of their professions. Relative contributions expected in the three areas of responsibility will depend on the
faculty member's assignment.
http://oregonstate.edu/facultystaff/handbook/promoten/spromoten.htm
7/11/2017
Mark Merickel - DCE
3
What is Scholarship?
–
–
Intellectual work whose significance is validated by peers and which
is communicated.
Such work in its diverse forms is based on:
•
•
•
•
7/11/2017
a high level of professional expertise,
must give evidence of originality,
must be documented and validated as through peer review or critique,
must be communicated in appropriate ways so as to have impact on or
significance for publics beyond the University, or for the discipline itself.
Mark Merickel - DCE
4
Defining a Process for Validating
Nontraditional Scholarship
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Alignment with OSU P&T Guidelines
Alignment with candidate’s statement & job description.
Defining Peers
Defining the Process for Communicating the Work
Defining Originality and Contribution/Impacts
Creating a Process for Validating Originality and Contribution/Impacts
Employ the Validation Process
Document Validation in Dossier
Informing/Educating Others
7/11/2017
Mark Merickel - DCE
5
Who Are Your Peers?
•
This was a significant issue…
– Who is providing the feedback (are they valid peers)?
– Primary validators of originality.
– Defining my peers:
• Higher educators who are professionally engaged in the
examination and/or practice of teaching and learning on the
world wide web.
– Documenting my peers:
• Name
• Position/Rank
• Institution
– What are they saying?
7/11/2017
Mark Merickel - DCE
6
Defining the Process for
Communicating the Work
•
•
Work was shared with higher educators directly through the World
Wide Web.
Created a method of capturing who the work was communicated to.
7/11/2017
Mark Merickel - DCE
7
Defining Originality and Contribution
1. This work conceptualized and applied the content/subject matter in
ways that advance teaching in higher education.
2. This work conceptualized and applied technology in ways that advance
teaching in higher education.
3. This work conceptualized and applied teaching practices in ways that
advance teaching in higher education.
4. This work demonstrates the integration of knowledge and technology
leading to new interpretations or applications of teaching in higher
education.
5. Content/subject matter from this work has been adopted or led to
further work by yourself and/or others.
6. Technological concepts from this work have been adopted or led to
further work by yourself and/or others.
7. Teaching practices applied in this work have been adopted or led to
further work by yourself and/or others.
7/11/2017
Mark Merickel - DCE
8
Validating the Criteria
•
Criteria were validated by a panel made up of:
– OSU Faculty representing three colleges who are professionally
engaged in the examination and/or practice of teaching and
learning on the World Wide Web.
– OSU Administrator knowledgeable about the new P&T guidelines.
– Director of the School of Education.
7/11/2017
Mark Merickel - DCE
9
Creating a Process for Validating
Originality and Contribution/Impacts
[ ] Strongly Agree
[ ] Agree
[ ] Neither Agree or Disagree
[ ] Disagree
[ ] Strongly Disagree
[ ] No Opinion
Creation of the Instrument
7/11/2017
Mark Merickel - DCE
10
Creating a Process for Validating
Originality and Contribution/Impacts
•
Selection of the Reviewers:
–
–
•
Request for Peer Review:
–
•
Peer reviews were emailed to the Director.
Analysis:
–
•
Director of the School of Education developed and distributed request for review.
Collection of Data:
–
•
Examiners (from higher education) who designated on the electronic demographic form that
they were willing to be contacted for further information (N=72).
Examiners who are professionally engaged in the examination and/or practice of teaching and
learning on the World Wide Web.
Third party faculty member analyzed the data.
Results:
–
Documented in the Dossier.
7/11/2017
Mark Merickel - DCE
11
Problems
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Defining peers other than journal reviewers, editors, readers.
Creating a validation process acceptable to the academy.
External reviewers not familiar with OSU P&T guidelines and different
forms of evidence of scholarship and creative activity.
Faculty unwilling or incapable of accepting alternative forms of peer
review and scholarship.
High reliance on peer review publications.
Time involved in the process.
Documenting communication and dissemination.
Documenting originality and contribution.
Few successful models.
A calculated RISK.
7/11/2017
Mark Merickel - DCE
12
Benefits
•
•
•
•
Honors Diversity of Scholarship and Creative Activity.
Lowers the reliance on peer review publications.
Allows for redefinition of peers.
P&T guidelines now “fit”:
– Extension Faculty
– International Work
– Library Faculty
– Art Faculty
– Distance Education
– Others...
7/11/2017
Mark Merickel - DCE
13
Mark Merickel
• 737-3810
• [email protected]
7/11/2017
Mark Merickel - DCE
14